SACRED SEXUAL UNIONS: THE SANCTIFICATION OF MARITAL SEXUALITY IN NEWLYWEDS

Krystal M. Hernandez

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS June 2008 Committee: Annette Mahoney, Advisor Kenneth Pargament Anne Gordon

i

ABSTRACT

Annette Mahoney, Ph.D., Advisor

A number of religious teachings and spiritually-integrated literature supports viewing sexuality, particularly marital sexuality, as having divine character and significance, and such perceptions of sanctification may facilitate healthy couple functioning. However, few empirical links have been documented among sexuality, marriage, and religion (e.g., Young et al., 1998).

Studies on sanctification within the family have focused on the sanctification of marriage

(Mahoney et al., 1999) and sexual intercourse in loving relationships (Murray-Swank et al.,

2005). This study extends empirical exploration of the sanctification of marital sexuality. Among a sample of 83 newly married individuals, higher sanctification of marital sexuality was positively correlated with greater sexual and marital satisfaction, sexual and spiritual intimacy, investment in the sexual bond, and positive and negative religious coping. Higher sanctification also related to less global distress from sexual difficulties. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that sanctification of marital sexuality contributed an additional 1% to 17% of the variance in sexual, psychological, and spiritual criteria after accounting for demographic variables and conventional religiousness, with total variances accounted for by the regression models ranging from 28%-53%. Further analysis of two subscales of sanctification revealed that perceiving marital sexuality as sacred tended to contribute to significant variance over and above the perception of marital sexuality as a manifestation of God. Correlations between sanctification and sexual and non-sexual processes have implications for continued research and support the integrated assessment of religion and sexuality in marital therapy.

ii

To Deborah and Margaret, for your love, support, and continued inspiration.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Annette Mahoney for her professional guidance and support of this project. Furthermore, I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. Kenneth Pargament and Anne Gordon. I am particularly grateful for my experience as a member of the SPiRiT research team as well as research assistant on the New

Arrivals: Passage to Parenthood Study (NAPPS) with Drs. Mahoney and Pargament, as such involvement has helped shape my ideas for this project and served to continually renew my interest in the psychology of religion, and marriage and family life. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Gordon for her helpful suggestions not only with this current project, but also regarding future research and professional goals. It has been a pleasure to meet with my committee, and I greatly value their support, enthusiasm, and feedback.

Special thanks is awarded to the participants of this study, for they have made this project

– and one of my aspirations - possible. I am grateful for their time and effort.

I would like to acknowledge Doug Haryu for his help during the recruitment phase of the project. I also wish to thank my classmates and members of the SPiRiT research team, as well as members of the BGSU Campus Ministry for their genuine interest in this project, helpful suggestions, and quality discussions which have helped me not just persevere, but thrive throughout this endeavor.

Furthermore, I extend my gratitude to my undergraduate Psychology and Theology professors, in particular, at Ohio Dominican University. They have helped spark my interest in integrating these disciplines, and in this topic, in particular. I am so thankful for my experience at

ODU, their continued support, and the manner in which they continue to inspire me.

iv

I must also extend my deepest love and gratitude to my family for their love, faith, prayers, infinite support, and most precious (and needed) moments of laughter.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………… 1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………………………………………………….. 3

World Religions and the Language of the Sanctification of Marriage and

Sexuality………………………………………………………………….… 3

Religion, Mating, and the Beginning Years of Marriage ………………………….. 6

The Impact of Religion on Marriages of Varying Duration .……..………………… 9

Religion and Marital Sexuality …………………………………………………..… 13

The Sanctification of Marriage and Sexual Intercourse …………………………… 18

PURPOSE OF THE MASTER’S THESIS ………………………………………………… 23

Theoretical and Empirical Framework of Sanctification ………………………….. 24

Hypotheses ……………………….………………………………………………… 25

Limitations of Prior Research which the Master’s Thesis Addresses ……………… 26

METHOD ………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

Participants ….……………………………………………………………………... 29

Instrumentation: Descriptive Information …………………………………………. 30

Global religiousness ………………………………………….……………. 30

Belief in God …………….………………………………………………... 30

Biblical conservatism ……………………………………………………... 31

Relationship and sexual history …………………………………….…….. 32

Presence of children ……………………………………………….……… 32

vi

Page

Instrumentation: Predictor Variable ………………………………………………. 32

Sanctification of marital sexuality ………………………………………. 32

Instrumentation – Criterion Variables: Sexual Processes ………………………... 33

Protecting and preserving marital sexuality: Sexual fidelity before and

during marriage .…………………………………………….….… 33

Sexual benefits: Sexual frequency …………………………………….… 34

Sexual benefits: Sexual satisfaction ……………………………………... 34

Sexual benefits: Sexual intimacy ………………………………………... 35

Sexual benefits: Problems and distress related to marital sexuality …….. 35

Instrumentation – Criterion Variables: Psychological Processes ……………….. 36

Investment in marital sexuality: Time and effort devoted to creating and

maintaining sexual bond in marriage …………………………… 36

Psychological benefits: Global marital satisfaction …………………….. 37

Drawing on psychological resources: Secular individual coping with

problems about marital sexuality ..…….……………………….… 37

Protecting and preserving marital sexuality: Divorce proneness ……….. 39

Instrumentation – Criterion Variables: Spiritual Processes …………………….. 39

Spiritual benefits: Spiritual intimacy ………………………………….… 39

Drawing on spiritual resources: Religious individual coping with problems

about marital sexuality ……………………………………………. 40

Instrumentation: Qualitative Information ………………………………..……… 41

vii

Page

Additional Instrumentation ……………………………………………………… 42

Procedure ………………………………………………………………………… 42

RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………………….. 47

Preliminary Data Analyses: Descriptive Statistics ……………………………….. 47

Global religiousness ……………………………………………………… 47

Belief in God …………………………………………………………….. 48

Biblical conservatism ……………………………………………………. 48

Relationship history ……………………………………………………… 48

Sexual history and current activity ……………………………………… 48

Presence of children ……………………………………………………… 49

Predictor variable: The sanctification of marital sexuality scale ………… 49

Criterion variables: Sexual functioning ………………………………….. 51

Criterion variables: Psychological functioning …..…………………..….. 52

Criterion variables: Spiritual functioning ..…………………………..…. 53

Data Analyses: Inferential Statistics ……………………………………………. 53

Bivariate correlations with conventional religiousness …………………. 53

Bivariate correlations with demographic variables ……………………. 54

Correlations among criterion variables ….……………………………… 55

Links between sanctification of marital sexuality and sexual,

psychological, and spiritual criteria ……………………………. 55

Regression analyses ……………………………………………………. 57

viii

Page

DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………………. 62

Summary ……………………………………………………………………….. 62

Understanding Marital Sexuality through the Conceptual Framework of the

Effects of Sanctification ………………………………………………. 65

Personal and relational benefits of the sanctified marital sexual

relationship: Sexual, psychological, and spiritual benefits …... 65

Drawing on spiritual and psychological resources ……………………… 68

Investment in the marital sexual bond …………………………………… 72

Protecting and preserving marital sexuality ………………………………. 73

Marital Sexuality through a New Religious Lens ……………………………….. 74

The power of the sanctification of marital sexuality beyond conventional

religiousness ………………………………………………………. 74

Qualitative responses ………………………………………………….… 75

Religious beliefs and perceptions can play a positive role in sexuality …. 78

Limitations to the Present Study and Directions for Future Research ….……… 80

Next phase of the study ……………………………………………… 82

CONCLUSION .………………………………………………………………………… 84

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….. 89

APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION …………………………………… 99

APPENDIX B. GLOBAL RELIGIOUSNESS …………………………………………. 100

APPENDIX C. BELIEF IN GOD ……………………………………………………… 101

ix

Page

APPENDIX D. BIBLICAL CONSERVATISM ……………………………………… 102

APPENDIX E. RELATIONSHIP AND SEXUAL HISTORY ………………………… 103

APPENDIX F. PRESENCE OF CHILDREN …………………………………….……. 104

APPENDIX G. SANCTIFICATION OF MARITAL SEXUALITY SCALE …….…… 105

APPENDIX H. SEXUAL FIDELITY ………………………………………………… 106

APPENDIX I. SEXUAL FREQUENCY ……………………………………………… 107

APPENDIX J. SEXUAL SATISFACTION …………………………………………… 108

APPENDIX K. SEXUAL INTIMACY ………………………………………………… 109

APPENDIX L. PERMISSION TO USE THE PHYSICAL/SEXUAL SAFETY

SUBSCALE OF THE INTIMATE SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE (ISQ) ……… 110

APPENDIX M. PROBLEMS RELATED TO MARITAL SEXUALITY AND GLOBAL

DISTRESS FROM MARITAL SEXUAL PROBLEMS ……….………………. 111

APPENDIX N. TIME AND EFFORT DEVOTED TO CREATING AND

MAINTAINING SEXUAL BOND IN MARRIAGE ………………………….. 112

APPENDIX O. GLOBAL MARITAL SATISFACTION ……………………………… 113

APPENDIX P. SECULAR INDIVIDUAL COPING WITH PROBLEMS ABOUT

MARITAL SEXUALITY ……………………………………………………….. 114

APPENDIX Q. DIVORCE PRONENESS ……………………………………………. 115

APPENDIX R. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY ……………………………………………… 116

APPENDIX S. RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUAL COPING WITH PROBLEMS ABOUT

MARITAL SEXUALITY ……………………………………………………… 117

x

Page

APPENDIX T. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION …………………………………… 118

APPENDIX U. RECRUITMENT POSTCARD ……………………………………… 119

APPENDIX V. CONSENT FORM ……………………………………………………. 120

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Descriptive Information for Sample: Demographic Information ………………… 122

2 Descriptive Information for Sample: Religiousness and Spirituality ……………. 123

3 Summary of Recruitment Efforts and Estimated Response Rates ………………. 125

4 Descriptive Information for Sample: Relationship History ……………………… 126

5 Descriptive Information for Sample: History of Sexual Behavior and Percentages

of Spousal Sexual History ……………………………………………….. 127

6 Descriptive Information for Sample: Children …………………………………… 128

7 Sanctification of Marital Sexuality: Items and Percentages of Three Points in the

Scale ……………………………………………………………………… 129

8 Descriptive Information for Sample: Predictor and Criterion Variables …………. 131

9 Bivariate Correlations among Conventional Religiousness Variables and Criterion

Variables ………………………………………………………………… 134

10 Bivariate Correlations with Demographic Variables and Criterion and Predictor

Variables ………………………………………………………………… 135

11 Bivariate Correlations among Criterion Variables …………………………….…. 136

12 Bivariate Correlations among Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Criterion

Variables ………………………………………………………………… 137

13 Hierarchical Regressions on Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Sexual

Criterions ………………………………………………………………… 138

xii

Page

14 Hierarchical Regressions on Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Psychological

Criterions ………………………………………………………………… 139

15 Hierarchical Regressions on Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Spiritual

Criterions ………………………………………………………………… 140

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Comparisons of Self-Rated Religiousness across Current and National Samples …. 141

2 Comparisons of Self-Rated Spirituality across Current and National Samples ……. 142

3 Comparisons of Frequencies of Religious Service Attendance across Current and

National Samples …………….……………………………………………… 143

4 Distribution of Scores for Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality Subscale …… 144

5 Distribution of Scores for Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality Subscale ………… 145

6 Distribution of Scores for Total Sanctification of Marital Sexuality Scale ………… 146

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 1

INTRODUCTION

Theologians and clergy have articulated at length the reciprocal influences of religion and

sexuality within marriage, a relationship that is defined here as heterosexual (husband and wife)

unions which are recognized formally by law (Freeman, 1988; Hunt, 1987; Nelson &

Longfellow, 1994). However, only a few psychologists have theorized about the potentially

powerful links among religion, sexuality, and marriage (e.g., Bieliauskas, 1971; Gardner, 2002;

Young, Luquis, Denny, & Young, 1998). Both groups of scholars emphasize that religion can

shape and be shaped by spouses’ understandings and expressions of sexuality within marriage. It

is nevertheless ambiguous as to whether or not, and how, members of society have been exposed

to and accept various religiously based teachings on these intricate links. It also remains unclear

as to the impact such beliefs may have on marital and sexual adjustment, in particular. Only a

few social science researchers (e.g., Young et al., 1998) have provided empirical evidence of

correlations among religion, sexuality, and marriage. Despite this scarcity of research, one

cannot deny that religion, sexuality, and marriage often play an important role in people’s lives

on a daily basis (DeLamater, 1981). Moreover, many individuals may view sexuality,

particularly sexuality within marriage, through a sacred lens, and such perceptions may facilitate

various healthy attitudes and behaviors within the marital bond.

A primary goal of this Master’s thesis was to address this issue and introduce the

sanctification of marital sexuality as a construct that integrates religious beliefs and perceptions

of sexuality within marriage and, as such, may be tied to sexual and non-sexual functioning.

Sanctification refers to the process of perceiving an aspect of life as having divine significance or character (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). This construct has been assessed in two ways, including examining the extent to which people view an aspect of life as a manifestation of God

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 2

(i.e., theistic sanctification) or as embodying sacred qualities (i.e., non-theistic sanctification).

Among other domains, the sanctification of marriage (Mahoney, Pargament, Jewell et al., 1999)

and sexual intercourse in loving relationships (Murray, 2000; Murray-Swank, Pargament, &

Mahoney, 2005) have been examined, and associated with positive relational functioning.

However, no research to date has combined such areas of interest in the realm of marital

sexuality.

As the early years of marriage represent a critical time in the relationships of couples, and

constitute the period that determines in many ways subsequent marital functioning (Ruvolo,

1998), it seems logical to begin this new area of research with newlyweds. The newlywed period

is one in which religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and marital vows may be particularly salient. Moreover, the sanctification of sexual intercourse in marriage, which represents a proximal religious construct, taps into specific, direct religious beliefs about sexual experiences. In the context of marriage and family life, Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, &

Swank (2001) define proximal variables as “those that would appear to be closely related to an outcome of interest . . . . proximal religious variables involve specific relationships regarding some specific religious behavior or cognition-emotion” (Mahoney et al., 2001, p. 652). The sanctification of marital sexuality thus directly embodies partners’ sexual encounters and attitudes about their sexual relationship. If the sanctification of marital sexuality is tied to constructive sexual, psychological, and spiritual criteria, then this study will contribute not only to the field of the psychology of religion, but also to that of positive psychology, in which researchers (Young, 2004) have emphasized increased focus on healthy, functional marital relationships.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 3

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Researchers to date have yet to explore the territory of the sanctification of marital

sexuality, which is a topic that unites religious, marital, and sexual beliefs and experiences.

Although there is a lack of empirical support for the connections among religion, marriage, and sexuality, it is important to understand the theological usage of the sanctification language in addition to the psychological theory and empirical framework of the present study. Empirical literature is therefore reviewed on the following: the influence of religion on mating and in the beginning years of marriage; the impact of religion on marriages of varying duration; religion and sexuality, with emphasis on the context of marriage; and sanctification research on marriage and sexual intercourse. Such a summary will highlight the limitations of existing work and support the need for the proposed study. An evaluation of developing theories as well as prior findings will provide a context for understanding the present study’s hypotheses.

World Religions and the Language of the Sanctification of Marriage and Sexuality

Before noting the empirical foundation of the study, it is constructive to first acknowledge that the proposed construct of the sanctification of marital sexuality fits well with various theological perspectives about marital sexuality. Although psychological investigation as to the nature and correlates of marital sexuality remains virtually unexplored until this present study, theological discussion has been focused on the topic for many centuries.

Many of the most prominent religious traditions in the United States emphasize the spiritual significance of marriage and family life. Moreover, many world religions consider marriage to be a sacred institution (Balakrishnan & Chen, 1990), and marriage and family life as very sacred (Zimmerman, 1974). The Catholic Church, for example, proclaims marriage as a

Sacrament, and as reflective of the holy, spousal love between Jesus Christ and the Church

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 4

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1995; Hunt, 1987; Lauer, 1985). Many religious scholars also claim that the longing for union with a spouse is an expression of longing for the sacred; marital vows thus unite the couple not only to one another, but also to God (Hunt, 1987).

Another major religious tradition, Hinduism, emphasizes that marriage and childbearing are essential to the spiritual fulfillment and moral evolution of the individual (Crooks & Baur, 2002;

Rosenau & Sytsma, 2004). Much of the language these religions employ corresponds with the psychological construct of sanctification, in that an aspect of life or a relationship is considered

to be holy and sacred, and a manifestation of the divine.

Religions also often speak of the spiritual dimension to sexuality. Spirituality is defined

as the search for the sacred (Pargament, 1997). The Judeo-Christian tradition, for instance, views

spirituality and sexuality as intertwined, as they both deal with an authentic experience of the

sacred (Lauer, 1985). Within Christian theology, human sexuality is created by God as a

pathway to understand God, as God and God’s love is revealed through shared sexuality

(Rosenau & Sytsma, 2004). Some theologians cite the Christian Scripture stories of creation, in

which humans are made to be in intimate, physical and spiritual communion with one another. In

addition, the Song of Songs has been interpreted to illustrate that a married couple’s sexual and

social connection reflects a desirous, mystical love relationship between God and creation

(Freeman, 1988; Hennessy & Varga, 1975; Hunt, 1987; Jones & Hostler, 2005). The love that

married spouses share, known as conjugal love, “includes all aspects of love: biosexual,

psychosexual, and spiritual” (Bieliauskas, 1971, p. 44). Sexual intercourse within marriage, as

means to cement the marital bond, is also viewed as holy and sacred. Marital sexuality thus

represents God’s love and presence (Gardner, 2002; Lauer, 1985). Within a Christian framework,

as Christ has sacrificed His body on the Cross, so, too, do spouses offer their bodies to one

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 5 another in the intimacy and vulnerability of sexual union. Scholars often speak of the Judeo-

Christian tradition as emphasizing procreation as the sole purpose of sexual intercourse within marriage (Crooks & Baur, 2002; DeLamater, 1981), but as noted here, sexual intercourse for this tradition also assumes a relational function.

Additional religious traditions associate positive meaning to sexuality. The Islamic tradition, for example, characterizes sexuality as a life force which can be spiritually enlightening, and is purported for more than procreation (Crooks & Baur, 2002; Duddle, 1988;

Murray-Swank et al., 2005). Both Hindus and Buddhists view sexuality as a source of spiritual passion and energy, and a path toward transcendence (Murray-Swank et al., 2005). Traditional forms of Buddhism saw sexuality as a hindrance to spiritual growth, whereas more modern forms promote sexuality as a sacred path to enlightenment and religious truth, and a symbol for equality in gender (Jones & Hostler, 2005). With such spiritual reverence given to sexuality, in particular sexuality within marriage, sexual fidelity is a principal feature of marriage in Judeo-

Christian religion (Mahoney et al., 2001). Extramarital sex is consequently disapproved of by many religions (Young et al., 1998). The language of sanctification is thereby observed among several religious traditions when speaking of marriage and marital sexuality.

As previously mentioned, these and similar religious teachings seem to be consistent with the psychological process of sanctification, specifically as it applies to marriage and sexuality.

Given that religious traditions may use the language of sanctification, this hints at the possibility that individuals and couples themselves may apply this same language when understanding or speaking of their relationships. However, it is important for research to empirically test whether religious and non-religious married couples actually view their sexual life through a sacred lens.

Given that many couples are married within the context of religious wedding ceremonies,

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 6

overseen by clergy from specific religious denominations, it may well be the case that these

couples internalize religious proscriptions about marital sexuality. Those married outside of a particular religious tradition may also have spiritual perceptions about marital sexuality.

An expanded discussion regarding psychological theory and prior empirical research on sanctification is provided following a review of the empirical research on religion and mating, newlyweds, marriages following the newlywed period, and sexuality.

Religion, Mating, and the Beginning Years of Marriage

Before examining the existing empirical literature on religion and marital sexuality, it is important to pause and understand the general significance which religion assumes during the mating period prior to and in the beginning years of marriage. Pargament (1997) defines religion as “a search for significance in ways related to the sacred” (p. 32). From a scientific perspective, religion is relevant to both individual and interpersonal functioning and active searches for meaning (Booth, Johnson, Branaman, & Sica, 1995; Holden, 2001; Mahoney et al., 2001;

Shafranske, 1996; Stander, Piercy, Mackinon, & Helmeke, 1994). An interpersonal level of analysis of religion, in particular, deals with how religion can become involved with social interactions between people including dyads (e.g., couples), triads (e.g., three member family units), groups, communities, and nations (Holden, 2001). Applying Pargament’s (1997) definition, religion may drive how dating and/or married partners find meaning as a couple.

Research has supported that religiousness affects the very kind of intimate connections people seek with one another. For example, mating partners often select one another based on religion, in addition to factors such as age, race, and education (Buss, 1985). In fact, shared religion is a universal dimension desired in a long-term mate (Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Religious

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 7

homogamy increases slightly from dating to cohabitation to marriage (Blackwell & Lichter,

2004).

The newlywed period of marriage is one in which the two partners are faced with the task

of integrating their lives on a deeper level, including their respective religious beliefs and

practices. Although religious homogamy has been associated with stable and satisfying

marriages and families (Call & Heaton, 1997; Heaton & Pratt, 1990; Mahoney et al., 1999;

Sullivan, 2001), it is surprising that few studies have focused specifically on newlywed samples.

Moreover, the majority of research on newlyweds ignores religious variables, and instead

emphasizes predictors of divorce and areas of conflict (Hooper & Sheldon, 1969; McCarthy,

1998; Risch, Riley, & Lawler, 2003). For example, McCarthy (1998) maintains that the most

common sources of conflict for couples in the first two years of marriage are sex, finances, and

children. Risch et al. (2003) found that the top three problematic issues in a national sample of couples married five years or less were the balancing of job and family life, frequency of sexual relations, and financial issues. Problems of a sexual nature are among the most damaging to relationship functioning (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997), and are a primary cause of divorce in the first 2-3 years of marriage (McCarthy, 1998; 2003). Studies have yet to focus on whether, and how, religion may influence relational satisfaction or coping strategies employed by newlyweds to deal with such issues, in particular sexuality. The reader may question, for example, whether religiously-oriented perceptions of the meaning of sex may be associated with less sexually related problems. It is essential, then, to better understand dysfunctional as well as functional sexual dynamics among newlyweds.

A number of studies have been published that focus on sexual activity in the beginning years of marriage. It should be noted that such research has been conducted irrespective of the

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 8 potential influence of religion. Christopher and Sprecher (2000) summarized research from the

1990s showing that the frequency of married couples’ sexual activity decreased with age and the duration of marriage. A common finding across studies was that sexual activity decreased after the first 2 years of marriage (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000; James, 1981). Some researchers reported a decline even after the first year (James, 1981). For example, among married, middle- class, college educated women, the median rate of sexual intercourse declined from 17.5 times per month in the first month of marriage, to 8.5 times per month one year later, specifically among those women who were not pregnant (James, 1981). With a sample of 30 males and 50 females in the early years of marriage, Greenblat (1983) found a mean monthly frequency for sexual intercourse in the first year of marriage of 14.43 (SD = 8.96) for males and 13.81 (SD =

8.44) for females. The combined mean was 14.8 times per month for the first year of marriage, which dropped to a mean of 12.20 times per month in the second year. A major limitation of

Greenblat’s (1983) study, however, was that participants had been married up to 6 years, and thus most of the data was provided retrospectively. Such decline in sex frequency is nevertheless often referred to as the honeymoon effect (James, 1981; Kumar & Makwana, 1991), in which the novelty of sex with a specific partner lessens over time.

It is unknown to what extent religion, in particular religious beliefs about sexuality, hinders or facilitates sexual activity amongst newlyweds. Among a sample of undergraduates and graduate students, of whom marital status was unreported, greater religiousness was associated with greater shame and guilt regarding sexual attitudes and experiences (Murray,

Ciarrocchi, & Murray-Swank, 2007). This suggests a view among some religious individuals that sex, perhaps even within marriage, is viewed negatively. It may also be unusual for partners to conceive of the presence of the sacred during moments of sexual intimacy. However, in a sample

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 9

of unmarried college students (N = 151), Murray-Swank et al. (2005) found that the

sanctification of premarital sex correlated positively with current frequency of sex (r = .25, p <

.01). For a subset of students involved in a dating relationship (n = 65), the correlation was

similar (r = .24, p < .01). It remains in question then, for a newly married sample, whether

similar correlations among the sanctification of marital sex and sexual frequency would be observed. Further, one may speculate whether more restrictive views of sexuality as it relates to religious beliefs would be observed. On an additional note, research that utilizes a newlywed sample should thus address the potentially inflated report of sexual activity; while such average frequencies may reflect the experiences of newly married couples, it is not generalizable to couples married for more varied durations.

The Impact of Religion on Marriages of Varying Duration

Research has explored the influence of religion on marriages of varying duration (more so than it has on newlyweds), and has supported significant associations between religion and marital quality (Fiese & Tomcho, 2001; Heaton & Pratt, 1990; Mahoney et al., 1999). Over the past fifty years of research in this domain, studies have often utilized religious variables that represent more of an intrapersonal, rather than interpersonal, or dyadic, analysis (Sullivan,

2001). Examples of intrapersonal variables include personal religiousness and individual frequency of religious service attendance. For example, a meta-analysis was conducted by

Mahoney et al. in 2001, which summarized links between religion, marital, and parental functioning between 1980 and 1999 (94 studies). These researchers found that personal religiousness was correlated with increased marital satisfaction (average r = 0.15). Some studies included reported weak correlations between intra-psychically oriented measures of religiousness and marital satisfaction (Booth et al., 1995; Sullivan, 2001). Researchers must note, however,

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 10 that such findings do not signify that religion is unimportant to marital outcomes. Rather, the religious measures used may be inadequate in and of themselves, and neglect to capture the real depth which religion may influence marriage.

Individual frequency of church attendance was also associated with marital satisfaction

(average r = 0.07; Mahoney et al., 2001). In addition to personal affiliation alone, religious homogamy was associated with greater marital satisfaction (r = 0.05; Mahoney et al., 2001), greater marital commitment, and lower divorce rates (Heaton & Pratt, 1990; Mahoney et al.,

1999; Mahoney et al., 2001; Mahoney & Tarakeshwar, 2005; Wilson & Filsinger, 1986).

Religious homogamy in marriage is present when spouses share the same religious affiliation (or share no religious affiliation), orientation, or commitment (Craddock, 1991). Religious heterogamy, or interfaith marriage, had a nonsignificant main effect on marital happiness in some studies (for example, in a sample of Catholic individuals married to Catholics or non-

Catholics; Shehan, Bock, & Lee, 1990), while others support a higher risk of divorce (Call &

Heaton, 1997; Lehrer, 1998).

The above mentioned studies tended to include religious and marital variables that were global in nature, and focused only on one family member, rather than the religious dynamic of the family as a unit (Mahoney et al., 2001). Additionally, spouses may have the same religious affiliation (i.e., religiously homogamous marriage), but have noticeably different religious experiences and integrations of the sacred in their lives as individuals and as a couple. How are these individual religious frameworks implicated in both personal and couple functioning?

Moreover, does a married individual create a joint religious framework with one’s spouse by which they understand marriage and aspects of their marital relationship, including their sexuality? The question must be asked, then, that if more interpersonal religious variables are

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 11

used, would researchers observe stronger correlations with marital satisfaction and other marital

variables?

Only a few studies have relied on more interpersonally based religious variables,

including joint religious activity (Mahoney et al., 1999) and spiritual intimacy (Hatch, James, &

Schumm, 1986). For example, joint religious activities refer to religious activities which couples do together. Mahoney et al. (1999) found that the most common joint religious activities in which 97 married couples partook included celebrating religious holidays, attending church, praying for each other, talking about spiritual and moral issues, discussing how to live out God’s will, talking about God’s role in marriage, and praying together. For husbands and wives, greater joint religious activities was significantly correlated with greater global marital adjustment (p’s <

0.001), perceived personal benefits from marriage (p’s < 0.001), and use of collaborative strategies (p < 0.01 for self-wife report and p < .05 for self-husband report; Mahoney et al.,

1999). Fiese and Tomcho (2001) reported that joint participation in religious celebrations was related to marital satisfaction for husbands and wives more than mere affiliation; this was true after controlling for number of years married, self-rated importance of religion, and roles and routines associated with religious holidays. Although they explored attendance at a couple level, they did not assess the meaning which is derived from joint attendance. Moreover, joint religious activity is only one, albeit direct, way in which religion influences the marital dynamic. For the purposes of this study, joint religious activity was not necessarily directly related to spouses’ sexuality, and thus while it is a more proximal religious variable, it was not assessed here.

An additional measure of dyadic religiousness is spiritual intimacy, which Hatch et al.

(1986) describe as “directly related to the marital experience” (p. 540). Using Schaefer and

Olson’s (1981, as cited in Hatch et al., 1986) Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationship

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 12

(PAIR) Inventory to obtain a 6-item measure of spiritual intimacy, she and colleagues reported

that church attendance and marital satisfaction correlated strongly with spiritual intimacy for 53

husbands and 38 wives married for 1-50 years. However, they noted that a number of

participants chose either not to respond to the spiritual intimacy items, or responded via “not

applicable.” Researchers (Mahoney, Pargament, & DeMaris, 2006) have since created a new

measure of spiritual intimacy; a study currently exploring sanctification and the transition to

parenthood for first-time parents is utilizing such a measure, and couples are thus far responding

to all items. With respect to sexuality variables, research has yet to examine the correlation

between religious and spiritual perceptions of marital sexuality and spiritual intimacy.

Although not yet explored in relation to marital processes, a large body of literature exists

on individual religious coping methods in relation to various stressful life events (see Pargament,

1997; Pargament, Koenig, & Perez, 2000). As secular coping may be positive or negative, adaptive or maladaptive (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989), so, too, can religious coping

(Pargament et al., 2000). Viewed in a positive light, religious coping may involve strengthening a personal relationship with God, problem-solving with God as a partner, and seeking comfort and support in speaking with clergy or participating in religious activities (Pargament et al.,

2000). Negative religious coping encompasses feelings of struggle, and punishment from or abandonment by God (Pargament, 1997; Pargament et al., 2000). Positive religious coping has been associated with life satisfaction and mental health outcomes, whereas negative religious coping is correlated with poorer subjective health and lower quality of life (Pargament, 1997;

Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998; Thoresen, Harris, & Oman, 2001). Researchers have explored religious coping with illness, sacred losses and desecrations, traumatic events, and everyday stressors among college students, hospital patients, older adults, and other community

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 13

samples (see Pargament, 1997; Pargament et al., 1998; Pargament, Magyar, Benore, & Mahoney,

2005; Pargament et al., 2000; Siegel, Anderman, & Schrimshaw, 2001). An explicitly married

sample has yet to be studied. One exception is the current work of Mahoney et al. (2006), in

which the links among religious coping and the adjustment of couples during the transition to

parenthood are being explored. However, no study completed to date has explored the

connection between a married person’s religious coping strategies and either marital or sexual

issues.

Mahoney et al.’s (1999) findings suggest that the sanctification of marriage is related to

more adaptive, secular coping methods to handle marital conflict, such as the use of

collaborative strategies by partners to resolve marital disagreements and conflict. As explained

later, Pargament and Mahoney (2005) posit that one of the primary implications of sanctification,

in general, is utilizing that which is held to be sacred as a resource during times of distress, and

thus utilizing religious coping methods. Perhaps this may be extended to the sanctification of

marital sexuality, and include secular as well as religious individual approaches to coping,

specifically with problems related to the sexual relationship.

Religion and Marital Sexuality

A 2001 meta-analysis on religion and family life conducted by Mahoney et al. referred to only two studies from the 1980s and 1990s that dealt with sexual and religious attitudes and behaviors within marriage (i.e., Cochran & Beeghley, 1991; Young et al., 1998). Since that publication, virtually nothing has been added to the empirical literature on the role of religion within marriage. Cochran and Beeghley’s (1991) study, as summarized later, explored religion and extramarital sex, and thus sex outside the context of the marriage dynamic itself. Moreover, their sample did not include only married persons.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 14

Young et al.’s (1998) study is thereby the single, existing study that integrates religion and sexuality within a married sample. They examined the associations among religiousness and religious belief with sexual behavior and sexual satisfaction in marriage, using a U.S. sample of

839 individuals who were married (16.8% response rate from mailings). Survey items represented four main dimensions of sexual satisfaction: pleasure, attraction, intensity, and fulfillment – all of which provided richer psychological insights into sexuality than mere measures of physical sexual activity. Additional variables assessed included satisfaction with nonsexual aspects of the relationship, such as goals, respect, and recreational companionship.

Participants also indicated their perceptions of how God views sexuality. This study is especially unique, as it included not only non-sexual and sexual aspects of the marital relationship, but also conceptions of the role God plays in sexuality.

Young et al. (1998) hypothesized the following: greater religiousness, as measured by commitment, would be associated with lower levels of sexual satisfaction; greater religious commitment and perception of God’s view of sexuality as positive and approving would be associated with higher levels of sexual satisfaction; and high religious commitment and perception of God’s view of sexuality as negative would be associated with lower levels of sexual satisfaction.

Several findings are relevant (Young et al., 1998). Religious variables (e.g., religious commitment, perception of God’s view of sex) did not make a significant contribution to the variance in sexual satisfaction. Rather, sexual satisfaction was predicted by non-sexual aspects of the relationship, marital satisfaction, frequency of orgasm, frequency of sexual activity, and sexual uninhibitedness; together, these constructs accounted for 60% of the variation in sexual satisfaction. Religiousness was also not associated with non-sexual aspects of the marital

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 15

relationship and marital satisfaction, but was significantly correlated with the perception of

God’s view of sex. Additionally, the perception that God has a favorable view of sexuality was

correlated significantly with higher levels of uninhibited sexual activities (i.e., oral and anal sex,

frequency and enjoyment of masturbation). Reflection on Young et al.’s (1998) study leads one

to inquire whether a different religious variable would correlate differently with sexual and

marital satisfaction, and more broadly with sexual and non-sexual aspects of the marital

relationship. In particular, what would be the implications of a religious construct which

envelops personal religious views about sexuality (i.e., sanctification of sexuality, not just how

one thinks God views sex)?

With respect to sexuality and shared perceptions of sex, Lally and Maddock (1994) explored the sexual meaning systems of 526 engaged couples. These researchers recognized that

the shared meaning of sex may “exist as deep spiritual communication,” (Lally & Maddock,

1994, p. 53) and thus can assume sacred significance. In fact, among ten possible reasons for

engaging in sexual activity, such as affection, bargaining, and duty, spiritual bond was rated as

moderately important. Mean frequency of church attendance was correlated negatively with

discrepancy in sexual meaning, meaning that the more frequent the church attendance, the less

discrepant were the partners’ sexual meaning. Their sample was also limited, nonetheless, to

engaged couples enrolled in Roman Catholic premarriage classes. Although proximal religious

variables were not included, Lally and Maddock’s study explored sex at a dyadic level. They

highlight that sexuality is inherently relational, even if other existing research does not reflect

such a reality.

The majority of studies on religion and sexuality are conducted outside the context of

heterosexual marriages. For example, numerous studies have explored religion and sexuality via

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 16 adolescent sexuality, homosexuality, extramarital sex, and other premarital sexual attitudes and behaviors (see Crooks & Baur, 2002; DeLamater, 1981; Donahue & Nielsen, 2005). Research on sexual infidelity, for example, has noted that, in addition to dissatisfaction with one’s relationship and the presence of opportunities for extramarital sex, one’s personal values play an integral role as to whether or not one will be sexually unfaithful (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

Religion and religious values are thus potential factors influencing views toward and engagement in extramarital sex. Scott (1998) reported that greater church attendance was associated with greater disapproval of extramarital sex in the United States, West Germany, and Poland. Other researchers have also found that low religiousness was associated with more permissive attitudes toward extramarital sex (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000), and an earlier engagement in extramarital sex during the course of the marriage (Allen et al., 2005). Among a sample of

14,937 non-married, U.S. participants, Cochran and Beeghley (1991) reported that higher religious commitment (i.e., strength of or commitment to church doctrine; Catholicism and

Protestantism) was correlated significantly with a more negative attitude toward extramarital sex.

Additional studies have found that persons who attend church and are happy in their marriage engaged in less extramarital sex than those who did not attend church (DeLamater, 1981;

Mahoney et al., 2001; Previti & Amato, 2004). Such an interaction between religion and marital satisfaction within happy marriages appears to lower the risk of extramarital involvement (Allen et al., 2005). Finally, Allen et al. (2005) conducted a literature review on the intrapersonal, relational, and contextual factors related to extramarital involvement, and highlighted religion as a possible factor. Their summary emphasized that greater religiousness, measured by frequency of attending religious services and self-reported religiousness, is linked to lower rates of extramarital sex.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 17

An integral question, then, is if people perceive marital sex to be sacred, would they be more likely to disapprove of extramarital sex or less likely to have had an extramarital affair?

Previous studies, although they have not addressed this exact question, hint that the answer is likely “yes.” Moreover, from the perspective of religious traditions, the beliefs of which many individuals and couples may internalize, extramarital sex is viewed as a desecration or “betrayal of the marital promise” (Previti & Amato, 2004, p. 218). Therefore, if more religious people are encouraged to hold higher expectations for sexual fidelity, would people (whether very religious or not) who sanctify marital sex also be less likely to be sexually unfaithful?

The lack of research on religion and marital sexuality, in general, is noteworthy, and deserving of additional analysis. Perhaps the assumption that religion is prohibitive of or represses sexual activity (Crooks & Baur, 2002) is one reason to explain the scarcity of studies in this domain. A stereotype may even persist that shame and guilt accompany sexual activity, particularly for those who are religious (Murray et al., 2007). However, the “most socially approved context for sexual activity is the marital relationship” (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000, p. 1001), and thus social controls on sexuality decline following marriage (DeLamater, 1981;

Greenblat, 1983). Therefore, the notion that religion restricts sexual expression is not a valid justification for the lack of research on religious and sexual issues in marriage, much less within a newlywed sample. Donahue and Nielsen (2005) note that sexuality is the “single issue about which psychology and religion are perceived to be most at odds” (p. 279). Even within science, sexuality, in general, tends to be treated “simplistically and with a sense of detachment and embarrassment” (Jones & Hostler, 2005, p. 118). In terms of religion, authors of textbooks on human sexuality will first discuss religion as opposed to sexuality, only to acknowledge later that spirituality is a paradigm within sexual intimacy (Crook & Baur, 2002). Interestingly, as prior

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 18

sections highlighted, religious teachings themselves do regard sexuality with reverence. It seems desirable, then, for a study to address these assumptions about religion and sexuality, and produce results that highlight the potentially adaptive role religion may assume in marital and sexual functioning.

The Sanctification of Marriage and Sexual Intercourse

As previously described, sanctification is a psychological process through which an

aspect of life is perceived to have divine character and significance (Mahoney, Pargament,

Murray-Swank, & Murray-Swank, 2003; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). Mahoney et al. (2003)

note that material objects, events and transitions, people, time and space, social attributes,

activities, and relationships can be perceived as sacred. One index of sanctification,

Manifestation of God, is explicitly theistic and involves the extent to which one perceives God to

be present and active in a particular aspect of life (Mahoney et al., 1999). A given object or

relationship may be understood to be a manifestation of one’s “images, beliefs, or experiences of

God” (Mahoney et al., 2003, p. 221). The second index, Sacred Qualities, is non-theistic and

refers to the attribution of a dimension of life as holy and blessed.

These subscales do not measure the positive or negative consequences of perceiving the

sacred in or attributing sacred qualities to the proposed aspect of life. Furthermore, items do not

imply a particular type or kind of deity; rather, items are worded such that respondents apply

whatever name fits their preference (e.g., God, Allah, Higher Power, etc.; Mahoney et al., 2003).

Empirical investigations have been conducted on the sanctification of marriage (Mahoney et al.,

1999), premarital sexuality (Murray-Swank et al., 2005), the body (Mahoney, Carels et al.,

2005), parenting (Mahoney et al., 2003; Mahoney & Tarakeshwar, 2005), the environment

(Tarakeshwar, Swank, Pargament, & Mahoney, 2001), personal strivings (Mahoney, Pargament,

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 19

Cole et al., 2005), and dreams (Phillips & Pargament, 2002). Researchers (Mahoney et al., 2006)

are currently exploring the sanctification of pregnancy, marriage, and parenting among married

couples who became first-time parents.

Prior research which is most relevant in constructing the foundation for this study is that

on the sanctification of marriage and of sexual intercourse in loving relationships. Although

religious traditions promote the sanctity of marriage and sexuality, it has only been within the

past decade that researchers have tested empirically the perception of these domains as sacred. It has been known that 95% of married couples in the United States report having a religious affiliation (see Mahoney et al., 2001), but this does not mean necessarily that this same percentage of couples view their marriage through the lens of their religious beliefs. For example, in 1996, Kaslow and Robinson reported that, among a sample of 57 couples in the

United States, 31% reported that their religious conviction regarding the sanctity of marriage

kept them in their marriage.

Researchers have explored more directly the process of the sanctification of marriage.

Mahoney et al. (1999) used public birth records of 6-24–month old babies born between 1995

and 1996 in a midsized, Midwestern city to locate and recruit 97 married couples (overall

response rate of 26%). Results indicated that husbands and wives tended to agree that marriage

was a manifestation of God (α = 0.97 for both), and ascribed sacred qualities to their marriage

(α = .87 for wives, α = 0.88 for husbands). Among the significant, positive correlations for both

husbands and wives were those among global marital adjustment, and perceived sacred qualities

and manifestation of God in marriage. Personal benefits from marriage were also significantly,

positively correlated with both perceived sacred qualities of and manifestation of God in

marriage. For wives only, frequency of marital conflict was significantly negatively correlated

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 20

with Sacred Qualities and Manifestation of God subscales. The sanctification of marriage

thereby was associated with more adaptive marital functioning (Mahoney et al., 1999; Mahoney

et al., 2003).

After accounting for husbands’ education and distal religious variables, wives’ report of the sanctification of marriage and joint religious activities added variance to their marital adjustment, personal benefits from marriage, frequency of marital conflict, and self-report of

verbal aggression. Mahoney et al.’s (1999) study was the first to explore the integration of

religion and spirituality on marriage and marital functioning at a dyadic level. Interestingly,

correlations among religious homogamy and the above mentioned marital variables were not

significant, which suggests that the sanctification of marriage may be a more powerful, useful

variable in research on religion and marriage. Their results, however, cannot be generalized to

unmarried couples, couples without children, couples of diverse ethnic and religious

backgrounds (i.e., the majority of the sample were Caucasians from a Judeo-Christian tradition),

or couples who may be clinically distressed. In addition, their study did not assess the sexual

dimension of the couples’ relationship.

Research has explored only recently the sanctification of sexual intercourse. Murray-

Swank et al. (2005) studied 151 unmarried college students’ (Mean age of 19 years; SD = 0.88)

perceptions of sexuality as sacred. They assessed the sanctification of sexual intercourse in

loving, non-marital relationships, that is participants completed measures on the sanctification of

“two people in a loving relationship who are not married” (p. 204). Furthermore, a subsample of

65 students completed measures with respect to sanctification of sexual intercourse in their own,

current relationship. All participants completed additional measures, including global religiousness (i.e., frequency of private prayer, frequency of attendance at religious services,

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 21

self-rated religiousness, self-rated spirituality), prior sexual activity (i.e., age at first sexual

intercourse, frequency of sexual intercourse in last month, number of lifetime partners), other types of prior sexual behaviors (e.g., kissing/making out, anal intercourse), affective reactions to sexual intercourse (e.g., positive emotions such as pleasure and satisfaction; and negative emotions such as tension, nervousness, and fear), and prior and current dating history.

For the subsample (n = 65) of college students involved in a romantic, sexual relationship, total sanctification of sexual intercourse in their relationship accounted for unique variance in the frequency of intercourse and sexual satisfaction after controlling for attitudes toward premarital sex and global religiousness. More specifically, Sacred Qualities of sexual intercourse in current relationships accounted for unique variance in current frequency of sexual intercourse and sexual satisfaction after taking into account Manifestation of God of sexual intercourse in current relationships. For this subsample, higher Sacred Qualities of sexual intercourse in the current relationship (α = 0.90) correlated with higher self-rated spirituality

(r = .29, p < .05) and frequency of sexual intercourse (r = .24, p < .05). Moreover, higher

Manifestation of God in sexual intercourse in the current relationship (α = 0.93) was linked with

higher global religiousness (r = .29, p < .05), self-rated spirituality (r = .33, p < .01), and

frequency of prayer (r = .28, p < .05). These two sanctification subscales were correlated

(r = .57, p < .05) such that complete redundancy was not found. It should be highlighted that the

Manifestation of God subscale for the subsample did not correlate significantly with sexual

behavior indexes. In addition, hierarchical regression analyses only included the Sacred Qualities

index and sexual behavior indexes; non-sexual variables were not explored.

Within the total sample of 151 participants, it was in fact global religiousness, and not the

sanctification of sexual intercourse in loving relationships, that correlated strongly with lower

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 22 engagement in sex, lower engagement in other sexual behaviors, and fewer number of lifetime partners; this was consistent with previous research. Therefore, the sanctification of non-marital sexual intercourse seemed to be distinct from global religious indicators, as it related to more frequent, varied, and satisfying sexual experiences.

Murray-Swank et al.’s (2005) study, although limited to premarital sexuality and to a college sample, nevertheless provided insight that religious beliefs can influence perceptions about sexuality in a loving relationship which exists prior to and within marriage. An internalized psychospiritual process such as the sanctification of sex is a more direct measure of how religion influences sexual thoughts and behaviors; it is a more proximal variable than personal religiousness. The next question for researchers, then, is how is marital sexuality understood? Would similar correlations with sexual variables emerge?

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 23

PURPOSE OF THE MASTER’S THESIS

Researchers have yet to publish a study that explores the intimate, interpersonal, and

spiritual nature of sexuality in marriage. The purposes of this Master’s thesis were thus to (1)

gather descriptive information on this new measure of the sanctification of marital sexuality; (2)

empirically integrate religion, marriage, and sexuality in an examination of the sanctification of

marital sexuality and its potential links to sexual, psychological, and spiritual functioning; and

(3) establish that the sanctification of marital sexuality accounts for unique variance above

relevant demographic variables and a conventional sense of religiousness.

The perspective that the present study represents is that religion speaks of sexuality as

involving the integration of all facets of the human person, as well as a search for wholeness

(MacKnee, 1997). Although many researchers tend to limit sexuality to sexual intercourse,

sexuality is discussed here as more than sexual behavior. Known as the ABCs of Sexuality

(Guldner & Guldner, 1992), sexuality includes sexual attitudes, behavior, and communication of sexual needs and desires, which together speak of “patterns of [sexual] initiation, frequency, variety, style, context, likes and dislikes, concerns, and satisfaction” (p. 57). In this sense, sexuality assumes a broad meaning, and involves physiological, psychological, and interpersonal components (MacKnee, 1997). Nelson and Longfellow (1994) also define sexuality as “the physiological and emotional grounding of our capacities to love” (p. xiv). Sexual intercourse is thus only one facet or expression of human sexuality (Nelson & Longfellow, 1994).

Sexuality occurs within the context of a relationship, and thus has an impact on the psychological functioning of both partners. To the extent that sexuality is perceived to be sacred, or a manifestation of the sacred, spiritual implications would be evident as well. With this in mind, although sanctification may have both personal and relational connotations, constructs and

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 24 surveys included in the present study were primarily interpersonal, rather than intrapersonal, in nature. When individually-based measures were used, they were completed primarily in light of an interpersonal issue or problem. Such distinction of interpersonal processes in this project is addressed further in this paper.

Theoretical and Empirical Framework of Sanctification

Pargament and Mahoney (2005) note several psychosocial implications of sanctification.

The majority of these “effects” serve as a framework by which to understand and further organize the Master’s thesis into sexually, psychologically, and spiritually related hypotheses.

First, people who sanctify relationships, roles, or strivings, for example, are more likely to spend time thinking about, investing in, and committing to them (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005).

People may “invest more of themselves in the pursuit and care of those things they hold sacred”

(Pargament et al., 2005, p. 60); such investment may be evident through time, money, or explicit activities. Second, individuals are also more likely to protect and preserve those aspects of life which they sanctify (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). This outcome may be particularly present if one feels that what is sanctified has been threatened (Pargament et al., 2005). Third, sanctified objects or relationships may serve as sacred resources on which people may draw for strength; sanctification may thus serve to help individuals and couples cope with life’s demands (Mahoney et al., 2003; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005; Pargament et al., 2005). In a similar vein, these resources, as they relate to different dimensions of life, may also be conceptualized as personal benefits of sanctification (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). Pargament et al. (2005) note this may include the derivation of enriched “satisfaction and well-being from the pursuit and experience of the sacred” (p. 60). Spirituality and religion, as they are woven into sanctification, may commit a couple to a higher set of ideals that transcends their daily, marital interactions.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 25

The hypotheses of the present study were organized into sexual, psychological, and

spiritual processes, which were then further delineated according to these “effects” in the

Methods section.

Hypotheses

Hypotheses aimed at the links between the sanctification of marital sexuality, and sexual

and non-sexual areas of functioning (i.e., sexual, psychological, and spiritual processes). Young

et al. (1998), for example, reported that researchers tend not to assess the role of non-sexual

activity.

With respect to the sanctification of marital sexuality, it was hypothesized that a positive

correlation would be found between the Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality and Sacred

Qualities of Marital Sexuality subscales. The more one perceived God to be present in his/her sexual relationship, the more that sexual relationship would be understood to be sacred and holy.

The primary hypotheses of the study, as they relate to the overall sanctification of marital sexuality (i.e., both subscales of the sanctification measure) and sexual criterion variables were

that higher levels of the sanctification of marital sexuality would relate to (1) greater sexual fidelity before marriage; (2) greater sexual fidelity during marriage; (3) higher frequency of sexual intercourse; (4) greater sexual satisfaction; (5) greater sexual intimacy; and (6) less global distress from sexual difficulties or problems experienced in marriage. Such proposed correlations with the sanctification of marital sexuality drew upon constructs well established in the literature.

The primary hypotheses as they relate to the overall sanctification of marital sexuality and psychological criterion variables were that higher levels of the sanctification of marital sexuality would relate to (1) greater investment (i.e., time and effort) in creating and maintaining the marital sexual bond as a couple; (2) greater global marital satisfaction; (3) greater use of

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 26

adaptive secular coping methods to deal with conflict about marital sexuality; (4) less use of

maladaptive secular coping methods to deal with conflict about marital sexuality; and (5) less proneness to divorce. This set of hypotheses integrated measures already introduced in empirical literature with new or modified measures.

The primary hypotheses as they relate to the overall sanctification of marital sexuality and spiritual criterion variables were that higher levels of the sanctification of marital sexuality would relate to (1) greater spiritual intimacy; (2) greater use of positive religious coping methods; and (3) less use of negative religious coping with marital sexual difficulties. As researchers speak rarely of spiritual effects, these final hypotheses relied upon new or modified

constructs.

Finally, it was hypothesized that sanctified marital sexuality would contribute unique variance to the prediction of the sexual, psychological, and spiritual criteria above and beyond

demographic variables and conventional religiousness variables. As explicated later, this

hypothesis set forth a more conservative test of the sanctification of marital sexuality as a unique predictor of criterion variables than prior studies on sanctification of the family.

Limitations of Prior Research which the Master’s Thesis Addresses

In order to advance knowledge about the intersection of religion and sexuality within marriage, it is important to be further aware of the limitations and problems that plague research on the topics of religion, marriage, and sexuality. It was precisely such limitations that the present study, in its measurements and recruitment, attempted to address.

Research on religion and sexuality in the last two decades has been largely atheoretical.

The present study will rely on the theoretical framework of sanctification and its empirically supported effects (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). Moreover, as analyses on religion and

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 27

sexuality have often been conducted outside of the context of a marital relationship, this study will place marital status on “center stage” with the construct of the sanctification of marital sexuality.

As mentioned throughout, virtually all of the research on religion and marriage has neglected the assessment of the sexual dimension of marriage. Some, independent studies have found that religion is not associated with marital or sexual variables when religiousness is measured solely in terms of religious involvement, more specifically church attendance (e.g.,

Bell, 1974). Applying such individually-oriented constructs as religious activity and affiliation makes it impossible to assess the internalization of religious beliefs, or the relational and social

impact of religiously oriented perceptions. A similar logic has been applied in research on

marital and sexual variables where marital and sexual satisfactions are often assessed each via a

single item (see Mahoney et al., 2001). The instruments used in the present study measured such

variables using multiple items, in order to increase validity as well as obtain a more detailed

picture of participants’ marital and sexual life.

Studies on religion, marriage, and sexuality have employed convenience samples, such as

parents of college students, married students (Hooper & Sheldon, 1969), members of church

groups and congregations (Abbott, Berry, & Meredith, 1990; Wilson & Filsinger, 1986), and

acquaintances of the primary investigators (Bell, 1974; Kaslow & Robinson, 1996). Research on

sexuality has often used undergraduates as participants, other highly educated persons, or results

from magazine surveys (Davidson, Darling, & Norton, 1995; DeLamater, 1981). Some

researchers have utilized small case studies, including James (1981) who relied on the calendars

or diaries on the sexuality activity of 9 married couples. In terms of sanctification of sex

research, college students (Murray-Swank et al., 2005) have comprised samples. In order to

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 28 move beyond previous research, as well as apply the sanctification of sexuality within marriage, a sample of newly married individuals was obtained. Recruitment via marriage license records helped ensure that an explicitly religious bias was not present.

Many studies on marriage have combined cohabiting and married couples in analyses

(Call & Heaton, 1997; Craddock, 1991). Studies have further examined attitudes toward marriage and family life indirectly, with the use of high school students (Martin, Specter, Martin,

& Martin, 2003). Sexuality research (James, 1981) also tends to be retrospective. Such factors make it difficult to tease apart how truly married individuals feel and act within their marriage.

The present study employed newly married individuals who responded to questions primarily regarding current levels of sexual, psychological, and spiritual functioning.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 29

METHOD

Participants

Eighty-four newlywed individuals participated in Time 1 of the project (52 female; 32

male); 63 completed the survey online and 21 completed a survey packet that was sent to them

by mail. Participants resided in 6 States, with the majority from the Midwest. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 64 years old, with a mean age of 31 years (SD = 9.59). Seventy- five percent of participants were Caucasian. Other ethnicities represented included African

American (9.5%), Hispanic (8.3%), Asian American (2.4%), Other (Arab and Egyptian, when specified; 2.4%), Multi-ethnic/racial (1.2%), and Native American (1.2%).

Regarding participants’ highest level of education, the majority had completed at least some college, with 35.7% having completed some college or post high-school training, 22.6% graduated college, and 10.7% earned a graduate or professional degree. This results in a slightly

higher representation of education. Over half of the sample was employed full time (54.8%).

Income was slightly negatively skewed, with 23.8% of participants earning an average annual,

gross household income of less than $25,000; 35.7% earned between $25,001 and $50,000; and

26.2% earned between $50,001 and $75,000. A summary of this information is also provided in

Table 1.

When inquired about religious affiliation, 27.4% reported identifying as Catholic, 22.6%

non-denominational, 21.4% Protestant, 16.7% did not identify with any religion, 6.0% reported

other denominations (e.g., Agnostic, Apostolic, Jehovah’s Witness, Mennonite, when specified),

2.4% Buddhist, and 2.4% Muslim, and 1.2% Hindu (see Table 2). See Appendix A for

demographic questions.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 30

Instrumentation: Descriptive Information

Global religiousness. Several items used predominantly in the sociology and psychology

of religion to assess global levels of religiousness were used in the study, including four

individual items to assess the frequency of attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer,

and self-rated religiousness and spirituality (Mahoney et al., 1999). These items have been used

in the General Social Survey (GSS; National Opinion Research Center, 2004). Frequency of

attendance at religious services was rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 8 (more

than once a week). Frequency of prayer was rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5

(several times a day). Self-rated religiousness was rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not

religious at all) to 3 (very religious), and self-rated spirituality was rated on a 4-point scale

ranging from 0 (not spiritual at all) to 3 (very spiritual).

Prior research has created a composite, global religiousness index from the four items

cited above (e.g., Murray-Swank et al., 2005). However, in order to glean more details as to

which global religious variable is uniquely contributing to the criterion variables, these variables

were analyzed separately in this study. Moreover, these variables were included in analyses

along with measures of a belief in God and Biblical conservatism, described below, so as to

formulate a general sense of traditional or conventional religiousness. These four global

religiousness measures are included in Appendix B.

Belief in God. Although research in the psychology of religion is often justified by the

finding that approximately 95% of the American population believes in God (Hoge, 1996;

Emmons & Crumpler, 1999), the nature of one’s belief in God is rarely explored, but likely varies considerably. Emmons and Crumpler (1999) note the nature of God as personal is true for

Christians, Moslems, and Jews, but is not reflective of Buddhists’ beliefs. Further, they argue

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 31

that researchers should include questions about the nature of or belief in God in addition to

standard, global religious items, as it may moderate the different religious and spiritual effects

(Emmons & Crumpler, 1999). Hout and Fischer (2002) reference national surveys, specifically the GSS, which report that American adults since the early 1990s have become increasingly less likely to express no religious preference; between the periods of 1990-1991 and 1998-2000, percentages doubled from 7 to 14 percent. Moreover, it may be that a person claims no religious preference, and does not participate in public religious activities, but maintains a strong belief in

God and prays regularly; such an individual may describe oneself as more spiritual than religious

(Hout & Fischer, 2002). In this sense, personal religious affiliation, or even global religious variables as indictors of religious belief are insufficient in and of themselves.

In order to assess whether belief in God was correlated with the sanctification of marital sexuality, a 6-response item (used in the GSS from 1988 to 2000) was used to measure perceived belief in God. Statements included “I don’t believe in God,” and “I know God really exists, and I have no doubts about it,” for example. This measure is provided in Appendix C and was used in regression analyses with global religious variables to comprise a conventional sense of religiousness.

Biblical conservatism. Also included in conventional religiousness was participants’

degree of Biblical conservatism or literalism. Biblical conservatism was assessed with two items

regarding the beliefs that the Bible is “God’s word and everything will happen exactly as it says”

and “the answer to all important human problems.” A 5-point Likert scale was used, ranging

from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and items were summed for a total score of

Biblical conservatism. Biblical conservatism has been widely used in prior sociological and

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 32

psychological research on religion (Murray-Swank, 2005). This measure is provided in

Appendix D.

Relationship and sexual history. For descriptive purposes, various details regarding

participants’ relationship, marital, and sexual history were assessed (see Appendix E), including

length of current relationship, length of marriage and prior marriages, age of first sexual

intercourse, sexual activity with other partners, and perceived spousal sexual activity with other

partners. The length of current marriage was used as a control variable in some analyses.

Presence of children. Participants were asked to provide details regarding number of

children, including number of children with one’s spouse and number currently residing with

spouse (see Appendix F). The number of children as well as number currently residing with

one’s spouse were used as control variables in some analyses.

Instrumentation: Predictor Variable

Sanctification of marital sexuality. A revised sanctification measure from Mahoney et al.

(2006) was further modified to represent theistic and non-theistic sanctification of the marital

sexual relationship. One subscale, theistic Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality, assessed

the belief that the sexual relationship with one’s spouse is an expression or sign of the presence

of God. On a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with 10 statements, such as “I sense God’s presence when I am sexually intimate with my spouse,” and “There are moments when I feel a strong connection with God during sexual intercourse with my spouse.” Another subscale, non- theistic Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality, assessed the belief that one’s sexual relationship with one’s spouse has divine or transcendent qualities. On a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), participants indicated the extent to which they agreed

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 33

with 10 statements, such as “The sexual bond I have with my spouse is sacred to me,” and

“Sexual intercourse with my spouse connects us to something greater than ourselves.” Such

items do not directly mention God or a Higher Power. In order to assess the full details of the

sanctification of marital sexuality, the separate subscale scores were created by summing the ten

items associated with each scale, and these separate subscores were used in correlation and

regression analyses. However, for completeness in correlational analyses, the subscale scores

were also summed to create a total score of the sanctification of marital sexuality. This measure

is included in Appendix G.

Previous research (Mahoney et al., 1999) using married samples reported good internal consistency for the original Manifestation of God in Marriage (α = 0.97 for husbands and wives) and the original Sacred Qualities in Marriage (α = 0.87 for wives and α = 0.88 for husbands).

Research on the sanctification of sexual intercourse in loving relationships among college students, based on the original sanctification subscales (Murray-Swank et al., 2005), reported sufficient reliability (α = 0.90 - 0.93 for Manifestation of God and α = 0.90 for Sacred Qualities).

For the married couples, Mahoney et al. (1999) found the two, original sanctification of marriage scales were moderately correlated with each other (r = 0.68 and r = 0.57 for wife and husband reports, respectively).

Instrumentation – Criterion Variables: Sexual Processes

Protecting and preserving marital sexuality: Sexual fidelity before and during marriage.

In assessing extramarital sexual involvement, the GSS (National Opinion Research Center, 2004) inquired as to whether or not one had sex with someone other than his or her spouse, but results were not divided in terms of dating and marital relationships. Given that this study will utilize a newlywed sample, two items assessed whether participants ever had a sexual relationship with

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 34

someone other than one’s spouse 1) during their dating relationship and engagement to one’s

current spouse and 2) during the marriage thus far. The two items were treated separately in

preliminary analyses, and each item was coded 1 if participants answered yes, and 0 if

participants answered no. These questions are provided in Appendix H.

Sexual benefits: Sexual frequency. Items were included that assessed participants’

estimation of the average monthly frequency of sexual intercourse with their spouse, and the

frequency of sexual intercourse in the past month. Participants chose among 4-point options

(e.g., 1-4, 5-8, etc.) when indicating average monthly frequency of sexual intercourse (used by

Greenblat, 1983). Participants then provided an exact number when indicating sexual frequency in the past month (adapted from the GSS). Each question was treated as a separate indicator in preliminary analyses; due to the inherent redundancy of the two questions, only the former was used for primary analyses. These questions are listed in Appendix I.

Sexual benefits: Sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction integrates an affective response to and the subjective evaluation of one’s sexual relationship (Young et al., 1998). Nine items from an 11-item scale used by Young et al. (1998), which were adapted from Derogatis and

Melisaratos (1979, as cited in Young et al., 1998), assessed various dimensions of sexual satisfaction, including pleasure, attraction, intensity, and fulfillment. Participants indicated the degree to which they agreed with statements, such as “My spouse makes me feel sexually desirable,” and “I am satisfied with the sexual relationship I have with my spouse.” Three of the

9 items were modified (e.g., addition of the words “spouse” or “sexual intercourse” in an item), and the Likert scale was reversed in order to range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (possible total range of 9-45). These items were summed for a total score of sexual

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 35 satisfaction. For Young et al. (1998), for example, higher scores reflected greater sexual satisfaction (α = .93). This measure is included in Appendix J.

Sexual benefits: Sexual intimacy. Davis, Pallen, DeMaio, and Jackson (2000) define sexual intimacy as satisfaction, pleasure, and comfort with the sexual aspects of one’s relationship. Defined more specifically, however, sexual intimacy involves a sense of communication and feelings of closeness and comfort with one’s partner. In order to assess the association between the sanctification of marital sexuality and sexual intimacy, the 6-item

Physical/Sexual Safety subscale of the Intimacy Safety Questionnaire (ISQ; J. V. Cordova, personal communication, October 25, 2006) was included as a measure of sexual intimacy.

Sample items included “I feel comfortable initiating sex with my partner,” and “I am comfortable being physically affectionate with my partner,” which reflect the safety and vulnerability often felt in intimate relationships (α = .884; J. Blair, personal communication,

October 25, 2006; October 31, 2006). A 5-point Likert scale was applied (0 = never to 4 = always), and three items were reverse-scored such that higher scores represented a higher degree of sexual intimacy (possible range of scores from 0-24). Items were summed to create a total sexual intimacy score. The Physical/Sexual Safety subscale is provided in Appendix K.

Appendix L includes written permission to use this subscale.

Sexual benefits: Problems and distress related to marital sexuality. It was hypothesized that increased levels of sanctification would be associated with fewer experiences of problems related to marital sexuality. A checklist of problems commonly related to sexuality was included, and participants indicated whether they have personally experienced any of the 25 stressors listed. McCarthy (2003) listed the following as common sexual dysfunctions, which were noted in the present checklist: inhibited sexual desire, early ejaculation and erectile dysfunction for

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 36

men, non-orgasmic response and painful intercourse for women, and extramarital sex. Guldner

and Guldner (1992) also identified the following sexual problems: hard time communicating

interests and needs, being rejected for sex, differences in desired frequency, attitudes toward

sexual arousal, time commitments to the sexual relationship, sexual addiction or compulsive

sexual behavior, sexual problems related to illness and disability, differences in sexual values and attitudes, lack of physical affection, infertility, and past or current sexual abuse.

Additional problems were identified via various Internet searches, including anxiety before or during sexual intercourse, embarrassment or guilt during sexual intercourse, lack of sexual satisfaction, loss of sexual intimacy, and relational problems that affect sexual intercourse. The checklist was used as a primer to a global question which assessed the extent to

which the participant had experienced distress from such sexual difficulties in one’s current

marriage thus far. Higher scores on this one item (range 1-7) were indicative of greater distress

experienced; it should be clarified that this subjective rating of distress about marital sexuality

did not necessarily relate to the number of problems endorsed. The one-item global measure of

sexual difficulties was included in analyses. The checklist and global item are included in

Appendix M.

Instrumentation – Criterion Variables: Psychological Processes

Investment in marital sexuality: Time and effort devoted to creating and maintaining

sexual bond in marriage. Psychological investment in marital sexuality was conceptualized as

time and effort devoted to sustaining the sexual connection. Fifteen items were created as a

checklist of sexually and non-sexually related activities in which couples may engage in order to

create, sustain, or enhance the sexual bond in their marriage. Five of the 15 items were adapted

from McCarthy (2003), including affectionate touching, sensual touching, watching videos for

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 37

sexual enhancement, creating a romantic mood through candles and music, and taking

medication to treat sexual dysfunction. The remaining items were gathered from various Internet

searches on enhancing the sexual bond in marriage. Participants reported which activities they

and/or their spouse engaged in since being married. Specifically, participants reported whether

they alone, their spouse alone, or both of them as a couple engaged in an activity; for purposes of

this study and the intention to gather a couple-based, or dyadic, measure, only those items which

indicated couple activities were summed for a total score of investment and included in analyses.

This measure is included in Appendix N.

Psychological benefits: Global marital satisfaction. Marital satisfaction, as a cognitive

component of marital well-being and a dimension of marital quality, refers to the subjective

evaluation of one’s marriage (Mahoney et al., 2001; Ruvolo, 1998; Schumm et al., 1986).

Marital satisfaction was measured using the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS; Schumm

et al., 1986), which correlates positively with overall marital adjustment (see Schumm et al.,

1986). Using a 3-item scale (α = .93), participants were asked, for example, “How satisfied are

you with your relationship with your spouse?” A 7-point Likert scale was used (1 = extremely

dissatisfied to 7 = extremely satisfied) and the three items were summed, with higher scores signifying greater marital satisfaction. The scale is provided in Appendix O.

Drawing on psychological resources: Secular individual coping with problems about marital sexuality. In order to determine whether sanctification related to the use of non-religious resources when dealing with problems related to marital sexuality, a secular coping measure was included. Because sexually-related problems were data gathered from self-report, this coping measure was more intrapersonal in nature. Although the COPE Inventory (Carver et al., 1989) is

a popular measure of secular coping, several researchers, including Carver himself, have noted

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 38

difficulties in scoring and factor analyzing. For example, Zuckerman and Gagne (2003) note that

the COPE (Carver et al., 1989) lacks comprehensiveness in terms of critical dimensions of

coping and includes highly correlated subscales. Zuckerman and Gagne (2003) thereby revised

the COPE (Carver et al., 1989). The present study utilized three factors from this revised version,

approach, avoidance, and self-punishment. Each of these factors contained eight items, and thus

a total of 24 items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = I usually don’t do this at all to 4 = I

normally do this a lot), and were applied for this study specifically to situations involving

problems about marital sexuality. The approach factor (8 items) involved adaptive and “problem solving activities directed at the source of the stress” (Zuckerman & Gagne, 2003, p. 174), in this case problems of a sexual nature (e.g., “I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it”).

In contrast, the avoidance factor (8 items) referred to maladaptive coping strategies distanced from the problem itself (e.g., “I try to forget the whole thing”). The self-punishment factor (8 items) involved maladaptive cognitions directly related to the problem, such as blaming oneself for the problem or ruminating over the stressor (e.g., “I see that I am at the root of the problem”).

Reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) as reported by Zuckerman and Gagne (2003) were .84, .81, and

.87, respectively. Such factors were included here because they involved primarily behavioral methods of coping directly related to the problem. Moreover, approach and avoidance were related to positive and negative medical and psychological outcomes in numerous studies (see

Zuckerman & Gagne, 2003), and were dimensions present in previous coping measures.

Although self-punishment itself was not represented well in the coping literature, one of its components, self-blame, was associated with negative outcomes (see Zuckerman & Gagne,

2003). Zuckerman and Gagne reported that approach was not significantly correlated with avoidance and self-punishment, suggesting that approach was a distinct subscale. Avoidance was

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 39

significantly positively correlated with self-punishment (r = 0.39, p < .001; Zuckerman & Gagne,

2003), which supported that the subscales comprise a cluster of maladaptive coping strategies.

In summary, the eight items comprising the approach factor were summed to create a total adaptive secular coping score (range 8-32). The eight items comprising the avoidance factor were summed with the eight items constituting the self-punishment factor to create a total score of maladaptive secular coping (range 16-64). This scale is included in Appendix P.

Protecting and preserving marital sexuality: Divorce Proneness. Five items from the

Marital Instability Index (MII; Booth, Johnson, and Edwards, 1983) were selected as a measure of propensity toward divorce, and thus as a measure of the larger extent to which the marital sexual relationship is protected. Booth et al. (1983) tested the MII on a sample of 2,034 married men and women under the age of 55. These researchers defined marital instability in terms of both cognitions and behaviors, including thinking about divorce, and talking with one’s spouse, significant others, professionals, and clergy about divorce. The MII originally included 25 items, and Booth et al. (1983) suggested use of the abbreviated scale for studies where marital instability was not the primary focus; the five items included were posited as best predicting the

MII. These five items were summed for a total score of divorce proneness. The coefficient alpha reliability Booth et al. (1983) found was .75. The scale is included in Appendix Q.

Instrumentation – Criterion Variables: Spiritual Processes

Spiritual benefits: Spiritual intimacy. Researchers currently examining sanctification and the transition to parenthood for first-time parents (Mahoney et al., 2006) created an 8-item measure of spiritual intimacy, which was used in the present study. Statements reflected comfort in disclosing and discussing openly spiritual questions, needs, and struggles within one’s marriage (e.g., “I feel safe being completely open and honest with my spouse about my faith”).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 40

Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (a great deal). The

eight items were summed, with higher scores indicating greater perceived spiritual intimacy with

one’s spouse. This measure is provided in Appendix R.

Drawing on spiritual resources: Religious individual coping with problems about marital sexuality. This study also examined individually-based religious coping strategies employed in handling problems related to marital sexuality. Thirty-six items from the Brief Religious Coping

Scale (Brief RCOPE; Pargament et al., 2000), were included. In the original RCOPE (Pargament et al., 2000), there were 21 subscales representing both positive and negative religious coping strategies. From the full version of the survey, which contained 5 items per subscale, Pargament et al. (2000) selected 3 items from each subscale that could be used for a brief measure of the

RCOPE. For the purposes of this study, all 21 subscales were reviewed, and 12 subscales were selected as most conceptually relevant. The suggested 3 items for the shorter version were included from each subscale. Some subscales from the full version, for example, reflected seeking support from clergy and other people or avoiding people of different faiths which did not seem applicable or likely responses to sexually related problems in marriage.

The 12 subscales selected included six positive religious coping subscales (Active

Religious Surrender, Benevolent Religious Reappraisal, Collaborative Religious Coping,

Religious Focus, Religious Purification, and Seeking Spiritual Support) and six negative religious coping subscales (Demonic Reappraisal, Passive Religious Deferral, Pleading for

Direct Intercession, Punishing God Reappraisal, Reappraisal of God’s Power, and Spiritual

Discontent). Positive religious coping items reflect seeking God’s love and care, collaborating with God to problem-solve, making sense of the situation with God, seeking forgiveness, and actively turning the situation over to God, for example. Negative religious coping items include

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 41

deciding the problem is the work of the devil, questioning God’s love, pleading to God for a

resolution, and feeling abandoned by God in such time of need, for example. All items were

rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (a great deal). Positive and negative religious coping items were summed separately to create a total positive religious coping score and a total negative religious coping score, respectively.

Different versions of the RCOPE (e.g., Pargament et al., 1998; Pargament et al., 2000;

Pargament et al., 2005) have been applied to college students, hospitalized patients over the age

of 55, and community samples. To date, only one study (Mahoney et al., 2006) has explored

religious coping within a married sample. Among these samples, the subscales of the RCOPE

evidence strong reliability (range of alphas .61-.94; Pargament et al., 2000). The scale as it is

modified for the present study is included in Appendix S.

Instrumentation: Qualitative Information

Participants were given the opportunity at the end of the survey to provide additional

information to the researcher. They were asked to reflect on the potential role God (Higher

Power, etc.) and religion and/or spirituality has played in one’s sexuality as a married person,

and how one’s view of God and religion and/or spirituality has shaped his/her sexuality as a

spouse and married life, in general. Participants were also asked to provide additional comments

or feedback on the survey. These questions are provided in Appendix T.

Survey packets were organized with an intermixture of demographic, sexual,

psychological, and spiritual variables so as to minimize potential response bias by highly

religious individuals. The Sanctification of Marital Sexuality scale was presented in the middle

of the survey.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 42

Additional Instrumentation

Additional constructs were measured in order to obtain baseline information prior to

Time 2 data collection. Primary goals of the second phase of this project will be to assess changes in the above processes over the course of one year and to explore such sexual, psychological, and spiritual functioning when beliefs of the sanctification of marital sexuality may be violated by serious sexual wrongdoings, such as infidelity. With this in mind, other constructs were measured at Time 1, with the intention to compare with Time 2 results. These constructs included global assessments of serious sexual wrongdoings by self and spouse, desecration, secular and spiritual forgiveness, post-traumatic secular growth, post-traumatic spiritual growth, and global and specific depression, anger, and anxiety. These measures will be described in subsequent research that reports on follow-up (Time 2) data collection.

Procedure

One method was employed to recruit participants who are newly married. Participants were identified through public records of couples who filed for marriage licenses in a midsized metropolitan area in the Midwest between January 2006 and April 2007. Previous studies

(Chadiha, Veroff, & Leber, 1998; Ruvolo, 1998; Sullivan, 2001) recruited newlyweds using marriage licenses and newspaper advertisements, for example. The objective of utilizing marriage license records was to acquire an unbiased sample in terms of religious and marital variables. In other words, recruitment was not directed to specific religious institutions or groups, or to relatively high-functioning spouses, such as the employment of married parents of undergraduate students.

Postcards were sent to 1,111 prospective participants, indicating that they have been identified through public marriage license records, and inviting them to participate in a study on

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 43

“your view of your marriage.” Included on the postcard was a World Wide Web address for the

survey from which interested participants could complete the survey, and the researcher’s contact information with which interested participants request further information or that paper

surveys be mailed to them (see Appendix U). A similar procedure was employed by other

researchers (Sullivan, 2001, who recruited 172 married couples via marriage license records).

Those completing surveys via mail received a postage paid, return addressed envelope in which

the participant mailed in the completed survey.

Both types of participation were prefaced by informed consent forms (see Appendix V).

Participants who completed a mailed survey were asked to retain the consent form for their

records, with their submission of a completed survey as indicative of their consent to participate.

Participants who completed a survey online were asked to submit to the online agreement that

they had read and understood the information summarized in the consent form. They provided

contact information in order for compensation to be mailed to them and so that they may be

contacted for Time 2 of the project. In addition, they were asked to provide contact information

of up to three other individuals (e.g., spouse, relative, friend, co-worker) for the researcher to

contact should she somehow lose contact with the participant in the interim between Times 1 and

2 of the project (e.g., change of address, new telephone number and participant did not inform

researcher of such change).

It should be noted that, while married couples were identified initially, only one spouse

from each newly married couple was identified. It was suspected that it would be difficult to

recruit and maintain couple participation for both phases of this project. Newly married

individuals were thus recruited for Time 1 of this project, with a survey item included that

assessed participant’s estimation that one’s spouse would be interested in participating and

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 44 would follow through with participation. Eighty-three of the 84 participants responded to this item, with a surprising 67.9% indicating the perception that their spouse would be interested in participating and would likely follow through. Nineteen percent reported that spousal participation would be unlikely, and 11.9% shared that while their spouse may be interested, they would likely not follow through. This information is useful for Time 2 of this project, however it should be noted that these percentages reflect merely participants’ perceptions of their spouses’ interest in and follow-through with participation.

Among the prospective participants identified in license records with phone numbers listed in the white pages, and who did not complete the survey online or request a survey by mail within one month of mailing of the postcard, a follow up phone call was placed to assess their interest in participation. Messages were left when answering services were available. One disadvantage to this method of which was evident here is a history of poor response rates.

Sullivan (2001), for example, reported an 18% response rate of prospective participants, but upon calling those individuals to further determine interest in participating, had a 56% success rate (percentage based on individuals invited to participate after returning recruitment postcards and being interviewed to determine eligibility). With respect to the present study, only 22% of the identified, potential sample had available phone numbers by which they could be contacted

(i.e., numbers identified via online searchers and local phone book searches). Over half of these numbers were attempted, however close to 30% (29.5%) included disconnected or wrong numbers, and when messages were left, only about 7% were returned to the researcher.

Moreover, when answering services were unavailable (20.1% of numbers attempted), three attempts were made to contact the number before that individual was deleted from the list of potential participants. Based on these poor responses via telephone, additional numbers were not

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 45

tried. It was suspected that the increased use of cellular phones as the sole method of telephone

contact (i.e., no land lines or unlisted phone numbers) contributed to the difficulty in identifying

and contacting participants via telephone.

A summary of response rates is provided in Table 3. Because of the difficulty in

determining the total number of postcards actually received (43 of 1,111 returned to

researcher/sender), and the limited availability for continued solicitation, determination of an

exact response rate was not possible and when provided, represented a conservative estimate. It

is suggested then that the following percentages explained be understood with this point of

caution. Out of 1,068 postcards sent, it cannot be determined the number which were actually received, however 96 (9%) individuals responded and received surveys. Eight surveys were not returned and these participants did not respond to follow up phone calls when attempted. There was a 91.7% completion rate, with 88/ 96 participants following through and returning completed surveys. However, four participants were found to be ineligible. Eighty-four individuals out of 1,068 (7.9%) completed surveys and were included in Time 1 of the project.

Although these rates were considerably lower than other studies’ response rates (e.g., 16.8% reported by Young et al., 1998), they were highly conservative estimates.

Participants were required to be at least 18 years-old. It was requested that participants

were married for at least 3 months, and no more than 18 months at the time of recruitment.

Participants must currently live with their respective spouses. In order to complete the survey,

participants must also read and speak English. The majority of these criteria were applied in

previous studies on newlyweds and other married couples (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, &

George, 2001; Story, Rothman, & Bradbury, 2002; Sullivan, 2001). Although it was a goal to

include participants for whom it was their first marriage, and who did not have children from

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 46 their current marriage or any prior relationship (as such could be viewed as potentially confounding variables), the recruitment process did not limit participation in this manner.

Because 28.5% of participants had been married previously and 44% of participants reported having one or more children, such criteria was not a basis of removing cases from statistical analyses, but rather was controlled for in regression analyses.

The survey materials required approximately 30-40 minutes to complete. As compensation for participating in the study, participants received a $20 Visa traveler’s check. All necessary applications for Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board

(HSRB) were completed and approval granted prior to data collection.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 47

RESULTS

Preliminary Data Analyses: Descriptive Statistics

Global religiousness. Participants were inquired about various global religious

characteristics in order to assess the representativeness of religiousness in this study. Most of the

participants described themselves as slightly religious (36.9%) or moderately religious (35.7%).

However, participants expressed higher spirituality than religiousness. Specifically, 28.6%

described themselves as slightly spiritual, 39.3% as moderately spiritual, and 21.4% as very

spiritual.

Participants reported various frequencies of attendance of religious services. Nineteen percent reported never attending religious services; 15.5% attend less than once a year; 2.4%

once a year; 26.2% several times a year; 4.8% once a month; 7.1% attend 2-3 times a month; 6%

nearly every week; 11.9% every week; and 7.1% more than once a week. Participants also

indicated frequency of prayer, with 15.5% never praying, 16.7% praying less than once a week,

9.5% once a week, 19% several times a week, 13.1% once a day, and 26.2% several times a day

(see Table 2).

Data from the General Social Survey (GSS; National Opinion Research Center, 2006)

were used to determine whether the present sample was reflective of the general religiousness of

a national sample. With respect to self-ratings of religiousness and spirituality, the sample was

slightly less religious and less spiritual than a national sample (see Figures 1 and 2). Figure 3

displays rough similarity between the current and national samples with respect to frequency of

religious service attendance. Slightly different options existed for the General Social Survey

scales of frequency of prayer, and comparisons therefore cannot be made accurately.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 48

Belief in God. Participants largely acknowledged some belief in God. Close to 62% of

participants reported believing in God and having no doubt that God exists; 17.9% believe in

God although acknowledged having doubts; and 3.6% find themselves believing in God some of

the time but not others. A relatively modest 9.5% did not believe in God but rather believed in

some Higher Power; 4.8% did not know about their belief in God nor believed there is a way to

find out; and 2.4% did not believe in God (see Table 2).

Biblical conservatism. A measure of Biblical conservatism revealed a mean of 6.24 (SD =

2.58), with a possible and actual scores ranging from 2 to 10 (also see Table 2). This indicates

slightly above average conservative Christian views of the Bible, despite a lesser degree of self-

rated religiousness when compared to a national sample.

Relationship history. For 71.4% of participants, their present marriage represented their

only marriage. For 19% of participants, their current marriage represented their second marriage.

Other participants had been married twice (8.3%) or three times (1.2%) previously. The average

length which individuals had been married at the time of their initial participation (as of

9/1/2007) was 12.64 months (SD = 4.90), with ranges from about 4 months to 18 months (4.01-

18.29). The average length of engagement was 12.54 months (SD = 13.62), with ranges from 0-

77 months. More broadly, most participants had been in their current relationship for slightly

over four years, with an average of 49.15 months (SD = 32.56; ranges from 3-144 months).

When participants chose to cohabit prior to marriage (75% of the sample), they ranged in length

of 1 to 120 months (M = 21.69; SD = 26.49). This information is also presented in Table 4.

Sexual history and current activity. Participants indicated a mean age of 17.82 years

when they first engaged in sexual intercourse (SD = 3.76), with a range of 7-28 years-old and age

7 serving as an outlier (otherwise, ages 12-28 years). Prior to dating, engagement, and marriage

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 49 to one’s current spouse, 65.5% were sexually active with other partners. Moreover, prior to participants’ current marriage, 84.5% were sexually active with their partner. Forty-four percent of participants indicated they and/or their partners currently use contraception, primarily birth control, condoms, IUD, or Nuvaring (via self report). Reported frequencies of orgasm during sexual activity with one’s spouse were positively skewed.

Participants were also asked what they believed were their spouse’s sexual activities during their respective relationships. While dating and being engaged to their current partner,

15.5% reported believing their spouse had been unfaithful. Since marriage, 2.4% of participants believe their spouse had been unfaithful. See Table 5 for a summary.

Presence of children. Over half of the sample indicated not having children (56%), with a total range of 0 to 9 children. Among those who have children (n = 37), participants reported a range of 1-8 children (M = 2.38; SD =1.71). Over 70% of participants reported having no children with one’s spouse. Among those with children with one’s spouse (28.6%), participants reported having one or two children (M = 1.42; SD = .72). Moreover, 42.9% indicated having children currently residing at their home (M = 1.94; SD = .92; range 1-3). Research supports

(Perren, Von Wyl, Burgin, Simoni, & Von Klitzing, 2005) that the presence of children impacts marital quality, such as marital satisfaction, among other factors. Only a small percentage of participants reported that they or their spouse were pregnant (9.5%; also see Table 6).

Predictor variable: The sanctification of marital sexuality scale. This study aimed to introduce the sanctification of marital sexuality to the empirical realm and to determine whether newly married individuals sanctify their sexual relationship with their spouse. Eighty-three of the

84 participants completed the measure. The mean rating of the belief in the Manifestation of God in sexual relationship with one’s spouse was 34.42 (SD = 18.36; range 10-70; Cronbach α = .97;

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 50

r = .96 with total sanctification score, p < .01). This resulted in a roughly normal distribution (see

Figure 4). The mean rating of the Sexual Qualities of Marital Sexuality was slightly higher

(M = 40.22; SD = 17.76; range 10-70; Cronbach α = .95; r = .95 with total sanctification score,

p < .01), resulting in a roughly normal distribution (see Figure 5). Alphas were similar to, but

higher than prior research on the sanctification of sex in loving, premarital relationships

(Murray-Swank et al., 2005).

Participants utilized the full range of possible ratings on both subscales, however tended

to rate higher the belief that their sexual relationship was “sacred” or “holy” than that God is

made present in their shared sexuality. See Table 7 for percentages of responses, organized

according to responses “below neutral,” “neutral,” and “above neutral” for each of the

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality items. Examination of the distribution of total scores of

sanctification of marital sexuality (see Figure 6) as well as individual subscale scores highlights that scores do not fit ideal normal distributions. Participants did, however, produce relatively variable scores which utilized the entire range of response options.

When items from the two subscales were combined into a total sanctification score (range

10-140), participants reported a mean score of 74.76 (SD = 34.37; Cronbach α = .98). As hypothesized, the two subscales were strongly correlated (r = .82, p < .01), suggesting significant

overlap in the constructs being assessed. Therefore, the more one perceives God to be present in

his/her marital sexual relationship, the greater that relationship is perceived to be sacred or

spiritual. However, given the very high internal consistency of each subscale and the fact their

intercorrelation was not above .85, each sanctification subscale was treated as a distinct variable

in correlational analyses and in multiple regression equations in order to determine if either

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 51

subscale score added unique variance over and above the other subscale score when predicting

criterion variables.

Also see Table 8 for a summary of scores for both predictor and criterion variables,

including frequencies, means and standard deviations, and ranges of scores. Alphas are reported

where relevant.

Criterion variables: Sexual functioning. While dating and being engaged to one’s current

spouse, 10.7% reported being sexually unfaithful. Since being married, 4.8% indicated being sexually unfaithful to their current spouse. Given the relatively small sample size and low base rate of sexual infidelity, sexual fidelity as a criterion variable was dropped from subsequent analyses. 1

Participants disclosed both average monthly sexual frequency with their spouse as well as

estimated how often they engaged in sexual intercourse with their spouse during the month prior

to their participation. They indicated the following frequencies for a typical month: 3.6% not at

all, 11.9% 1-4 times, 21.4% 5-8 times, 20.2% 9-12 times, 15.5% 13-16 times, 9.5% 17-20 times,

9.5% 21-24 times, 6.0% 25-29 times, and 2.4% 30 or more times. Furthermore, they indicated a

mean last month sexual frequency of 10.71 (SD = 9.06), which is lower than what previous research reported (Greenblat, 1983 reported a mean monthly frequency of 14-15 times during the first year of marriage for 80 individuals).

1 Because of the low base rate for sexual infidelity among the current sample, preliminary analyses were also conducted combining scores on sexual fidelity prior to and since marriage; no significant correlations were observed, therefore confirming that sexual fidelity could be dropped from analyses.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 52

Sexual satisfaction and sexual intimacy scores were slightly, positively skewed. Such results are not surprising given that such measures would seem to inherently produce relatively high scores, and this is particularly relevant for and descriptive of a newlywed sample and the typical “honeymoon period” during which they were reporting. Moreover, 51.2% reported experiencing, on a global level, no distress from sexual problems since getting married to one’s current spouse.

Criterion variables: Psychological functioning. With respect to psychological investment, or activities aimed to create and maintain the marital sexual bond as a couple, participants reported they and their spouses typically engage in an average of 8 activities since marriage (SD = 2.65). The most frequent activities included affectionate touching (89.3%), sensual touching (86.9%), going on dates (85.7%), and disclosing each other’s personal likes and dislikes when sexually intimate (81%).

In general, marital satisfaction scores resulted in a slightly, positively skewed distribution

(M = 17.37, SD = 4.45).

Maladaptive secular coping scores produced a slightly negatively skewed distribution

(M = 26.90, SD = 10.55). A mean score of 17.63 for adaptive secular coping was reported

(SD = 6.57). Participants thus reported utilizing fewer of these strategies to handle sexual difficulties faced in marriage.

With regard to divorce proneness, half of the sample reported never considering the prospect of divorcing one’s current spouse or having consulted with one’s spouse or an attorney regarding divorce or separation. Moreover, for only 2.4% of the sample (i.e., 2 out of 84 participants), they had considered such factors within the last 3 months, meaning seriously considering divorce shortly after being married. The mean score on this measure was 2.86

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 53

(SD = 3.91), suggesting no to little amounts of consideration of or proneness to divorce. Because

of the low endorsement of the divorce proneness measure, this criterion was dropped from

subsequent analyses.

Criterion variables: Spiritual functioning. It should be noted that, similar to maladaptive

secular coping, negative religious coping scores also produced a negatively skewed distribution

with a mean of 9.05 (SD = 11.15). Participants therefore generally did not use maladaptive

coping strategies to face marital sexual difficulties. In contrast, a relatively high mean number of

positive religious coping strategies were endorsed (M = 17.65, SD = 15.70). Participants also indicated moderate to high amounts of spiritual intimacy (M = 16.80, SD = 5.22).

Data Analysis: Inferential Statistics

Bivariate correlations with conventional religiousness. Pearson product moment

correlation coefficients used significance levels corresponding to one-tailed tests, given that all

hypotheses had clear directionality. Two-tailed tests were utilized with noted demographic or

descriptive variables and criteria. Where ordinal variables were used, Spearman rank correlation

coefficients were calculated.

Preliminary data analyses were conducted to determine the links between the

sanctification of marital sexuality and the general religiousness variables. These religiousness

variables, specifically frequency of religious service attendance and prayer, self-rated religiousness and spirituality, belief in God, and Biblical conservatism, all constitute what may be better considered global or conventional religiousness. All correlations were significant and positive (see Table 9). The strongest correlation within this set of variables was between the

Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality subscale and self-rated religiousness ( rs [83] = .58,

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 54

p < .001). The least strong correlation was between greater Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality

and more frequent attendance of religious services (rs [83] = .32, p < .01). In other words,

moderately strong links were found among all variables, although not as strong so as to suggest

redundancy between sanctification of marital sexuality and types of conventional religiousness.

With respect to criterion variables, conventional religiousness variables tended to correlate primarily with spiritually-oriented constructs such as positive and negative religious coping. In fact, greater use of positive religious coping correlated positively with all

conventional religiousness variables, producing a range of correlations from rs (83) = .49 (p <

.001) with self-rated spirituality, to rs (83) = .60 (p’s < .001) each with frequency of religious

service attendance and prayer. Greater spiritual intimacy correlated with higher self-rated

religiousness and spirituality (p’s < .05). Furthermore, no psychologically-oriented criteria

correlated significantly with conventional religiousness variables. Interestingly, regarding sexual

criteria, a higher average monthly sexual frequency associated with greater self-ratings of

religiousness ( rs [84] = .23, p < .05), suggesting those endorsing greater religiousness also had

more frequent sexual activity with their spouse.

Bivariate correlations with demographic variables. Bivariate correlations (two-tailed)

were also calculated among the sanctification measure and the following demographic variables:

age, gender, education, income, number of times married, length of marriage, number of

children, and number of children currently residing in participant’s home. These variables were

determined to be most conceptually relevant to the criterion variables (e.g., presence of children impacting marital and sexual satisfaction), and thus may impact associations with the sanctification of marital sexuality. Table 10 provides a summary of these findings. Overall, all sanctification scores correlated significantly with age and number of children residing in the

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 55

home (p’s < .05). Correlations were also conducted between criteria and demographic variables,

resulting in low to moderate associations (see Table 10). For completeness, age, gender,

education, income, number of times married, length of marriage, number of children, and

number of children currently residing were demographic variables included in subsequent

regression analyses.

Correlations among criterion variables. See Table 11 for a summary of bivariate correlations among criterion variables. This table highlights the notably strong correlation between average monthly frequency of sexual intercourse and last month sexual intercourse

frequency ( rs [84] = .84, p < .001), which suggests likely redundancy. Therefore, only average monthly frequency of sexual intercourse was selected to be included in analyses, given this measure likely encapsulates, in part, what participants considered was their previous monthly frequency. Otherwise, correlations summarized in Table 11 supported that variables were sufficiently distinctive to be treated as separate dependent variables.

Links between sanctification of marital sexuality and sexual, psychological, and spiritual criteria. As 83 out of 84 participants fully completed the Sanctification of Marital Sexuality measure, n = 83 for the following results (see Table 12 for a summary). One set of hypotheses focused on sexual benefits and investment that may be linked to the sanctification of marital sexuality. Contrary to past research on the sanctification of sex (Murray-Swank et al., 2005) and present hypotheses, average monthly sexual frequency did not correlate with the sanctification of marital sexuality. Additional correlations among sexual criterion variables supported hypotheses and were all significant at p < .05. Specifically, greater endorsement of both Sacred Qualities and

Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality related to less reported global distress from sexual

problems (r = -.23 and -.21, respectively). Moreover, higher sanctification subscale scores were

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 56

linked with greater sexual satisfaction (r = .36 for Sacred Qualities and .28 for Manifestation of

God) and intimacy (r = .30 for Sacred Qualities and .20 for Manifestation of God). In fact,

contrary to assumptions within the field and among society that religious beliefs do not allow for

positive sexual experiences, the strongest correlation observed within this set of criteria was

between sexual satisfaction and Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality.

A second set of hypotheses emphasized how sanctification of marital sexuality may

correspond with psychological or secular resources and efforts to invest in this aspect of the

relationship. Findings (p’s < .05) supported hypotheses that both Sacred Qualities and

Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality would be linked with greater investment (i.e., time

and effort) as a couple in the sexual bond (r = .30 and .28, respectively) and marital satisfaction

(r = .28 and .21, respectively). The sanctification of marital sexuality subscales, however, did not

correlate with either adaptive or maladaptive secular coping.

A third set of hypotheses concentrated on potential spiritual resources and benefits as

they related to the sanctification of marital sexuality. In general, two of the three spiritually-

related hypotheses were supported and results within this set generated some of the strongest

correlations of all criteria (r’s from .28 to .50, p’s < .01). Greater spiritual intimacy was linked with both perceiving God to be manifest in the sexual relationship (r = .34) and that the sexual

relationship is sacred and spiritual (r = .37). Furthermore, sanctifying the marital sexual

relationship associated with increased use of positive as well as negative religious coping

strategies. In fact, positive and negative religious coping were strongly, positively correlated

(r[83] = .70, p < .001; see Table 11). Positive religious coping correlated significantly with both

Sacred Qualities and Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality (r = .39 and r = .50,

respectively). Contrary to the initial hypothesis, greater negative religious coping correlated

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 57 significantly with higher scores on both sanctification of marital sexuality subscales (r = .30 with

Sacred Qualities and r = .28 with Manifestation of God, respectively). This suggested that religious coping with sexual difficulties served as potentially a resource and struggle for newly married individuals, as negative religious coping applied here to feeling God abandoned one in the midst of sexual difficulties and sexual problems were the work of the devil, for example.

Regression analyses. Separate hierarchical, multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore whether the sanctification of marital sexuality was a unique variable in the prediction of sexual, psychological, and spiritual processes above and beyond demographic characteristics and conventional religiousness. Only those criterion variables that correlated with the total score of the sanctification of marital sexuality were included (i.e., global distress from sexual problems, sexual satisfaction, sexual intimacy, time/effort to sexually bond as a couple, marital satisfaction, spiritual intimacy, positive religious coping, negative religious coping). In other words, only where both sanctification subscales correlated with criteria were regression analyses conducted; this facilitated exploration into which subscale potentially accounted for unique significance.

It should be noted that regression analyses were conducted such that the uniqueness of the sanctification of marital sexuality as a whole, as well as the unique influence of its separate parts via the two subscales (i.e., Sacred Qualities and Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality) could be examined simultaneously. Furthermore, rather than combine the religious and spiritual variables that form what is conceptualized here as a traditional or conventional sense of religiousness, these variables were also entered separately so that their integrated influence as well as unique contributions were analyzed in order to reveal exactly what propelled significance. Prior research on sanctification combined a number of religious variables into a

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 58 single global index (e.g., Murray-Swank et al., 2005), thus losing a precise understanding of the regression models and related significance. Moreover, prior studies included both demographic and religious variables into a single step. The following regression models separated these variables so as to glean how much conventional religiousness, both in and of itself and with respect to the individual constructs, contributed to the overall model. It is acknowledged that this represented a noticeably conservative test of the power of sanctification of marital sexuality, particularly for a variable in its infancy stage of empirical investigation. However, it was posited that the regression equations as they were structured here would illuminate a more detailed lens through which to see the role of each construct; such robust tests ultimately support continued, similar approaches to testing the strength of sanctifying one’s sexual relationship in marriage.

In Step 1 of each regression analysis, relevant demographic variables were entered into the equation (i.e., age, gender, education, income, number of times married, length of current marriage, number of children, number of children residing). In Step 2 of each analysis, all variables comprising a conventional idea of religiousness, defined primarily as traditional religiousness and global religious variables common to studies in the psychology and sociology of religion, were entered (i.e., frequency of religious service attendance, frequency of prayer, self-rated religiousness and spirituality, Biblical conservatism, belief in God). In Step 3, the two subscales of the sanctification of marital sexuality were entered. Of special importance with the final step was to understand whether one subscale was associated with unique results once the other subscale was controlled for, and once demographic and conventional religiousness variables were controlled. See Tables 13-15 for results.

With respect to global distress from sexual problems, sexual satisfaction, and sexual intimacy, regression models as a whole accounted for a remarkable 41%, 43%, and 44% of the

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 59

variance, respectively. Moreover, the sanctification of marital sexuality measure itself accounted for 12%, 10%, and 13% of the variance, respectively. Regarding global distress experienced from sexual problems, exploration of the standardized beta weights highlights that household income exerted a negative impact whereas length of current marriage had a positive influence, suggesting that less income and longer durations of marriage related to participants reporting greater global distress; these are the only individual variables which had a significant, unique influence on the model for global distress. The separate sanctification of marital sexuality subscales did not have a unique impact on global distress from sexual problems, however the sanctification measures together as a whole was significant (F[16, 65] = 2.79, p < .01).

Several variables contributed significant effects on sexual satisfaction. This included a

negative impact of gender (i.e., females were more satisfied sexually), number of children

residing in the home (i.e., fewer children associated with greater sexual satisfaction), and belief

in God (i.e., less belief in God related to greater sexual satisfaction). Positive influences on

sexual satisfaction included self-rated religiousness and Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality

( β = .53 for both variables, p’s < .01), meaning higher self-rated religiousness and belief that the marital sexual relationship is sacred was linked with greater sexual satisfaction. The total sanctification of marital sexuality score also accounted for unique variance in the prediction of participants’ sexual satisfaction (F[16, 65] = 3.04, p < .001).

The Sacred Qualities subscale also had a positive effect on sexual intimacy after taking

into account the influence of Manifestation of God of Marital Sexuality ( β = .51, p < .01), and

the total sanctification measure contributed significant variance to the model (F[16, 65] = 3.13,

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 60

p < .001). Only gender exerted a negative effect on sexual intimacy, similar to sexual

satisfaction, suggesting that females tended to report more satisfaction and intimacy with their

sexual relationship with spouses.

Considering regression models for psychological investment in the marital sexual bond as

a couple and marital satisfaction, moderate amounts of variance were accounted for (41% and

39%, respectively). Two variables obtained significant influence on investment in the sexual

bond in marriage, specifically shorter duration of the current marriage and less belief in God.

Although neither subscale of the sanctification of marital sexuality contributed unique influence

in and of themselves, the total sanctification score accounted for a notable 17% of the total

variance in investment (F[16, 65] = 2.80, p < .01). In terms of marital satisfaction, while the first

step of the regression – entering demographic characteristics – did not produce a significant model, the number of children residing in the household exerted a significant negative influence on being satisfied with the marriage. Moreover, conventional religiousness as a whole contributed significant variance in marital satisfaction, with significance being found in particular with less frequent prayer and higher self-rated religiousness. The sanctification of marital sexuality also contributed significant variance to the model (F[16, 65] = 2.57, p < .01), with greater endorsement of Sacred Qualities contributing a positive, unique effect above and beyond the Manifestation of God subscale ( β = .49, p < .05).

Exploration of spiritual criterion variables revealed varied results. No step of the

regression model for spiritual intimacy was significant, with only few demographic variables

offering significant, unique contributions. Specifically, greater income and being married fewer

times contributed significant variance to spiritual intimacy. Furthermore, the sanctification of

marital sexuality, meaning both the total score and individual subscales, did not add significance.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 61

This is in contrast to both positive and negative religious coping, where each step of the regression model accounted for significant variance. With both types of religious coping, the sanctification of marital sexuality explained the smallest amounts of variance than when compared to other criterion variables. Specifically, total sanctification of marital sexuality explained only 1% of the variance in positive religious coping (F[16, 65] = 4.40, p < .001), and

5% of the variance in negative religious coping (F[16, 65] = 2.36, p < .01); results did not reveal unique effects of the individual sanctification subscales. Exploration of standardized betas revealed that while only higher education associated with decreased negative religious coping, higher positive religious coping was explained by less education and fewer children residing in the home. Overall, 53% and 37% of the total variance was accounted for in positive and negative religious coping, respectively, using the current regression models.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 62

DISCUSSION

Summary

This study is the first to consider the integration of religion and sexuality within marriage. Although major religious traditions, in their literature and institutions, support and sanctify marital sexuality as a powerful union which evidences humans’ relationship with the divine (Freeman, 1988; Hunt, 1987; Rosenau & Sytsma, 2004), empirical research has offered no such parallel until now. In other words, this study is the first to attempt to support the extent to which newly married individuals perceive their marital sexual relationship within a religious context. In fact, about three-fourths of the sample agreed or strongly agreed (74.7%) that the sexual bond shared with one’s spouse is sacred. Moreover, close to half of the participants (47%) agreed or strongly agreed that being in a sexual relationship with one’s spouse is a reflection of

God’s will. Such findings begin to emphasize how newly married individuals may assimilate religious and spiritual beliefs in their expression and experience of sexuality. As described later, these results shed light on the importance of continued exploration of the sanctification of marital sexuality in both research and clinical contexts.

The conceptual framework of this study (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005) further highlights the potential power of perceiving marital sexuality through a sacred lens in predicting links with sexual and non-sexual facets of marital sexuality. A primary conclusion is that a positive view of marital sexuality is generally observed for newly married individuals. Overall, the sanctification of marital sexuality was prevalent and tied robustly to sexual, psychological, and spiritual domains of marriage and marital sexuality. It should be kept in mind that such findings emerged within a sample of participants who were less religious and spiritual than a national sample

(GSS; National Opinion Research Center, 2006).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 63

Moreover, in conservative tests of the power of the sanctification of marital sexuality, the regression models were tested for sexual, psychological, and spiritual criteria and included multiple indicators of demographic and religious status. In theory, such analyses “stack the deck” against finding unique importance to the sanctification of marital sexuality. Nevertheless, the sanctification of marital sexuality added to the prediction of lower global distress over sexual problems, greater sexual satisfaction and intimacy, more time and effort devoted to the sexual relationship, greater marital satisfaction, and greater levels of positive and negative religious coping when dealing with sexual difficulties. In short, significant results emerged in all but one of the eight regression models tested (i.e., spiritual intimacy). Each regression model highlights how each set of variables (i.e., demographic, conventional religiousness, sanctification of marital sexuality) accounts for a sizable amount of variance and also tells an important story as to how certain variables within each set have their own unique influence. Overall, general religious variables such as belief in God, frequency of prayer, and self-rated religiousness, in addition to basic demographics such as gender, income, education, length of marriage, and the presence of children in the home had the greatest impact out of the broad range of conventional religious and demographic factors assessed. However, the two combined subscales of the sanctification of marital sexuality accounted for sizable amounts of variance even after accounting for these factors.

It is important to note that Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality often played a significant role in accounting for each outcome after controlling for the influence of Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality. However, the Manifestation of God subscale did not demonstrate such power in producing unique effects. An implication here is that perceiving one’s sexual relationship in marriage as sacred is potent in and of itself, and is relatively more influential than

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 64 believing God is made present and influential in the marital sexual bond. One may imagine this has implications for individuals who believe in the sacred qualities of otherwise secular objects and relationships, without specific reference to God or a Higher Power (i.e., non-theistic sanctification).

These findings also potentially speak to participants’ comfort with a more indirect sanctification of the sexual relationship, as a number of individuals offered qualitative comments indicating it was awkward and “uncomfortable” to imagine God as some third party in moments of sexual intimacy. For example, one participant shared, “ …. I can’t say I’m thinking about God when I’m having sex.” Another participant wrote, “ …. I don’t think God and sex should be used in the same sentence.” One participant even spoke of feeling guilty when considering God and one’s marital sexual relationship, which echoes previous research on links between shame, guilt, and sexual attitudes and experiences (Murray et al., 2007).

One must keep in mind, however, that the two sanctification subscales were strongly correlated (r[83] = .82, p < .001); as participants perceived God as influential in their sexual relationship, they tended to also imbue their sexual relationship with qualities that are connected to God, even if indirectly (e.g., holy, eternal, sacred, miracle). While this correlation suggests possible overlap or redundancy, such qualitative responses from participants as well as results from regression analyses suggest a greater ease or preference for perceiving marital sexuality through a non-theistic “sacred” lens, rather than as linked directly with God and God’s influence.

The above quotes may also help explain why the Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality subscale did not emerge as a unique contributor to variance after controlling for the Sacred

Qualities subscale. In other words, regression analyses accentuate how perceiving sexuality as having sacred qualities played a distinctive role beyond the degree to which such perceptions

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 65

may stem from the belief that God is experienced within sexuality. The majority of the sample

(61.9%) did endorse absolute belief in the existence of God, so it may also be that God is not fully removed from the individual’s experience of marriage and sexuality. One perspective to adopt here is the possibility of diversity within unity – that is, while the two sanctification subscales are highly correlated (i.e., united in their overall mutual endorsement), there is diversity and uniqueness in the extent to which these subscales exert influence in the prediction of sexual and non-sexual aspects of functioning. It is through more conservative tests that these interesting findings were brought to light.

Understanding Marital Sexuality through the Conceptual Framework of the Effects of

Sanctification

Pargament and Mahoney (2005) summarized various effects of sanctification found to date in empirical research and organized them into a theoretical model. This model offered a structure to the present study, and correlational and regression results are further discussed below according to such implications.

Personal and relational benefits of the sanctified marital sexual relationship: Sexual,

psychological, and spiritual benefits. Perhaps some of the most notable effects of the

sanctification of marital sexuality can be understood within the context of benefits. These

benefits encompass sexual, psychological, and spiritual aspects of personal and relational

functioning. It is speculated that these findings may be particularly evident and meaningful for a

newly married sample, as the newlywed period (approximately the first 2 years of marriage) is

typically regarded as idyllic (Huston et al., 2001; James, 1981); participants may therefore be

experiencing the most benefits from a sanctified marital sexual relationship at this time.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 66

With respect to sexual functioning, both Sacred Qualities and Manifestation of God in

Marital Sexuality correlated positively with sexual satisfaction and intimacy. Participants who

sanctified their marital sexuality therefore tended to report experiencing higher satisfaction with

and intimacy in their sexual relationships with their respective spouses. Higher endorsement that

the marital sexual bond was sacred and a reflection of God and God’s presence also meant lower

reported global distress from sexual problems. Future research could explore more how

sanctification of marital sexuality may act as a buffer against distress experienced as a result of sexual difficulties; it is assumed that all couples experience sexually-related difficulties, however the extent to which they experience these as troubling and harming to the self and marriage may be lessened, or perhaps increased in the long-term, as a function of sanctifying the marital sexual relationship. Conversely, enjoying a sexual relationship which is free from significant difficulties may foster a sense that sexuality is a divine gift or experience. The cross-sectional nature of the data highlights possible reciprocal effects between sexual satisfaction and religious interpretations of sexuality.

After controlling for relevant demographic variables and conventional religiousness factors, total sanctification of marital sexuality contributed unique variance to the prediction of sexual satisfaction and intimacy, and global distress from sexual problems. In fact, total sanctification of marital sexuality scores contributed 10%, 13%, and 12% of the variance, respectively. Further, the combination of all variables included in the regression model accounted for a notable 43%, 44%, and 41% of the total variance in sexual satisfaction, sexual intimacy, and distress from sexual problems, respectively; each step of the regression equation was significant in contributing unique variance. While variables such as gender, number of children residing in the home, and belief in God revealed negative associations, self-rated

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 67

religiousness exerted a positive link. Although specific hypotheses were not established for

conventional religiousness variables, it is interesting that self-ratings of religiousness were

related to higher reports of sexual satisfaction – a finding that stands in contrast to what many

perceive to be an otherwise restrictive relationship between religion and sexuality. Additional

exploration of the regression models for sexual satisfaction and intimacy reveals more intriguing

results. For both criterion variables, Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality contributed unique

influence after controlling for Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality, suggesting there is something distinctive about indirect or non-theistic sanctification of the marital sexual

relationship which influences sexual satisfaction and intimacy for these newlyweds.

It should be noted that one proposed benefit of the sanctification of marital sexuality was

not found, specifically the frequency of sexual intercourse. With respect to benefits for sexual

functioning, the sanctification of marital sexuality appeared to have a reciprocal influence on the

perceived quality and benefits of sexuality within marriage, and not necessarily the behavioral

frequency of sexual activity. This is in contrast to Murray-Swank et al.’s (2005) study on

sanctified premarital sex, which was associated with more frequent sexual activity. The sexual

criterion variables correlating most strongly with sanctification here therefore highlighted perceptions and experiences which occur more proximally to moments of sexual closeness with one’s spouses (i.e., satisfaction, intimacy, distress).

Considering psychological benefits, greater satisfaction with marriage was associated with greater agreement that marital sexuality is sacred and makes present the influence of God.

Similar reasoning was applied with marital satisfaction as with the sexual satisfaction and

intimacy variables, specifically considering the honeymoon period during which data was

collected. Such reasoning will be tested in subsequent research (Time 2), as participants will

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 68

have “settled” more into married life with their current spouse and scores on such variables may likely decrease.

Controlling for a conventional sense of religiousness and demographic factors, the sanctification of marital sexuality explained 11% of variance in the prediction of marital satisfaction. With this regression model, demographic factors as a whole did not account for significant variance, however exploration of betas revealed that more children residing in the home was associated with lower marital satisfaction. Further, conventional religiousness as a whole as well as total sanctification of marital sexuality accounted for significant variance in marital satisfaction (14% and 11%, respectively; total model accounted for 39% of the variance).

Interestingly, Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality again accounted for a unique influence on marital satisfaction after controlling for the influence of the Manifestation of God subscale.

With respect to spiritual benefits of the sanctification of marital sexuality, a significant positive association emerged between both sanctification subscales and spiritual intimacy.

Participants who reported God to be manifest in their sexual relationship with their spouse and endorsed that bond as sacred therefore tended to report greater experiences of spiritual intimacy.

This significant bivariate correlation disappeared, however, after controlling for the influence of demographic and conventional religiousness variables. Such a finding cannot necessarily be explained by the strong correlation between the sanctification of marital sexuality and spiritual intimacy (r’s[83] = .37 [Sacred Qualities] and .34 [Manifestation of God], p’s < .001). While

strong and significant, these links do not suggest redundancy, but rather there are other important

variables not included in this study which contribute to the variance in spiritual intimacy.

Drawing on spiritual and psychological resources. Spiritual resources as they relate to

sanctification can be best understood within the context of coping with stressful life events. Life

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 69

events can be especially stressful when they impact a sanctified object or relationship. In the case

of marital sexuality, including within the newlywed period, sexual difficulties can range from

what some may consider to be manageable to more intense and impacting negatively the sexual

experience. Moreover, sexual problems are among the top concerns with which couples present

for therapy (Guldner & Guldner, 1992).

Spiritual resources for dealing with sexual difficulties thereby come into play when one

uses religious coping methods. Religious coping methods can be positive and negative

(Pargament, 1997). Whereas some individuals may call upon their relationship with God to help

them understand and handle collaboratively a given sexual problem (i.e., positive religious

coping), others may project anger toward God or feel God is abandoning them in their marital

sexual difficulties (i.e., negative religious coping). That individuals can use both positive and

negative religious coping skills was evident in the present study (bivariate correlations of .70 for

.83, respectively, for participants, p’s < .001). Moreover, participants who highly sanctified their marital sexual bond (i.e., both subscales of sanctification) tended to engage in higher amounts of both positive and negative religious coping; that is, religion and the personal relationship with

God served as both a resource and an area of struggle. In fact, the strongest bivariate correlation observed among the sanctification subscale scores and all criterion variables was between

Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality and positive religious coping (r[83] = .50, p < .001).

The second strongest correlation observed between the sanctification subscales and criterion

variables was between Sacred Qualities and positive religious coping (r[83] = .39, p < .001).

Despite these strong correlations, regression analyses revealed that total sanctification of marital sexuality accounted for a significant, but very small, percentage of the variance in positive and negative religious coping (1% and 5%, respectively); neither subscale explained unique variance

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 70

after controlling for the other’s influence. A remarkable 53% and moderate 37% of the variance

in positive and negative religious coping, respectively, was accounted for by all variables

included in the regression model. Moreover, 26% of the variance in positive religious coping was

accounted for by conventional religiousness as a whole; only 6% was accounted for when

considering negative religious coping.

Attention is warranted, in particular, to the role of negative religious coping in relation to the sanctification of marital sexuality, as a significant positive association was found, which was contrary to the initial hypothesis. Perhaps the experience of sexual problems in a relationship which is sanctified elicits spiritual struggles, also known as negative religious coping. It may be perceived that a relationship or bond which is sanctified would somehow be immune to stress and difficulties. When difficulties are experienced, they may be then perceived as violating that expectation of invulnerability and the sacred aspect of the sexual relationship, therefore engendering spiritual doubts, questions, and concerns. Furthermore, the amount of sexual difficulties experienced could potentially play a role in distinguishing coping mechanisms, however of greater relevance to this study was the distress experienced from difficulties, not necessarily the amount of stressors. Different stressors related to the sexual relationship may be common and of less intensity (e.g., wanting more or less frequent sexual activity), whereas others may be rare and more worrisome (e.g., sexual trauma and dysfunction).

Religiously-based coping, whether positive or negative, utilizes one’s relationship with

God. If an individual sanctifies the marital sexual relationship (i.e., theistic sanctification), this is the same God who is perceived to be present in and guiding this bond. When one experiences little to no sexual difficulties, God and God’s influence or the sacred qualities of the sexual bond are likely not questioned; rather, God may be more honored and celebrated. In contrast, when

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 71 one experiences sexual difficulties, specifically in a bond which is believed to be holy, God may be questioned or perceived to be abandoning or punishing those involved in that bond. Moreover, the religious coping items could reflect more proximal and ultimately more interpersonal processes, although the measure is a self-report based on individual thought and action. One may argue that one’s spouse is not necessarily involved in the positive and negative religious coping methods, as methods may be aimed to cope with the individual distress from the sexual problem.

However, if one sanctifies marital sexuality, specifically endorsing the Manifestation of God subscale items, it is possible that a perceived third partner – God – is involved in the religious coping strategies. For example, religious coping means a person relies on God and prayer for strength, or feels abandoned or rejected by God in times of need. The sanctification of marital sexuality alludes in part to God as a third partner, who is perceived to be very intimately connected to the marital sexual bond. Religious coping as conceived here may then be more interpersonal in nature.

Such an explanation suggests a revised conceptualization of religious coping skills with respect to the marital sexual relationship, and it should be noted that this is the first study to explore how religious coping is utilized when dealing with sexual difficulties in marriage. These results suggest that religious coping as measured here may, in fact, be interpersonally-oriented.

First, it is true that spouses together experiences times of strong communication, commitment, and intimacy. They also experience times of heightened tension and conflict, distance, and doubt.

Second, it is a natural extension that, if the sacred is perceived to be a third partner in a marriage, a similar dynamic of both “in good times and bad, in sickness and in health” would be experienced, hence the increased use of both positive and negative religious coping skills to manage sexual difficulties in a marital sexual relationship that is sanctified.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 72

Similar unique insights did not emerge when considering psychological resources of the

sanctification of marital sexuality. Significant correlations were not found between the

sanctification of marital sexuality subscales and adaptive or maladaptive secular coping methods.

This suggests there is something distinctive, and possibly more proximally relevant to the role of

religious coping with sexual difficulties in a marital sexual union that is sanctified. Following

this logic, one may reflect on how adaptive and maladaptive secular coping strategies may refer

to individually-oriented strategies to solve a problem rooted in the couple’s relationship. In

contrast, further following the ideas presented above, religious coping items may be more

interpersonally-oriented (i.e., utilizing one’s relationship with the sacred as a third partner). It is

possible that including a couple-based measure of secular coping could produce different results.

However, on a more basic level, one should continue to be mindful of the low base rate reported

of global distress from sexually-related problems (M = .67; possible range 0-3 with 51.2% endorsing no global distress). It may be the case that secular coping strategies were simply

unnecessary given the little distress experienced. On the other hand, it may be that secular coping

skills are not relevant whereas religious coping skills are pertinent.

Investment in the marital sexual bond. Pargament and Mahoney (2005) asserted that an

additional implication of sanctification would be greater investment in that which is sanctified.

The present study proposed, and results supported that enhanced sanctification of marital

sexuality would correlate with increased time and effort devoted to creating and maintaining the

marital sexual bond as a couple; both sanctification subscales were significantly positively

correlated with the criterion. Furthermore, once demographic and conventional religiousness

variables were accounted for, total sanctification of marital sexuality contributed a unique 17%

of the variance to psychological investment in the marital sexual bond; neither subscale emerged

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 73 as a unique influence. In fact, the initial two steps of the regression equation (i.e., demographic and conventional religiousness variables, respectively) were not significant. Nevertheless, a total of 41% of the variance in time and effort to sexually bond as a couple was explained by the overall regression model. It appears the sanctification of marital sexuality played an especially important role in psychological investment in the marital sexual bond.

Protecting and preserving marital sexuality. It was hypothesized that the sanctification of the marital sexual relationship would relate to participants engaging in more activities which served to protect and preserve that sacred bond. In the present study, such activities were conceptualized as sexual fidelity during the dating and engagement period as well as during the marriage to date. Moreover, it was posited that the marriage and sexual relationship within the marriage union would be preserved by choosing not to consider the option of divorce (i.e., divorce proneness). Both sexual fidelity and divorce proneness were dropped from analyses given the low endorsement of infidelity and of talking to one’s spouse and others about the possibility of divorce. Preliminary analyses revealed that less than 5% of the sample disclosed having been sexually unfaithful since the present marriage. Moreover, on a scale of 0-15, participants reported a mean of 2.86 on the divorce proneness measure, indicating that few thought or talked about divorce in these beginning months of marriage.

Although subsequent correlation and regression analyses were not conducted, it cannot be concluded that sanctification of marital sexuality does not influence one’s protection and preservation of the marital sexual bond. Consideration must be given to the timing of the study, that is when participants have been married only between 3 and 18 months; this represents a time for many that is relatively “blissful” and free from outside threats to the marriage. It would be necessary to gather longitudinal reports on these measures in order to assess change, and

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 74

therefore a potential increase in sexual infidelity and divorce proneness, which would then allow

for exploration of possible correlations as well as the predictive power of these constructs.

Marital Sexuality through a New Religious Lens

The power of the sanctification of marital sexuality beyond conventional religiousness.

Within the psychology of religion, variables capturing general levels of religiousness (e.g.,

church attendance, religious affiliation) often account for only a small portion of the variance in

psychological functioning in regression models, particularly when considering health related

outcomes (see Pargament, 1997 for more discussion about religion and health links). Not

surprisingly, however, general markers of religiousness tend to be modest to strong factors in

predicting specific aspects of spiritual functioning. If one views human sexuality as having

distinctive psychological and spiritual dimensions, one may expect general markers of

religiousness to be tied to spiritual ways of dealing with sexuality. One may further expect that

the sanctification of marital sexuality would have less room to account for spiritual functioning

after taking into account general religiousness. This notion is even supported by the present

study, specifically considering the strong, significantly positive correlations between all general

or conventional religiousness variables (r’s range from .32 between Sacred Qualities of Marital

Sexuality and frequency of religious service attendance, and .58 between Manifestation of God

in Marital Sexuality and self-rated religiousness). It would be assumed that potential overlap

between the sanctification of marital sexuality and general religiousness variables would mean

that sanctification would be considered less of a unique variable in and of itself.

However, this study demonstrated that the sanctification of marital sexuality was still tied

robustly to psychological and spiritual aspects of sexuality after controlling for a conventional

sense of religiousness. Keep in mind that conventional religiousness as it was entered into the

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 75 regression equation included six variables. The potential power of such a new variable as the sanctification of marital sexuality is also highlighted here among a sample of participants who was generally less religious and spiritual than a national sample (GSS; National Opinion

Research Center, 2006). The sanctification of marital sexuality measure contributed as little as

1% of the variance in positive religious coping and as much as 17% of the variance in psychological investment (i.e., time and effort) in the marital sexual bond after accounting for conventional religiousness and demographic factors. This is in part because conventional religiousness as a whole was quite relevant in predicting positive religious coping (e.g., 26% of the variance), which leaves less room for more in-depth religious variables such as the sanctification of marital sexuality to exert much power. In summary, regression results, in particular, revealed there is something unique about the psychospiritual construct of the sanctification of marital sexuality.

Qualitative responses. Some examples of qualitative responses have been provided in prior sections. Over 40 participants responded in some manner to the qualitative items. The goal of the qualitative portion was to facilitate descriptions of the sanctification of marital sexuality from the participants’ unique perspectives, in effect helping to bring the construct to life.

Regarding the question as to the role that God or the divine and one’s religion/spirituality plays in their sexuality as a married person, a number of participants articulated the language of sanctification. Sex was described as “a gift from God,” with “love and commitment” to one’s spouse as “a reflection of God’s love for me.” God was connected intimately to both creating sexuality and nurturing a positive relationship with one’s sexual partner and God. For example, one participant revealed that God is “the source of sexuality. God’s divine presence vibrates through us, bonding us as one within the unity of God.” Another revealed, “I believe God

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 76

intended sex within marriage to be pleasurable. I also believe He can increase these desires

within us if we are willing.” One participant wrote at length, “God’s pursuit – to enter into His

people, make them satisfied, give of Him sacrificially, in an act that ultimately bears testament to

His goodness, his ability to create new life, hope – how can sex and God’s salvation work in

sending Jesus not be symbolically interchangeable?”

Those with children also spoke of God playing a significant role in them getting

pregnant, which is significant for other types of sanctification (Mahoney et al., 2006) as well as

that of marital sexuality.

Participants’ responses were varied, nevertheless, with several responding that God plays

little or no role in their marital sexuality. For instance, some disclosed that religion and sexuality

are separate worlds and that “I would find it uncomfortable if I or my spouse brought religion

into our sexual experiences or in conversations about them.” Others viewed sexuality in light of

religion as “dirty …. Even though I don’t believe that sex is, indeed, ‘dirty,’ it still affects me

sometimes.”

When inquired about how one’s view of God, and religion and spirituality, shaped his or

her sexuality as a spouse, participants continued to describe beliefs that God or the divine has

brought them together, in fact speaking more strongly than in the previous question. In several

disclosures, God was seen as a third partner in the marriage relationship. Religious beliefs were

often framed as sustaining their marriages (e.g., “I don’t want to disappoint God or my wife”).

The following are additional examples of responses, which emphasize themes of the effort and

even struggle which characterize marriage, in general, as well as the help from and responsibility to the sacred and one’s spouse:

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 77

“Sex is a gift from God for one man and one woman to share for a lifetime.

Committing to marriage is one of the hardest things I have ever done, but it [has] also been one of the most rewarding. I am for certain that God intends marriage to be this way, because it builds something in a person that our culture has lost, that’s called Character.”

“As for married life in general, God sets out a view on the headship roles for each family member that we follow. It makes love and respect much easier to attain.

When God’s word is followed, marriage still has serious struggles due to natural imperfections, but is sustainable with a heartfelt want from both partners to work out problems rather than running away from them in divorce. … Our steps we take in daily life are guided by Jehovah (and marriage and in general), and we have chosen to follow him through our own free-will and our lives are better for it.”

“Without God directing our marriage, it would feel and/or be very weak. The more we learn of what [God] expects of each of us in our roles the more peaceful and loving our relationship has been – also the marriage vows mean so much more.”

“I am reminded that I am not whole on my own – I demand my spouse, and my God, to bring the best parts of me. And the best pleasure comes in serving, in being in the thick of finding out the other’s desire.”

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 78

“God is the center of our relationship in every aspect. We believe that this is the only

way to please Him and to live our lives to the greatest potential.”

For many participants, the idea of the intersection of religion and marital sexuality still represented unchartered territory, even where belief in the sacred was acknowledged. Other individuals continued to separate religion and sexuality, at times acknowledging that God and religion/spirituality has shaped “values in my married life in general, but not in my sexual relationship.” While some newly married persons viewed religiousness and spirituality as enhancing the sexual relationship with one’s spouse, others saw these as hindrances. Some responses included:

“I think the lack of religion in our sexual experiences has added intimacy because it

is all about satisfying each other and becoming closer. I believe it would be hard to

reach a certain level of intimacy if there was a barrier brought by religion.”

“I believe in God. I teach my children about Him. I was active in church when I was

younger, but I have never brought God into my sexual life or really any everyday

issues.”

“I don’t think your faith in God should be what a marriage should be based on. I

think it plays a role, but should not be depended on.”

Religious beliefs and perceptions can play a positive role in sexuality. Further deliberation is focused on what many perceive to be a traditional relationship between religion and sexuality, specifically that religious beliefs and institutions seemingly support a restrictive, inhibitive, shameful view of sexuality and sexual expression (Crooks & Baur, 2002). As evident

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 79

from the above comments from participants, this view about religion and sexuality pervades.

Recent research has also supported that feeling disconnected or alienated from God significantly predicts shame and guilt as they relate to sex (Murray et al., 2007). Moreover, empirical literature to date has largely supported such a view in its exploration of the ways religious participants – be they teenagers or adults – tend to inhibit themselves sexually (Crooks & Baur,

2002; DeLamater, 1981; Donahue & Nielsen, 2005) or have negative perceptions of God’s view of sexuality (Young et al., 1998). Assumptions exist therefore that religion relates to sexuality only in a maladaptive, inhibited fashion. These are over-simplifications of the role of religion in sexuality. One exception is a study recently conducted by Murray-Swank et al. (2005) which found the sanctification of premarital sex among college students to be related to more frequent sexual intercourse and less inhibited expressions of sexuality.

The present study further seeks to challenge stereotypes against the perceived negative influence of religion on sexuality. This is, in fact, the first study to explore not only religious

beliefs and perceptions about sexuality in marriage, but also as they may be linked to a positive view of religion’s role in marital sexuality. As shown, a sanctified marital sexual relationship can relate to enhanced experiences of sexual satisfaction and intimacy, marital satisfaction, and spiritual intimacy; less distress is also reported from any sexual problems which are experienced in the marital union. Moreover, perceiving the sexual bond in marriage to be sacred or indicative of God’s influence and presence can relate to greater investment in maintaining that very bond and utilizing such perceptions as resources to cope with stressors related to the sexual

experience. It should be noted again that the marital relationship is the most socially sanctioned

context for sexual expression (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000). In addition, 95% of married

couples in the U.S. identify with a religious affiliation and between 50-60% engage in religious

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 80 activities (see Mahoney et al., 2001). Perhaps it is for these reasons, at least to some extent, that more positive correlations between sexuality and religion were found among newlyweds, as various religious traditions tend to allow more sexual freedom within the context of marriage.

While some participants, based on qualitative responses, articulated an intimacy between religion and sexuality that is not met with a sense of embarrassment, shame, or guilt, others did continue to detach religion from sexuality within their marriage. Such comments emphasize how religion can influence sexuality in both positive and negative ways. This study, particularly in light of its longitudinal component, ultimately aims to present a balanced, constructive view of the sanctification of marital sexuality. Variables are therefore included which potentially highlight how sanctifying the marital sexual relationship may be a resource as well as source of struggle. The first phase of this study shows, for example, that while the sanctification of marital sexuality predicts positive religious coping to handle sex-related stressors, it also predicts negative religious coping strategies, which are also known as spiritual struggles. Prior research has shown, however, that spiritual growth and transformation can and does emerge from spiritual struggles (Pargament, 2007; Pargament et al., 2005), and therefore this may be further supported or disconfirmed in the second phase of the study; such findings would again underscore a positive role of religion in sexuality. It is integral to highlight current results as a challenge for readers to adopt a more positive religious lens though which to view sexuality within marriage.

This religious lens does not disregard the value, intensity, and special nature of sexuality as it is expressed and experienced in the marriage relationship.

Limitations to the Present Study and Directions for Future Research

Although this study points to the salience of the sanctification of marital sexuality, several limitations are present. Acknowledging these limitations can provide a balanced

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 81

evaluation of current results and also offer ways to improve future research on the sanctification

of marital sexuality, and sanctification of the family in general.

Attention is first directed toward the sample itself. In addition to results being based on a

relatively small sample from a limited region of the United States, this study is associated with

an inability to determine accurate response rates, and where attempted to estimate

conservatively, were poorer than prior research on either marriage or sex (Young et al., 1998).

Future research would do well to attempt to circumvent such recruitment difficulties, perhaps

through direct (face-to-face) solicitation; it is acknowledged, however, that this method also

comes with potential disadvantages and limits. In addition, although the present study aimed to

recruit a community sample which was not disproportionately religious compared to national

norms, subsequent research could include participants from religious services and organizations

which are representative of a diverse array of faiths and traditions, as well as various secular organizations. This study included primarily female (61.9%), Caucasian (75%), Christian (71.4% in combination) participants with relatively high levels of education. It may be that males as well as participants of varying ethnicities and religious backgrounds espouse noticeably different

levels of functioning and recognition of the marital sexual relationship as sacred.

A major limitation is also evident given that newlywed individuals, rather than couples,

were included. As noted previously, it was unknown whether this study would attract and retain

both spouses’ participation, particularly given the ultimate longitudinal nature of this study.

Bearing in mind the present results, a disadvantage remains that dyadic information was not

collected and compared. At the same time, beginning with newly married individuals is a place

to start with this area of empirical research, and further empirical investigations can include

couples-based analyses.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 82

Conclusions based on these results are further limited given the correlational nature of the study. The larger purpose of this project, however, is to gather data on a longitudinal basis so as to secure more causal conclusions. Both phases of the project will nevertheless rely on self- report measures, the scores on which may be inflated given social desirability as well as the typically idealized newlywed period which participants are experiencing. At Time 1, however, the full range of scores on the majority of the measures was utilized. Future research should promote observational study of the influence of the sanctification of marital sexuality upon dyadic psychological domains such as communication or couple discussions about sexuality, including conflict resolution or discussion of personal vulnerabilities related to this aspect of married life (see Mahoney et al., 2006).

Next phase of the study. As previously mentioned, a second phase of this study has been planned. It is hoped that the second phase will offer additional insights into the sanctification of marital sexuality, including how sanctification may be both a resource and risk. Both potentially adaptive and maladaptive implications of the sanctification of marital sexuality will be explored continuing with sexual, psychological, and spiritual areas of individual and relational functioning. Specifically, results form Time 2 will be compared with the outcome variables outlined here in addition to exploring the effects of violations of sanctified marital sexuality, including the possible occurrence of infidelity or other serious sexual wrongdoings. In particular, the experience of such spousal wrongdoings will be examined, including their connections among psychological and spiritual functioning (e.g., post-traumatic growth, spiritual growth, depression, anxiety, anger, forgiveness). The present study measured such variables, however only 24 out of 84 participants reported experiencing serious sexual wrongdoings enacted by their

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 83 spouse. It is expected that a greater number will become evident during the second phase of data collection which may warrant further attention to these variables.

Time 1 data analysis also revealed additional questions regarding the extent to which participants may have been exposed to the language of sanctification via premarital counseling or educational premarital seminars conducted within a religious tradition or organization.

Perhaps those exposed to the language of sanctification from a theological perspective in such settings have responded differently from those who received no such introduction, or were first introduced here to the psychological process of the sanctification of marital sexuality (i.e., via the measure itself). This will be addressed in Time 2 as well.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 84

CONCLUSION

The present study opens a chapter in understanding newly married participants’ spiritual narratives, specifically on how religious beliefs, practices, and resources facilitate adaptive and healthy sexual, psychological, and spiritual functioning. A main emphasis in this study was on the sanctification of marital sexuality as a construct which integrates religious beliefs and experiences, and psychological perceptions, hence the label of sanctification as a psychospiritual construct. Within the context of marriage, access to newlyweds’ spiritual narratives is particularly relevant, as the newlywed period, in theory and as a reality for many people, represents a time when religious beliefs about marriage are more clearly defined and applied.

The notion that religion pervades various aspects of an individual’s life therefore includes the sexual dimension. Correlational results indicate religious beliefs about the marital sexual relationship can be adaptive, and are associated with greater psychological investment; sexual, psychological, and spiritual benefits; and spiritual resources to handle stressors related to the sexual relationship.

Results are therefore in contrast to what may be perceived to be traditional views of the intersection of marriage, sexuality, and religion which emphasize solely restriction, shame, and guilt. Moreover, this study’s findings begin to discourage the assumption that religion carries little influence in modern, daily life. In other words, religious views not only pervade the lives of newly married individuals, but also are present during the most intimate and vulnerable moments shared by spouses, that being sexual encounters and shared sexuality. Prior research often emphasizes that religiousness, overwhelmingly measured by global indicators, does not correlate with nor contributes to variance in sexual satisfaction (e.g., Young et al., 1998). The sanctification of marital sexuality as studied here contrasts such earlier findings, in part perhaps

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 85

because sanctification is a proximal, psychospiritual variable tied more directly to the sexual

relationship itself and related religious beliefs and attitudes.

Findings are also based on a theoretical model for the effects of sanctification (Pargament

& Mahoney, 2005). Sullivan (2001), for example, noted the lack of theoretically driven empirical research on religiousness and marriage, and this study serves in part to fill this void. This study

therefore supports how sanctifying the marital sexual relationship associates with personal and

relational benefits, psychological investment, and spiritual resources. Furthermore, this study

begins to satisfy the gaps in sanctification research (which explored marriage and premarital sex but not marital sexuality; Mahoney et al., 1999; Murray-Swank et al., 2005) and in the broader domains of religion and marriage, religion and sexuality, and marriage and sexuality research,

particularly with the use of more conservative statistical tests. Marriage and marital sex, in

addition to religious views about sex, are placed on “center stage” as areas which have

previously taken a backseat to research on sex outside the context of marriage (i.e., premarital or

extramarital sex; Allen et al., 2005; Cochran & Beeghley, 1991).

Although research integrating such intimate topics as marriage, sexuality, and religion is

rare, such empirical work deserves the spotlight in the field of psychology. It is significant that,

although a relatively small sample was studied, almost all participants were open and willing to

respond to very personal questions. Their responses were also varied, and therefore it is

suspected that participants provided honest responses to questions regarding their sexual

relationship, in particular. Participants also provided rich qualitative information representing the

full range of incorporating religion and sexuality in their marriages. This study is groundbreaking

in its exploration of the sanctification of marital sexuality, and demonstrates that people are

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 86

willing to share their spiritual narrative as to how beliefs related to religion and sexuality

intersect within married life.

Future research should seek to expand these spiritual narratives and describe how sanctification throughout the lifespan, particularly of sexuality throughout the marital life, can be

both a resource and a burden (e.g., when a sanctified relationship or bond is desecrated by a

serious wrongdoing). The second phase of this project will aim to address further how

sanctifying marital sexuality may be a risk should that relationship be violated by a serious

sexual wrongdoing. Researchers should continue to create and utilize interpersonal or relational variables when studying marriage, sexuality, and religion, whether separately or concurrently.

Each domain is inherently relational. Marriage and sexuality unites two people. Religion unites an individual to the sacred as well as to a faith community, and very likely to a partner or spouse who shares that same or similar set of religious beliefs (Buss, 1985). In this vein, it is time research in these domains moves beyond global or single-item measures in order to augment the strength and depth of its conclusions. Subsequent research should also gather and compare information from both spouses so as to understand the individual and dyadic implications of the sanctification or marital sexuality. Researchers should continue to explore the extent to which religion is woven into sex-related issues, marital functioning, and spiritual dynamics. Religion and sexuality are distinct, yet complementary perspectives of the human experience (MacKnee,

1997; Yarhouse, 2005).

In addition to fostering continued research on the sanctification of marital sexuality, these findings have direct relevance for therapists and counselors who work with newly married couples. This includes professional domains of marital and sex therapy, and pastoral counseling.

For example, research could be extended into clinical settings in order to assess the impact of the

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 87

sanctification of marital sexuality among distressed couples. Because sexuality within one’s

marriage is viewed by many as sacred, such a perspective has implications potentially for sexual

and non-sexual areas of the relationship. It is beneficial, then, to understand not only the sexual

void or dysfunction which married couples potentially experience, but also the sexual

satisfaction and fulfillment that is possible. Assessing spouses’ religious and spiritual beliefs

about sexuality and marriage could accentuate potential resources to cope with sexual difficulties, in particular, and marital conflict, in general. Perhaps knowledge of the sanctification of marital sexuality could aid couples and therapists to be in tune to changes in the level of sanctification, which may signal enhanced marital intimacy or greater couple distress.

In the spirit of gathering spiritual narratives, therapists could assemble from both the individual partner stories of the role of religion and spirituality in various life dimensions, including a special focus on how religious beliefs and practices influence perceptions of shared sexuality. One may imagine the power inherent in formulating these narratives and disclosing these to one’s spouse within the context of treatment for sexually-related concerns and conflict.

Participants in the present study, for example, commented that the survey items and options for

qualitative comments not only challenged them to think differently but also put into words their

religious beliefs about sexuality; in a sense, the qualitative portion was only a small beginning to

making their spiritual narratives explicit. Spouses could then potentially come to form joint spiritual narratives which speak to how sanctification, including that of marital sexuality, is present and influential in their marriage. Additional implications for the treatment process become evident with such spiritual assessments and spiritual autobiographies (Pargament, 2007).

Such insight may also increase the sensitivity with which a therapist or counselor further broaches the topics of religion and sexuality. This challenges clinicians who are typically not

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 88 religious to become more comfortable addressing the topic with those clients for whom religion is important. Moreover, this study serves to begin to increase marital therapists’ awareness of religion and sexuality, as dimensions which can be integrated and of great importance for couples. In such spiritually-oriented clinical work, therapists (typically seen as an a- or anti- religious population) could witness firsthand the salience of sanctification, in general, and of the sanctification of marital sexuality, in particular.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 89

REFERENCES

Abbott, D. A., Berry, M., & Meredith, W. H. (1990). Religious belief and practice: A potential

asset in helping families. Family Relations, 39, 443-448.

Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Glass, S. P. (2005).

Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to

extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 101-130.

Balakrishnan, T. R., & Chen, J. (1990). Religiosity, nuptiality and reproduction in Canada.

Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 27, 316-340.

Bell, R. R. (1974). Religious involvement and marital sex in Australia and the United States.

Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 5, 109-116.

Bieliauskas, V. J. (1971). Masculinity, femininity, and conjugal love. Journal of Religion and

Health, 10, 37-49.

Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married

couples. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719-737.

Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., Branaman, A., & Sica, A. (1995). Belief and behavior: Does religion

matter in today’s marriage? Journal of Marriage & the Family, 57, 661-671.

Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 45, 387-394.

Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.

Call, V. R. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stability. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A

theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 90

Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd ed.). (1995). New York: Doubleday.

Chadiha, L. A., Veroff, J., & Leber, D. (1998). Newlywed’s narrative themes: Meaning in the

first year of marriage for African American and White couples. Journal of Comparative

Family Studies, 29, 115-130.

Christopher, F. S., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating, and other relationships:

A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 999-1017.

Cochran, J. K., & Beeghley, L. (1991). The influence of religion on attitudes toward nonmarital

sexuality: A preliminary assessment of reference group theory. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 30, 45-62.

Craddock, A. E. (1991). Relationships between attitudinal similarity, couple structure, and

couple satisfaction within married and de facto couples. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 43, 11-16.

Crooks, R., & Baur, K. (2002). Our sexuality (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.

Davidson, J. K., Darling, C. A., & Norton, L. (1995). Religiosity and the sexuality of women:

Sexual behavior and sexual satisfaction revisited. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 235-243.

Davis, J. L., Pallen, R. J., DeMaio, C. M., & Jackson, T. L. (2000). The Emotional, Sexual, and

Spiritual Intimacy Scale (ESSI). In L. Vandecreek & T. L. Jackson, (Eds.),

Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (pp. 289-296). Sarasota, FL: Professional

Resource Press.

DeLamater, J. (1981). The social control of sexuality. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 263-290.

Donahue, M. J., & Nielsen, M. E. (2005). Religion, attitudes, and social behavior. In R. F.

Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality

(pp. 274-291). New York: Guilford Press

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 91

Duddle, M. (1988). Attitudes to the study of human sexuality. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 3,

37-44.

Emmons, R. A., & Crumpler, C. A. (2000). Religion and spirituality? The roles of sanctification

and the concept of God. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9, 17-

24.

Fiese, B. H., & Tomcho, T. J. (2001). Finding meaning in religious practices: The relation

between religious holiday rituals and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology,

15, 597-609.

Freeman, A. (1988). Sexuality and spirituality. Studies in Formative Spirituality, 9, 169-183.

Gardner, T. A. (2002). Sacred sex: A spiritual celebration of oneness in marriage. Colorado

Springs: Waterbrook Press.

Greenblat, C. S. (1983). The salience of sexuality in the early years of marriage. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 45, 289-299.

Guldner, C., & Guldner, D. (1992). Sexual issues arising within the course of couple therapy.

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 55-65.

Hatch, R. C., James, D. E., & Schumm, W. R. (1986). Spiritual intimacy and marital satisfaction.

Family Relations, 35, 539-545.

Heaton, T. B., & Pratt, E. L. (1990). The effects of religious homogamy on marital satisfaction

and stability. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 191-207.

Hennessy, T. C., & Varga, A. C. (1975). A religious perspective on sexual counseling. The

Counseling Psychologist, 5, 111-114.

Hoge, D. R. (1996). Religion in America: The demographics of belief and affiliation. In E. P.

Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 21-42).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 92

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Holden, G. W. (2001). Psychology, religion, and the family: It’s time for a revival. Journal of

Family Psychology, 15, 657-662.

Hooper, D., & Sheldon, A. (1969). Evaluating newly-married couples. British Journal of Social

& Clinical Psychology, 8, 169-182.

Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2002). Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics

and generations. American Sociological Review, 67, 165-190.

Hunt, R. A. (1987). Marriage as dramatizing theology. The Journal of Pastoral Care, 41, 119-

131.

Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial

crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce.

Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 80, 237-252.

James, W. H. (1981). The honeymoon effect on marital coitus. The Journal of Sex Research, 17,

114-123.

Jones, S. L., & Hostler, H. R. (2005). The role of sexuality in personhood: An integrative

exploration. In W. R. Miller & H. D. Delaney (Eds.), Judeo-Christian perspectives on

psychology: Human nature, motivation, and change (pp. 115-132). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Kaslow, F., & Robison, J. A. (1996). Long-term satisfying marriages: Perceptions of

contributing factors. American Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 153-170.

Kumar, P., & Makwana, S. M. (1991). Factors affecting sexual satisfaction in married life.

Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 17, 31-34.

Lally, C. F., & Maddock, J. W. (1994). Sexual meaning systems of engaged couples. Family

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 93

Relations, 43, 53-60.

Lauer, E. F. (1985). The holiness of marriage: Some new perspectives from recent sacramental

theology. Studies in Formative Spirituality, 6, 215-226.

Lehrer, E. L. (1998). Religious intermarriage in the United States: Determinants and trends.

Social Science Research, 27, 245-263.

MacKnee, C. M. (1997). Sexuality and spirituality: In search of common ground. Journal of

Psychology and Christianity, 16, 210-221.

Mahoney, A., Carels, R. A., Pargament, K. I., Wachholtz, A., Leeper, L. E., Kaplar, M., et al.

(2005). The sanctification of the body and behavioral health patterns of college students.

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 221-238.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Jewell, T., Magyar, G. M., Tarakeshwar, N., et al.

(2005). A higher purpose: The sanctification of strivings in a community sample.

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 239-262.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., & DeMaris, A. (2006). Through a sacred lens: Creating new

spiritual knowledge about marriage, pregnancy and the transition to parenthood.

Unpublished manuscript. Bowling Green State University, OH.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., et al. (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., Murray-Swank, A., & Murray-Swank, N. (2003). Religion and

the sanctification of family relationships. Review of Religious Research, 44, 220-236.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home

in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 94

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

and during family crises. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the

psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 177-195). New York: Guilford Press.

Martin, P. D., Specter, G., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (2003). Expressed attitudes of adolescents

toward marriage and family life. Adolescence, 38, 359-367.

McCarthy, B. (1998). Sex in the first two years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 9,

1-11.

McCarthy, B. (2003). Marital sex as it ought to be. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 14, 1-12.

Murray, K. M., Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Murray-Swank, N. A. (2007). Spirituality, religiosity, shame

and guilt as predictors of sexual attitudes and experiences. Journal of Psychology and

Theology, 35, 222-234.

Murray, N. (2000). The sanctification of sexual intercourse among college students. Unpublished

master’s thesis. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

Murray-Swank, N. A., Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. M. (2005). At the crossroads of

sexuality and spirituality: The sanctification of sex by college students. The International

Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 199-219.

National Opinion Research Center (NOPC). (2004). General social survey: 1972—2004

cumulative codebook. University of Chicago, NOPC.

National Opinion Research Center (NOPC). (2006). General social survey: 2006 codebook.

University of Chicago, NOPC.

Nelson, J. B., & Longfellow, S. P. (Eds.) (1994). Sexuality and the sacred: Sources for

theological reflection. Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 95

Pargament, K. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New

York, NY: Guilford.

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the

sacred. New York, NY: Guilford.

Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious coping:

Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56,

519-543.

Pargament, K. I., Magyar, G. M., Benore, E., & Mahoney, A. (2005). Sacrilege: A study of

sacred loss and desecration and their implications for health and well-being in a

community sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 59-78.

Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2005). Sacred matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the

psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 179-

198.

Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and

negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 37, 710-724.

Perren, S., Von Wyl, A., Burgin, D., Simoni, H., & Von Klitzing, K. (2005). Intergenerational

transmission of marital quality across the transition to parenthood. Family Process, 44, 4

41-459.

Phillips, R. E., & Pargament, K. I. (2002). The sanctification of dreams: Prevalence and

implications. Dreaming, 12, 141-153.

Previti, D., & Amato, P. R. (2004). Is infidelity a cause or a consequence of poor marital quality?

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 217-230.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 96

Risch, G. S., Riley, L. A., & Lawler, M. G. (2003). Problematic issues in the early years of

marriage: Content for premarital education. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31,

253-269.

Rosenau, D. E., & Sytsma, M. R. (2004). A theology of sexual intimacy: Insights into the

Creator. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 261-270.

Ruvolo, A. P. (1998). Marital well-being and general happiness of newlywed couples:

Relationships across time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 470-489.

Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. A., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D.,

et al. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction

Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387.

Scott, J. (1998). Changing attitudes to sexual morality: A cross-national comparison. Sociology,

32, 815-845.

Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate

preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447-458.

Shafranske, E. P. (1996). Religious beliefs, affiliations, and practices of clinical psychologists.

Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 149-162). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Shehan, C. L., Bock, E. W., & Lee, G. R. (1990). Religious heterogamy, religiosity, and marital

happiness: The case of Catholics. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 52, 73-79.

Siegel, K., Anderman, S. J., & Schrimshaw, E. W. (2001). Religion and coping with health-

related stress. Psychology & Health, 16, 631-653.

Stander, V., Piercy, F. P., Mackinnon, D., & Helmeke, K. (1994). Spirituality, religion and

family therapy: Competing or complementary worlds? American Journal of Family

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 97

Therapy, 22, 27-41.

Story, L. B., Rothman, A. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (2002). Risk factors, risk processes, and the

longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. In J. A. Feeney & P. Noller (Eds.),

Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 468-492).

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sullivan, K. T. (2001). Understanding the relationship between religiosity and marriage: An

investigation of the immediate and longitudinal effects of religiosity on newlywed

couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 610-626.

Tarakeshwar, N., Swank, A. B., Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2001). The sanctification of

nature and theological conservatism: A study of opposing religious correlates of

environmentalism. Review of Religious Research, 42, 387-404.

Thoresen, C. E., Harris, A. S., & Oman, D. (2001). Spirituality, religion, and health: Evidence,

issues, and concerns. In T. G. Plante & A. C. Sherman (Eds.), Faith and health:

Psychological perspectives (pp. 15-52). New York, NY: Guilford.

Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 48-60.

Wilson, M. R., & Filsinger, E. E. (1986). Religiosity and marital adjustment: Multidimensional

interrelationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 147-151.

Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple

problems and treatment issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 361-

366.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2005). Constructive relationships between religion and the scientific study of

sexuality. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 29-35.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 98

Young, M. K. (2004). Healthy relationships: Where’s the research? The Family Journal:

Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 12, 159-162.

Young, M., Luquis, R., Denny, G., & Young, T. (1998). Correlates of sexual satisfaction in

marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 115-127.

Zimmerman, C. C. (1974). Family influence upon religion. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 5, 1-16.

Zuckerman, M., & Gagne, M. (2003). The COPE revised: Proposing a 5-factor model of coping

strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 169-204.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 99

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Directions: Please answer or check the one response that best describes you for each numbered item below.

1. Gender: _____ Female _____ Male

2. Date of Birth: ____/____/______

3. Ethnicity: _____ African American _____ Multi-ethnic/racial _____ Asian American _____ Native American _____ Caucasian/Euro-American _____ Other, Please specify: ______Hispanic or Latin American

4. Educational Background: What is your highest level of education completed? _____ Less than 7 years _____ Junior high school _____ Partial high school (10-11th grade) _____ High school graduation _____ Partial college/post high school training (1 year or more) _____ Standard college graduation _____ Graduate/professional degree

5. Employment Status: What is your current employment status? _____ Employed full-time _____ School/ Student _____ Employed part-time _____ Unemployed _____ Full-time homemaker _____ Other, Please specify: ______Retired

6. Annual Income: What is your approximate annual, gross household income? ____less than $25,000 ____$50,001-$75,000 ____$100,001-$130,000 ____$25,001-$50,000 ____$75,001-$100,000 ____more than $130,000

7. Religious Preference: What is your religious preference? _____ Buddhist _____ Hindu _____ Christian/Catholic _____ Jewish _____ Christian/Non-denominational _____ Moslem/Islam _____ Christian/Protestant _____ None _____ Other, Please specify: ______

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 100

APPENDIX B

GLOBAL RELIGIOUSNESS

Directions: Please check the one response that best describes you for each numbered item below.

1. How often do you attend religious services? _____ Never _____ 2-3 times a month _____ Less than once a year _____ Nearly every week _____ Once a year _____ Every week _____ Several times a year _____ More than once a week _____ Once a month

2. About how often do you pray? _____ Never _____ Several times a week _____ Less than once a week _____ Once a day _____ Once a week _____ Several times a day

3. To what extent do you consider yourself a religious person? Are you . . . _____ Not religious at all _____ Moderately religious _____ Slightly religious _____ Very religious

4. To what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual person? Are you . . . _____ Not spiritual at all _____ Moderately spiritual _____ Slightly spiritual _____ Very spiritual

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 101

APPENDIX C

BELIEF IN GOD

Directions: Which of these statements comes closest to expressing what you believe about God? Please select only one statement by placing a checkmark next to the statement. I don’t believe in God. I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out. I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind. I find myself believing in God some of the time but not at others. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. I know God really exists, and I have no doubts about it.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 102

APPENDIX D

BIBLICAL CONSERVATISM

Directions: Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1. The Bible is God’s word and everything will 1 2 3 4 5 happen exactly as it says? 2. The Bible is the answer to all important 1 2 3 4 5 human problems?

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 103

APPENDIX E

RELATIONSHIP AND SEXUAL HISTORY

1. How many times have you been married previously? _____ time(s)

2. At what age, approximately, did you first engage in sexual intercourse? _____

3. How long have you and your spouse been in a relationship? _____ Years _____ Months

4. For how long were you and your spouse engaged? _____ Years _____ Months

5. For how long did you and your spouse cohabit (i.e., live together) prior to your marriage date? _____ Years _____ Months

6. Prior to marrying your spouse, were you sexually active with your spouse? _____ No _____ Yes

7a. Prior to your dating relationship, engagement, and marriage to your spouse, were you sexually active with other partners? ____ No _____ Yes* *7b. If “Yes,” about how many partners? _____

8. What is the date you were married? ____/____/______

9. Do you and/or your spouse currently use contraception? _____ No ____ Yes, Please specify: ______

10. How often does sexual activity with your spouse result in at least one orgasm for your? _____ Never _____ Most of the time _____ Rarely _____ All of the time _____ Sometimes

11. How often do you think sexual activity with your spouse results in at least one orgasm for your spouse? _____ Never _____ Most of the time _____ Rarely _____ All of the time _____ Sometimes

12. During your dating relationship with and/or engagement to your current spouse, do you think your spouse ever had sex with someone else, including vaginal, oral, or anal sexual intercourse? _____ No _____ Yes

13. During your marriage, do you think your spouse has had sex with someone else, including vaginal, oral, or anal sexual intercourse? _____ No _____ Yes. If “Yes,” when has this happened? ______

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 104

APPENDIX F

PRESENCE OF CHILDREN

1. How many children have you ever had? Please count all children who were born alive at any time (including any you had from a previous marriage). _____ child(ren)

2. How many children do you have with your current spouse? _____ child(ren)

3. How many children are currently living with you? _____ child(ren)

4. Are you/your spouse currently pregnant? _____ No _____ Yes

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 105

APPENDIX G

SANCTIFICATION OF MARITAL SEXUALITY SCALE

Directions: The following questions concern your sexual relationship with your spouse. Some of the questions use the word “God.” Different people use different terms for God, such as “Higher Power,” “Divine Spirit,” “Spiritual Force,” “Yahweh,” “Allah,” “Buddha,” or “Goddess.” Please feel free to substitute your own word for God when answering any of the questions that follow. Also, some people do not believe in God. If this is the case for you, please feel free to choose the “strongly disagree” response when needed. Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree 1. Being sexually intimate with my spouse feels like a deeply 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 spiritual experience. 2. Our sexual relationship seems like a miracle to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Our sexual connection is part of a larger spiritual plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Our sexual relationship is holy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. The sexual bond I have with my spouse is sacred to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Our sexual relationship connects us to something greater than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ourselves. 7. My sexual relationship with my spouse reveals the deepest truths 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of life to me. 8. There are moments when we are sexually intimate that time stands 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 still and I feel like I am part of something eternal. 9. Our sexual relationship puts me in touch with the deepest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mysteries of life. 10. At moments, being sexually intimate with my spouse makes me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very aware of a creative power beyond us. 11. God played a role in my decision to have a sexual relationship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with my spouse. 12. Our sexual relationship speaks to the presence of God. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. I experience God through the sexual bond I have with my spouse. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. God’s essence is expressed in our sexual relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Being in a sexual relationship with each other is a reflection of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 God’s will. 16. God has been a guiding force in our sexual relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. In mysterious ways, God deepens the sexual intimacy I have with my spouse. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I feel God at work when we express ourselves sexually with each 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 other. 19. There are moments when I feel a strong connection with God 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 when I am sexually intimate with my spouse. 20. I see God’s influence in our sexual relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 106

APPENDIX H

SEXUAL FIDELITY

1. Please answer each of the following questions as openly and honestly as possible. a. During your dating relationship with and/or engagement to your current spouse, did you ever have sex with someone other than your spouse, including vaginal, oral, or anal sexual intercourse? ____ No _____ Yes

b. During your marriage, have you had sex with someone other than your spouse, including vaginal, oral, or anal sexual intercourse? _____ No _____ Yes. If “Yes,” when has this happened? ______If “Yes,” does your spouse know about this? __ No __ Yes

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 107

APPENDIX I

SEXUAL FREQUENCY

1. On average, how many times a month do you and your spouse engage in sexual intercourse? _____ Not at all _____ 9-12 times _____ 21-24 times _____ 1-4 times _____ 13-16 times _____ 25-29 times _____ 5-8 times _____ 17-20 times _____ 30 or more times

2. About how many times did you engage in sexual intercourse during the past month? _____ times

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 108

APPENDIX J

SEXUAL SATISFACTION

Directions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1. I am satisfied with my spouse as a sexual partner. 1 2 3 4 5 2. After sexual intercourse with my spouse, I feel 1 2 3 4 5 relaxed and fulfilled. 3. I have good communication with my spouse about 1 2 3 4 5 sexual intercourse. 4. I am satisfied with the sexual relationship I have with 1 2 3 4 5 my spouse. 5. I am pleased with the frequency with which my 1 2 3 4 5 spouse and I engage in sexual activity. 6. I am pleased with the intensity of sexual activity in 1 2 3 4 5 which my spouse and I engage. 7. My spouse makes me feel sexually desirable. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I am sexually attracted to my spouse. 1 2 3 4 5 9. My spouse makes it clear that I provide him/her with 1 2 3 4 5 a great deal of sexual pleasure.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 109

APPENDIX K

SEXUAL INTIMACY

Directions: The following questions should be answered using the following 0-4 scale.

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always 1. I feel comfortable when my partner initiates sex with 0 1 2 3 4 me. 2. I am comfortable being physically affectionate with 0 1 2 3 4 my partner. 3. Being physically affectionate with my partner makes 0 1 2 3 4 me uncomfortable. 4. Sex with my partner makes me uncomfortable. 0 1 2 3 4 5. I feel comfortable initiating sex with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4 6. I avoid having sex with my partner. 0 1 2 3 4

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 110

APPENDIX L

PERMISSION TO USE THE PHYSICAL/SEXUAL SAFETY SUBSCALE OF THE INTIMATE SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE (ISQ)

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 111

APPENDIX M

PROBLEMS RELATED TO MARITAL SEXUALITY AND GLOBAL DISTRESS FROM MARITAL SEXUAL PROBLEMS

Directions: Almost all couples face sexual difficulties in their marriages at some time. Below is a list of various, common problems that can occur. Please indicate with a checkmark which sexual difficulties have occurred in your marriage for you and/or your spouse. Common Sexual Difficulties Me My Spouse 1. Have anxiety before/during/after sexual intercourse with spouse 2. Avoid engaging in sexual activity 3. Have been rejected sexually by spouse 4. Disagree with other’s sexual values and attitudes 5. Want more or less frequent sexual intercourse 6. Difficulty becoming aroused sexually when with spouse 7. Difficulty communicating sexual interests and needs 8. Sexual dysfunction (e.g., anorgasmia, premature ejaculation, erectile difficulties) 9. Feel embarrassment, shame, or guilt during sexual intercourse with spouse 10. Feel sexually inadequate (e.g., too much or too little sexual experience) 11. Feel sexually unattractive 12. Feel rushed when engaging in sexual activity 13. Have engaged in sexual activity with someone other than spouse since getting married 14. Lack of sexual intimacy with and/or physical affection for spouse 15. Need more time for foreplay 16. Derive little/no satisfaction from sexual intercourse with spouse 17. Low sexual desire, in general 18. Low sexual desire for spouse 19. Sexual intercourse is painful 20. Experienced sexual trauma or abuse 21. Have a sexual addiction and/or engage in compulsive sexual behavior (e.g., pornography, online sex-related websites and/or chat-rooms) 22. Have sexual problems related to a physical illness and/or disability 23. Unable to relax during sexual activity 24. Worry about not pleasing spouse sexually 25. Other(s), please specify: ______

Thinking about the common sexual difficulties listed above, please answer the following. Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal 1. In general, to what extent have sexual difficulties in your marriage caused you distress? 0 1 2 3

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 112

APPENDIX N

TIME AND EFFORT DEVOTED TO CREATING AND MAINTAINING SEXUAL BOND IN MARRIAGE

Directions: Spouses engage in various sexual and non-sexual activities with each other in order to create and maintain, or enhance, their sexual bond. Please indicate with a checkmark whether only you, only your spouse, or both of you as a couple have engaged in each of the following activities since you have been married. Activity Only Me Only Spouse Both of Us as a Couple 1. Created a romantic mood through use of candles, music, etc. 2. Engaged in affectionate touching (e.g., hold hands, kiss, hug) 3. Engaged in sensual touch (e.g., give massage, cuddle, hold) 4. Gone out on dates with spouse 5. Scheduled time to be alone together 6. Explored different ways to express physical bond 7. Have done what spouse likes sexually, and avoided sexual activities spouse dislikes 8. Told spouse about personal likes/dislikes when sexually intimate 9. Read articles or books about how to preserve or enhance sexual intimacy (e.g., secular or Christian-based resources) 10. Watched videos for sexual enhancement 11. Used sexually related games or toys to enhance arousal or intimacy 12. Taken medication(s) to enhance arousal or treat sexual dysfunction 13. Visited physician to address physical or sexual problems 14. Attended marital or sex therapy to deal with sexual issues 15. Other, please specify: ______

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 113

APPENDIX O

GLOBAL MARITAL SATISFACTION

Directions: Using the 7-point scale below, please indicate how true the following statements are for you.

Extremely Very Somewhat Mixed Somewhat Very Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied 1. How satisfied are you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with your marriage? 2. How satisfied are you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with your wife/ husband as a spouse? 3. How satisfied are you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with your relationship with your spouse?

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 114

APPENDIX P

SECULAR INDIVIDUAL COPING WITH PROBLEMS ABOUT MARITAL SEXUALITY

Directions: The following statements describe specific ways that spouses might cope with sexual difficulties that occur from time to time in their marriages. As you think of the sexual difficulties you have faced in your marriage, how much do you use each of the following strategies to cope when sexual difficulties occur? I usually don’t I usually do I normally do I normally When sexual difficulties in my marriage occur, I . . . do this at all this a little bit this a medium do this a amount lot 1. concentrate my efforts on doing something about it. 1 2 3 4 2. try hard to prevent other things from interfering with 1 2 3 4 my efforts at dealing with this. 3. blame myself. 1 2 3 4 4. say to myself “this isn’t real.” 1 2 3 4 5. try to forget the whole thing. 1 2 3 4 6. think hard about what steps to take. 1 2 3 4 7. criticize or lecture myself. 1 2 3 4 8. take additional action to try to get rid of the problem. 1 2 3 4 9. make a plan of action. 1 2 3 4 10. pretend that it hasn’t really happened. 1 2 3 4 11. refuse to believe that it has happened. 1 2 3 4 12. see that I am at the root of the problem. 1 2 3 4 13. do what has to be done, one step at a time. 1 2 3 4 14. brood over my problem nonstop. 1 2 3 4 15. take direct action to get around the problem. 1 2 3 4 16. admit to myself that I can’t deal with it, and quit 1 2 3 4 trying. 17. accuse someone of causing my misfortune. 1 2 3 4 18. return in my head again and again to what is 1 2 3 4 troubling me. 19. relive the problem by dwelling on it all the time. 1 2 3 4 20. try to come up with a strategy about what to do. 1 2 3 4 21. give up the attempt to get what I want. 1 2 3 4 22. just think about my problem constantly. 1 2 3 4 23. blame someone or something for what happened to 1 2 3 4 me. 24. realize I brought the problem on myself. 1 2 3 4

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 115

APPENDIX Q

DIVORCE PRONENESS

Directions: Sometimes couples experience serious problems in their marriage and have thoughts of ending their marriage. Even people who get along quite well with their spouse sometimes wonder whether their marriage is working out. Please indicate how often each of the following events has occurred. Never Yes, within the Yes, within the last Yes, within the last year 6 months last 3 months 1. Have you ever thought your marriage might be Never Yes, within the Yes, within the last Yes, within the in trouble? last year 6 months last 3 months 2. Has the thought of getting a divorce or Never Yes, within the Yes, within the last Yes, within the separation crossed your mind? last year 6 months last 3 months 3. Have you discussed divorce or separation from Never Yes, within the Yes, within the last Yes, within the your spouse with a close friend or relative? last year 6 months last 3 months

4. Have you or your spouse ever seriously Never Yes, within the Yes, within the last Yes, within the suggested the idea of divorce? last year 6 months last 3 months 5. Have you and your spouse talked about Never Yes, within the Yes, within the last Yes, within the consulting an attorney regarding a possible last year 6 months last 3 months divorce or separation?

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 116

APPENDIX R

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY

Directions: Please indicate how true the following statements are for you. Not at Somewhat Quite a A great all bit deal 1. I feel safe being completely open and honest with my spouse 0 1 2 3 about my faith. 2. I tend to keep my spiritual side private and separate from my 0 1 2 3 marriage. 3. My spouse really knows how to listen when I talk about my 0 1 2 3 spiritual needs, thoughts, and feelings. 4. My spouse is supportive when I reveal my spiritual questions or 0 1 2 3 struggles to him/her. 5. My spouse doesn’t disclose his/her thoughts or feelings about 0 1 2 3 spirituality with me. 6. My spouse shares his/her spiritual questions or struggles with 0 1 2 3 me. 7. I try not to be judgmental or critical when my spouse shares his 0 1 2 3 ideas about spirituality. 8. I try to be supportive when my spouse discloses spiritual 0 1 2 3 questions or struggles.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 117

APPENDIX S

RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUAL COPING WITH PROBLEMS ABOUT MARITAL SEXUALITY

Directions: The following statements describe additional, specific ways that people might cope with the inevitable difficulties that spouses face in their sexual relationship. As you think of the difficulties you have faced in your sexual relationship in your marriage, how much do you use each of the following strategies to cope? Not at all Somewhat Quite a bit A great deal I . . . 1. tried to find a lesson from God in the event. 0 1 2 3 2. decided the devil made this happen. 0 1 2 3 3. tried to put my plans into action together with God. 0 1 2 3 4. didn’t try to cope; only expected God to take my worries away. 0 1 2 3 5. decided that God was punishing me for my sins. 0 1 2 3 6. did what I could and put the rest in God’s hands. 0 1 2 3 7. bargained with God to make things better. 0 1 2 3 8. questioned God’s love for me. 0 1 2 3 9. looked to God for strength, support, and guidance. 0 1 2 3 10. asked forgiveness for my sins. 0 1 2 3 11. thought about spiritual matters to stop thinking about my 0 1 2 3 problems. 12. wondered whether God had abandoned me. 0 1 2 3 13. thought that some things are beyond God’s control. 0 1 2 3 14. saw my situation as part of God’s plan. 0 1 2 3 15. did my best and then turned the situation over to God. 0 1 2 3 16. pleaded with God to make things turn out okay. 0 1 2 3 17. took control over what I could, and gave the rest up to God. 0 1 2 3 18. felt punished by God for my lack of devotion. 0 1 2 3 19. voiced anger that God didn’t answer my prayers. 0 1 2 3 20. confessed my sins. 0 1 2 3 21. prayed to get my mind off of my problems. 0 1 2 3 22. trusted that God would be by my side. 0 1 2 3 23. tried to see how God might be trying to strengthen me in this 0 1 2 3 situation. 24. felt the situation was the work of the devil. 0 1 2 3 25. worked together with God as partners. 0 1 2 3 26. wondered what I did for God to punish me. 0 1 2 3 27. didn’t do much, just expected God to solve my problems for me. 0 1 2 3 28. prayed for a miracle. 0 1 2 3 29. didn’t try much of anything; simply expected God to take 0 1 2 3 control. 30. tried to make sense of the situation with God. 0 1 2 3 31. questioned the power of God. 0 1 2 3 32. believed the devil was responsible for my situation. 0 1 2 3 33. realized that God cannot answer all of my prayers. 0 1 2 3 34. sought God’s love and care. 0 1 2 3 35. tried to be less sinful. 0 1 2 3 36. focused on religion to stop worrying about my problems. 0 1 2 3

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 118

APPENDIX T

QUALITATIVE INFORMATION

Optional: The following questions ask you to elaborate, in your own words, on some of the answers you provided above.

3. What role, if any, does God (Higher Power, Allah, Buddha, etc.), and your religion and/or spirituality, play in your sexuality as a married person?

2. How has your view of God (Higher Power, Allah, Buddha, etc.), and your religion and/or spirituality, shaped your sexuality as a spouse, and your married life in general?

3. Please provide any feedback on the survey items, or additional information that you think would be helpful for the researcher.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 119

APPENDIX U

RECRUITMENT POSTCARD

Participate in a Research Study and Receive Up to $40 Dear , Greetings! My name is Krystal Hernandez, and I am a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. I would like to invite you to take part in a one-of-a-kind study I am doing to earn advanced degrees in Clinical Psychology, specifically a Master’s and then a PhD. I am looking for husbands and wives married within the past 1 ½ years to fill out a survey. I found your name from records published in a local newspaper announcing your recent marriage. I would sincerely appreciate it if you would share your views of your marriage and sexuality. I am especially interested in how religion and spirituality may, or may not, play a role in your views and experiences as a newlywed. Your participation would be highly valuable and important because this will be the first scientific, longitudinal study to explore the connections among marriage, sexuality, and religion and spirituality. I will ask you to complete a 30-40 minute survey now and again in about one year. As a token of appreciation for your time and participation, every person who fills out a survey will receive a $20 Visa gift card. Participate at both time points and you will receive $40! You can complete either a paper-and-pencil survey or an online survey. I will keep all information you share strictly confidential and nothing you disclose will be shared with anyone else, including your spouse, as I am asking only one of the two of you to participate. If you would like to fill out the survey, please go to http://psych.bgsu.edu/newlywed.htm, or request it by mail from Krystal [(419) 807-8101 or [email protected]]. I will give you a call soon to see if you have any questions. Please help me develop this new area of research!

Sincerely, Krystal Hernandez and Annette Mahoney, Ph.D. Primary Investigator Professor BGSU, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green, OH 43403, (419)372-4498

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 120

APPENDIX V

CONSENT FORM

Study Title: Sacred Sexual Unions: The Sanctification of Marital Sexuality in Newlyweds Primary Investigator: Krystal Hernandez Advisor: Annette Mahoney, Ph.D.

Informed Consent Document: Time 1 Purpose of the Research You have been invited to participate in a longitudinal research study on how newly married individuals think and feel about their marriage, including their sexual relationship. This study includes an emphasis on religion and spirituality, specifically if and how religion and spirituality may or may not play a role in your marriage and your sexual relationship with your spouse. It is thus a goal to obtain a diverse sample of married individuals with a wide range of religious and spiritual backgrounds. I, Krystal Hernandez, will follow you for about 12-15 months. Specifically, I will ask you to provide information once during the initial 3-18 months of your marriage (Time 1), and again approximately 12-15 months later (Time 2). I am a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Bowling Green State University. The information you provide at the first time wave of the study, Time 1, will be used for my Master’s Thesis, and the information you provide at the Time 2 period will be used for my Doctoral Dissertation. To date, virtually no research has explored the interrelationship of marriage, sexuality, and religion and spirituality. Your answers will help me and society understand the experience of newlyweds, including whether or not, and how religion and spirituality affect the meaning they attribute to marriage and sexuality. Your answers may also help psychologists offer better services to newly married couples.

Procedure and Time Required At this time, I am asking for your consent to participate in the Time 1 portion of this study. I will ask you to complete a survey packet that will take about 30-40 minutes to complete. This survey packet includes questions about many different aspects of your marriage, in particular your sexual relationship, as well as your religious and spiritual beliefs. For this study, I want people included who reflect a wide range of views about religion and spirituality. This includes people who describe themselves from “not at all religious” to “very religious,” and from “not at all spiritual” to “very spiritual.” Approximately 100 newly married persons are expected to be enrolled in the study. I am requesting that you indicate your name and address on your survey packet so that I will be able to mail you your compensation. I am also requesting that you complete a Contact Information Form indicating your name, address, phone number, and email address so that I may be able to contact you when Time 2 approaches. In the event that we lose touch with one another, this form asks you to list up to three other persons whom I may contact in order to obtain your contact information. As explained in the form, this information will be used only in the event of an emergency should I be unable to contact you. This contact form will also be kept in a place separate from your completed survey.

Risks There are minimal risks associated with participating in this survey, meaning that the risks to you are no greater than those encountered in normal, daily life. Some of the questions may be personal and emotionally- sensitive. In addition, many questions have a special focus on your sexual relationship with your spouse. You may leave blank any item which you feel uncomfortable answering.

Benefits As previously mentioned, the primary benefit of your participation is that you will help me and society better understand newlyweds’ experiences and understandings of marriage and sexuality. In particular, your participation will provide missing scientific knowledge about the role that religion and spirituality may or may not play in marital sexuality. In addition, as a token of appreciation for your participation in this study, you will receive $20 at each time point of the project. I would like you to plan to participate at Time 2 as well. If you participated in both time points,

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 121 you would earn a total of $40 (Time 1 = $20; Time 2 = $20). This compensation will be awarded as a Visa gift card at both time points.

Eligibility To participate in this study: a) you must be at least 18 years old, b) you and your spouse must be married for at least 3 months, and up to 18 months, c) you and your spouse must live together currently, and d) you must read and speak English. At this point, I am asking only one spouse (husband or wife, chosen randomly) from a newly married couple to participate.

Participant Rights Your participation in this study will be kept strictly confidential and private. This means that only myself and my advisor will know who you are. Your information will not be shared with anyone else, including your spouse. Your identity will be protected throughout the study and will not be revealed in any published results. All data collection for this research will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in my office at BGSU or a password protected database. Results from this study will be presented only in summary manner. Approximately 3 years after the completion of Time 2 of the study, I will destroy all records of your contact information. Your participation is voluntary. You can skip any question that you do not want to answer. In addition, you can withdraw from the study at any time or refuse to take part in any activity in which you feel uncomfortable. You can withdraw your consent or stop your participation in the study at any time without penalty or explanation. You have the right to have all questions concerning the study answered by the researcher. You may request a summary or copy of the results of the study. You should retain a copy of this consent document for your own records. As indicated above, I do not expect that your participation in this study will cause you extra or unusual distress. However, given that the newlywed period can often be stressful, my advisor and I would be happy to provide you with referral information for professional counselors, if you tell us that you want to learn more about such resources.

Additional Information Regarding Survey Completion If you are completing a mailed survey, you have received a postage-paid envelope in which to mail your completed survey packet and the contact information form. If you are completing the survey online, there are no materials that you have to mail. You will be asked to submit your contact information online. If you have requested a mailed survey packet, by completing and returning the completed survey packet, you are indicating your consent to participate in the study. If you choose to complete the survey packet online, by completing this survey packet and submitting it (i.e., clicking the “submit” button once you are finished), you are indicating your consent to participate in the study. If you choose to complete the survey via the Internet, please be sure to clear the browser cache and page history after you submit the survey, in order to protect your privacy. Should you complete the survey online at work, please know that your employer may use tracking software to monitor websites visited. Therefore, you may wish to complete the survey on your home computer or a public computer.

Contact Information for Researchers and HSRB Please feel free to contact me if you have questions about the study itself, including the procedure, what is required of participants, and the time commitment: Krystal Hernandez, Psychology Department, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403; phone: (419) 807-8101; email: [email protected]. You may also contact my project advisor: Dr. Annette Mahoney, Psychology Department, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403; phone: (419) 372-0282; email: [email protected]. If you have questions about the conduct of this study or your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Chair of Bowling Green State University’s Human Subjects Review Board at (419) 372-7716 or [email protected]. Their office is 201 South Hall, Bowling Green State University.

Documentation of Informed Consent If you have read the information above, and agree to participate in the study, please complete the survey packet. By completing and submitting the survey packet (i.e., submit survey packet online or return survey packet in the mail in addition to the contact information form), you are providing consent to participate in the study.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 122 Table 1

Descriptive Information for Sample: Demographic Information

Variable Percentage

Gender Female 61.9%

Ethnicity African American 9.5% Asian American 2.4% Caucasian 75.0% Hispanic/ Latino/a 8.3% Multi-ethic/racial 1.2% Native American 1.2%

Highest Level of Education Completed Partial HS 10.7% HS graduation 20.2% Partial college/post-HS training 35.7% College graduation 22.6% Grad/professional degree 10.7%

Income (gross annual household income) n Less than $25,000 23.8% $25,001-$50,000 35.7% $50,001-$75,000 26.2% $75,001-$100,000 7.1% $100,001-$130,000 2.4% More than $130,000 3.6%

Employment Full-time 54.8% Part-time 15.5% Full-time homemaker 14.3% Retired 2.4% Student 6.0% Unemployed 6.0%

Note. n signifies n = 83 reporting. Otherwise, N = 84 reporting. Average age of sample = 30.54 years (SD = 9.59; range 18-64).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 123 Table 2

Descriptive Information for Sample: Religiousness and Spirituality (N = 84)

Percentage Mean SD Range Variable

Religious Affiliation Buddhist 2.4% Christian/Catholic 27.4% Christian/Non-denominational 22.6% Christian/Protestant 21.4% Hindu 1.2% Moslem/Islam 2.4% None 16.7% Other 6.0%

Frequency of Religious Service Attendance 4.30 2.63 1-9 Never 19.0% Less than once a year 15.5% Once a year 2.4% Several times a year 26.2% Once a month 4.8% 2-3 times a month 7.1% Nearly every week 6.0% Every week 11.9% More than once a week 7.1%

Frequency of Prayer 3.76 1.82 1-6 Never 15.5% Less than once a week 16.7% Once a week 9.5% Several times a week 19.0% Once a day 13.1% Several times a day 26.2%

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 124 Table 2, continued

Percentage Mean SD Range Variable

Self-Rated Religiousness 2.44 .90 1-4 Not at all religious 15.5% Slightly religious 36.9% Moderately religious 35.7% Very religious 11.9%

Self-Rated Spirituality 2.71 .93 1-4 Not spiritual at all 10.7% Slightly spiritual 28.6% Moderately spiritual 39.3% Very spiritual 21.4%

Belief in God + 4.15 1.36 0-5 a. 2.4% b. 4.8% c. 9.5% d. 3.6% e. 17.9% f. 61.9%

Biblical Conservatism 6.24 2.58 2-10

Note. + Belief in God scale items are as follows: a. I don’t believe in God. b. I don’t believe in a personal God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out. c. I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind. d. I find myself believing in God some of the time but not at others. e. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. f. I know God really exists, and I have no doubts about it.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 125 Table 3

Summary of Recruitment Efforts and Estimated Response Rates*

Recruitment Postcards Distributed 1,111 postcards mailed - 43 returned to sender = 1,068 total postcards received

Telephone Calls (i.e., made to prospective participants who received postcard but did not respond/complete survey within one month) 235/ 1068 = 22% phone numbers available (i.e., online number searches and local phone books) 139/ 235 = 59.1% contacts attempted 41/ 139 = 29.5% wrong numbers or disconnected numbers 49/ 139 = 35.2% messages left, unreturned 11/ 139 = 7.9% contacted, did not want to participate 28/ 139 = 20.1% answering services unavailable, tried 3x to contact, unavailable 10/ 139 = 7.2% messages left, returned (agreed to participate) -- Total 81.3% unsuccessful contacts, therefore remaining numbers were not contacted

Responses 96 people responded (i.e., called or emailed researcher, returned phone message) 8 did not return survey 88 completed surveys, with 4 excluded due to ineligibility 84 included

Percentages 96/ 1068 = 9% response rate 88/ 96 = 91.7% completion rate 84/ 96 = 87.5% data eligible and included

or 84/ 1068 = 7.9% total response, completion, eligibility

*Note. These percentages are highly conservative estimates of response rates, as it cannot be determined how many individuals actually received recruitment postcards. While 43 postcards were explicitly returned to sender, it is likely than additional postcards were never received by intended persons.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 126 Table 4

Descriptive Information for Sample: Relationship History (N = 84)

Percentage Mean SD Range Variable

Number of Times Married Previously 0 times 71.4% 1 time 19.0% 2 times 8.3% 3 times 1.2%

Length of Relationship (months) 49.15 32.56 3-144

Length of Engagement (months) 12.54 13.62 0-77

Length of Cohabitation (months) 21.69 26.49 0-120

Length of Marriage (days.months) 12.64 4.90 4.01-18.29

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 127 Table 5

Descriptive Information for Sample: History of Sexual Behavior and Perceptions of Spousal Sexual History

Percentage Mean SD Range Variable

Age of First Intercourse n 17.82 3.76 7-28

Sexual Activity with Other Partners Prior to Dating Current Spouse Yes 65.5%

Sexual Activity with Spouse Prior to Marriage Yes 84.5%

Self Frequency of Orgasm 4.11 1.02 1-4 Never 2.4% Rarely 4.8% Sometimes 17.9% Most of the time 29.8% All of the time 45.2%

Perceived Spouse Frequency of Orgasm 4.52 .77 1-4 Never 0% Rarely 3.6% Sometimes 6.0% Most of the time 25.0% All of the time 65.5%

Perceived Spouse Sexual Fidelity before Marriage (Dating and Engagement to Current Spouse) Yes 84.5%

Perceived Spouse Sexual Fidelity since Marriage Yes 97.6%

Note. n signifies n = 83 reporting. Otherwise, N = 84 reporting. The following variables describing sexual history are listed in Table 8, as these variables were included as criterion variables: Self Sexual Fidelity Prior to Marriage (Dating and Engagement), Self Sexual Fidelity since Marriage, Average Monthly Frequency of Sexual Intercourse, and Last Month Frequency of Sexual Intercourse. Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 128 Table 6

Descriptive Information for Sample: Children (N = 84)

Descriptive Statistics for Cases with Children ______

Percentage of n Mean SD Range Sample with Children Variable

Number of Children (self-report) 44% 37 2.38 1.71 1-8

Number of Children with Spouse 28.6% 24 1.42 .72 1-2

Number of Children Currently Residing 42.9% 36 1.94 .92 1-3

Current Pregnancy 9.5%

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 129 Table 7

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality: Items and Percentages of Three Points in the Scale (N = 83)

Percentages ______

Below Neutral Neutral Above Neutral Item

Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality Subscale 1. Being sexually intimate with my souse feels like a deeply spiritual experience. 31.3% 27.7% 41.0%

2. Our sexual relationship seems like a miracle to me. 40.9% 22.9% 36.1%

3. Our sexual connection is part of a larger spiritual plan. 34.9% 25.3% 39.8%

4. Our sexual relationship is holy. 37.3% 27.7% 34.9%

5. The sexual bond I have with my spouse is sacred to me. 16.8% 8.4% 74.7%

6. Our sexual relationship connects us to something greater 33.7% 22.9% 43.3% than ourselves.

7. My sexual relationship with my spouse reveals the deepest truths of life to me. 43.3% 27.7% 28.9%

8. There are moments when we are sexually intimate that time stands still and I feel like I am part of something eternal. 38.5% 18.1% 43.3%

9. Our sexual relationship puts me in touch with the deepest mysteries of life. 42.2% 26.5% 31.2%

10. At moments, being sexually intimate with my spouse makes me very aware of a creative power beyond us. 45.7% 15.7% 38.5% Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 130 Table 7, continued

Percentages ______

Below Neutral Neutral Above Neutral Item

Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality Subscale 11. God played a role in my decision to have a sexual relationship with my spouse. 45.7% 13.3% 40.9%

12. Our sexual relationship speaks to the presence of God. 50.5% 28.9% 20.5%

13. I experience God through the sexual bond I have with my spouse. 56.5% 22.9% 20.4%

14. God’s essence is expressed in our sexual relationship. 56.5% 22.9% 20.4%

15. Being in a sexual relationship with each other is a reflection of God’s will. 37.3% 15.7% 47.0%

16. God has been a guiding force in our sexual relationship. 46.9% 26.5% 26.4%

17. In mysterious ways, God deepens the sexual intimacy I have with my spouse. 43.3% 30.1% 26.4%

18. I feel God at work when we express ourselves sexually with each other. 49.4% 24.1% 26.4%

19. There are moments when I feel a strong connection with God when I am sexually intimate with my spouse. 54.1% 26.5% 19.2%

20. I see God’s influence in our sexual relationship. 48.1% 22.9% 28.9%

Note. Cronbach α = .98.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 131 Table 8

Descriptive Information for Sample: Predictor and Criterion Variables

Percentage Mean SD Actual Alpha Variable Range

Predictor Variable Total Sanctification of Marital Sexuality n 74.76 34.37 20-140 .98 Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality 40.22 17.76 10-70 .95 Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality 34.42 18.36 10-70 .97

Sexual Criterion Variables Self Sexual Fidelity before Marriage (Dating and Engagement to Current Spouse) Yes 89.3%

Self Sexual Fidelity since Marriage to Current Spouse Yes 95.2%

Average Monthly Frequency of Sexual Intercourse 4.43 1.95 1-5 Not at all 3.6% 1-4 times 11.9% 5-8 times 21.4% 9-12 times 20.2% 13-16 times 15.5% 17-20 times 9.5% 21-24 times 9.5% 25-29 times 6.0% 30 or more times 2.4%

Last Month Frequency of Sexual Intercourse 10.71 9.06 0-50

Sexual Satisfaction a 37.81 7.40 14-45 a .94

Sexual Intimacy 20.76 2.85 13-24 .66

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 132 Table 8, continued

Percentage Mean SD Actual Alpha Variable Range

Global Distress from Sexual Problems .67 .83 0-3 Not at all 51.2% Somewhat 35.7% Quite a bit 8.3% A great deal 4.8%

Psychological Criterion Variables Time/Effort to Sexually Bond as a Couple 7.98 2.65 0-15 1. Created a romantic mood through use of candles, music, etc. 59.5% 2. Engaged in affectionate touching (e.g., hold hands, kiss, hug) 89.3% 3. Engaged in sensual touch (e.g., give massage, cuddle, hold) 86.9% 4. Gone out on dates with spouse 85.7% 5. Scheduled time to be alone together 75.0% 6. Explored different ways to express physical bond 65.5% 7. Have done what spouse likes sexually, and avoided sexual activities spouse dislikes 70.2% 8. Told spouse about personal likes/dislikes when sexually intimate 81.0% 9. Read articles or books about how to preserve or enhance sexual intimacy (e.g., secular or Christian-based resources) 58.3% 10. Watched videos for sexual enhancement 39.3% 11. Used sexually related games or toys to enhance arousal or intimacy 44.1% 12. Taken medication(s) to enhance arousal or treat sexual dysfunction 26.2% 13. Visited physician to address physical or sexual problems 4.8% 14. Attended marital or sex therapy to deal with sexual issues 4.8% 15. Other 9.5%

Marital Satisfaction 17.37 4.45 3-21 .97

Adaptive Secular Coping 17.63 6.57 8-32 .92

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 133 Table 8, continued

Percentage Mean SD Actual Alpha Variable Range

Maladaptive Secular Coping + 26.90 10.55 16-64 .92

Divorce Proneness 2.86 3.91 0-15 .84

Spiritual Criterion Variables Spiritual intimacy 16.80 5.22 5-24 b .81

Positive Religious Coping n 17.65 15.70 0-54 .97

Negative Religious Coping n 9.05 11.15 0-54 .94

Note. Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items reported. n signifies n = 83 reporting. Otherwise, N = 84 reporting. a Possible range of scores for sexual satisfaction was 9-45. b Possible range of scores for spiritual intimacy was 0-24.

+ Maladaptive or negative secular coping total score reported. Alphas of subscales as follows: self punishment (α = .90) and avoidance (α = .87).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 134

Table 9

Bivariate Correlations among Conventional Religiousness Variables and Criterion Variables

Variable Freq. reli service Freq. prayer s Self-rateds Self-rated s Belief in God s Biblical Conservatism attendance s religiousness spirituality

Sexual Criteria Average monthly SF s -.13 -.12 .23* -.11 -.17 -.11 Global distress from SP .09 .12 .15 .11 .08 .16 Sexual satisfaction .10 .03 .19 .20 -.03 .02 Sexual intimacy -.12 -.17 .02 .01 -.04 -.08

Psychological Criteria Time/effort to SB as a couple -.06 -.05 .00 .11 -.09 -.09 Marital satisfaction .13 -.07 .12 .08 .03 .02 Adaptive SC -.07 .19 .08 .11 .05 .04 Maladaptive SC .01 .17 .09 .09 .08 .20

Spiritual Criteria Spiritual intimacy .09 .09 .22* .25* .06 .11 Positive RCOPE n .60*** .60*** .50*** .49*** .53*** .51*** Negative RCOPE n .30** .33** .21 .21 .32** .24*

Predictor Variable Total sanctification of MS n .46*** .50*** .52*** .53*** .43*** .50*** Sacred qualities n .32** .40*** .40*** .50*** .35*** .42*** Manifestation of Godn .53*** .53*** .58*** .53*** .45*** .53***

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001. All correlations represent a sample of N = 84, except n (n = 83). s Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Otherwise all Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Two-tailed tests except for correlations with all sanctification variables, which are one-tailed. SF = Sexual frequency. SP = Sexual problems. SB = Sexually bond. SC = Secular coping. RCOPE = Religious coping. MS = Marital sexuality. Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 135 Table 10

Bivariate Correlations with Demographic Variables and Criterion and Predictor Variables

Variable Age Gender Education s Income s n Number of Length of Number of Number of times married marriage children children residing

Sexual Criteria Average monthly SF s -.18 -.16 -.09 -.04 -.08 -.04 .04 .00 Global distress from SP .18 .23* .08 -.19 .23* .19 .18 .11 Sexual satisfaction -.05 -.27** -.09 .12 .11 -.05 -.06 -.19 Sexual intimacy -.33** -.38*** .03 .07 .30** -.02 -.22* -.17

Psychological Criteria Time/effort to SB as a couple -.09 -.01 .05 .14 -.09 -.21 .04 -.02 Marital satisfaction -.16 -.16 .05 .21 -.16 .07 -.13 -.25* Adaptive SC .35*** .23* .06 .04 .25* -.00 .13 -.02 Maladaptive SC .32** .37* -.11 -.15 .33** -.07 .26* .11

Spiritual Criteria Spiritual intimacy -.04 -.09 .02 .25* -.17 -.05 -.07 -.11 Positive RCOPE n .31** .12 -.19 -.10 a .27* .03 .11 -.15 Negative RCOPE n .13 .06 -.32** -.26** a .17 .03 .17 .01

Predictor Variable Total sanctification of MS n .26* -.09 -.03 .15 a .07 -.04 -.07 -.26* Sacred qualities n .25* -.16 -.02 .15 a .04 -.03 -.06 -.22* Manifestation of God n .25* -.01 -.06 .11a .09 -.04 -.06 -.26*

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001. All correlations represent a sample of N = 84, except n (n = 83) and a (n = 82). s Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Otherwise, all Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. Two-tailed tests. SF = Sexual frequency. SP = Sexual problems. SB = Sexually bond. SC = Secular coping. RCOPE = Religious coping. MS = Marital sexuality.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 136 Table 11

Bivariate Correlations among Criterion Variables

s s + + Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

s 1. Average Monthly SF 1 .84*** .23* .25* -.30** .28* .29** -.15 -.07 -.09 -.10 .14

s 2. Last Month SF 1 .20 .31** -.27* .26* .26* -.06 .04 -.06 .10 .25*

3. Sexual Satisfaction 1 .63*** -.52*** .43** .73*** -.13 -.17 .02 .05 .57***

4. Sexual Intimacy 1 -.48*** .37** .51*** -.16 -.31** -.03 -.03 .42***

5. Global Distress from SP 1 -.49** -.46*** .32** .34** .14 .04 -.35***

6. Time and Effort to Create SB as Couple 1 .34** .04 .14 -.04 .19 .36***

7. Martial Satisfaction 1 -.08 -.27** -.02 -.10 .53***

8. Adaptive SC 1 .55*** .33** .29** .06

9. Maladaptive SC 1 .40*** .57*** -.11

+ 10. Positive RCOPE 1 .70*** .00

+ 11. Negative RCOPE 1 -.10

12. Spiritual Intimacy 1

Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. Two-tailed. + n = 83. Otherwise, N = 84. s Spearman-rank correlation coefficient. Otherwise, Pearson correlation coefficients. SF = Monthly Sexual Frequency. SP = Sexual Problems. SB = Sexually Bond. RCOPE = Religious Coping. SC = Secular Coping Last month sexual frequency dropped from subsequent analyses, given strong positive correlation with average monthly frequency of sexual intercourse.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 137 Table 12

Bivariate Correlations among Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Criterion Variables (N = 83)

Subscales ______

Total Sanctification of MS Sacred Qualities of MS Manifestation of God in MS Criterion variable

Sexual Criteria Average monthly SFs -.11 -.06 -.15 Global distress from SP -.23* -.23* -.21* Sexual satisfaction .33*** .36*** .28** Sexual intimacy .26** .30** .20*

Psychological Criteria Time/effort to SB as a couple .31** .30** .28** Marital satisfaction .25** .28** .21* Adaptive SC .13 .12 .13 Maladaptive SC .11 .12 .09

Spiritual Criteria Spiritual intimacy .37*** .37*** .34*** Positive RCOPE .47*** .39*** .50*** Negative RCOPE .31** .30** .28**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001. One-tailed tests. s Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Otherwise all Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. SF = Sexual frequency. SP = Sexual problems. SB = Sexually bond. SC = Secular coping. RCOPE = Religious coping. MS = Marital sexuality.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 138 Table 13

Hierarchical Regressions on Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Sexual Criteria

Predictor variables Global distress from Sexual satisfaction Sexual intimacy sexual problems Beta R2 Change Beta R2 Change Beta R2 Change

Step 1 Demographic variables .22 F = 2.51** .18 F = 2.05* .26 F = 3.15** Age .05 .06 -.22 Gender .20 -.26* -.30** Education .16 -.21 -.09 Household income -.25* .19 .16 Number of times married .27 -.24 -.16 Length of current marriage .26* -.12 -.08 Number of children -.09 .29 .09 Number of children residing .18 -.39** -.19

Step 2 Conventional religiousness .07 F = 1.94* .15 F = 2.34** .05 F = 2.07* Freq. reli service attendance .05 -.11 -.22 Freq. prayer -.21 -.21 -.01 Self-rated religiousness -.10 .53** .30 Self-rated spirituality .25 -.13 -.12 Belief in God .21 -.37** -.13 Biblical conservatism .07 .13 .01

Step 3 Sanctification of marital sexuality .12 F = 2.79** .10 F = 3.04*** .13 F = 3.13*** Sacred qualities -.18 .53** .51** Manifestation of God -.33 -.18 -.03

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001. Standardized beta coefficient reported. Degrees of freedom (df) for each step: Step 1 (8,73); Step 2 (14,67); Step 3 (16,65).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 139 Table 14

Hierarchical Regressions on Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Psychological Criteria

Predictor variable Time/effort to sexually bond as a couple Marital satisfaction Beta R2 Change Beta R2 Change

Step 1 Demographic variables .12 F = 1.25 .14 F = 1.51 Age -.14 -.17 Gender -.01 -.11 Education .01 -.07 Household income .16 .20 Number of times married -.16 -.09 Length of current marriage -.30** -.02 Number of children .33 .23 Number of children residing -.23 -.37*

Step 2 Conventional religiousness .12 F = 1.49 .14 F = 1.88* Freq. reli service attendance -.29 -.00 Freq. prayer .08 -.39* Self-rated religiousness .34 .36* Self-rated spirituality .17 -.21 Belief in God -.31* -.26 Biblical conservatism -.09 .28

Step 3 Sanctification of marital sexuality .17 F = 2.80** .11 F = 2.57** Sacred qualities .32 .49* Manifestation of God .28 -.09

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001. Standardized beta coefficient reported. Degrees of freedom (df) for each step: Step 1 (8,73); Step 2 (14,67); Step 3 (16,65).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 140 Table 15

Hierarchical Regressions on Sanctification of Marital Sexuality and Spiritual Criteria

Predictor variables Spiritual intimacy Positive religious coping Negative religious coping Beta R2 Change Beta R2 Change Beta R2 Change

Step 1 Demographic variables .13 F = 1.35 .26 F = 3.14** .26 F = 3.19** Age .07 .27 .15 Gender -.05 .05 .03 Education -.07 -.34** -.43*** Household income .29* -.02 -.16 Number of times married -.37* .04 .01 Length of current marriage -.07 .04 .07 Number of children .25 .14 .12 Number of children residing -.18 -.39** -.24

Step 2 Conventional religiousness .07 F = 1.18 .26 F = 5.04*** .06 F = 2.25** Freq. reli service attendance -.10 .22 .09 Freq. prayer -.17 .22 .15 Self-rated religiousness .24 .03 -.03 Self-rated spirituality .25 .02 .08 Belief in God -.05 .18 .15 Biblical conservatism .03 .00 -.12

Step 3 Sanctification of marital sexuality .08 F = 1.55 .01 F = 4.40*** .05 F = 2.36** Sacred qualities .32 .04 .37 Manifestation of God .07 .08 -.13

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01 and ***p < .001. Standardized beta coefficient reported. Degrees of freedom (df) for each step: Step 1 (8,73); Step 2 (14,67); Step 3 (16,65).

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 141 Figure 1

Comparisons of Self-Rated Religiousness across Current and National Samples

50 45 40 35 30 25 National Sample 20 Current Sample 15 10 5 0 Not religious at all Slightly religious Moderately religious Very religious

Comparisons of self-rated religiousness across current (N = 84) and national samples (N = 2,970). National sample represents data from 2006 General Social Survey.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 142

Figure 2

Comparisons of Self-Rated Spirituality across Current and National Samples

50 45 40 35 30

25 National Sample 20 Current Sample 15 10 5 0 Not spiritual at all Slightly spiritual Moderately spiritual Very spiritual

Comparisons of self-rated spirituality across current (N = 84) and national samples (N = 2,954). National sample represents data from 2006 General Social Survey.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 143 Figure 3

Comparisons of Frequencies of Religious Service Attendance across Current and National Samples

30

25

20

15

10 National Sample Current Sample

5

0

Comparisons of frequencies of religious service attendance across current (N = 84) and national samples (N = 4,491). National sample represents data from 2006 General Social Survey.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 144 Figure 4

Distribution of Scores for Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality Subscale

25

20

15

10 Frequency

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality

Distribution of scores for Manifestation of God in Marital Sexuality Subscale (n = 83). Mean score = 34.42 (SD = 18.36). Possible and actual scores range from 10-70.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 145 Figure 5

Distribution of Scores for Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality Subscale

12

10

8

6 Frequency 4

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality

Distribution of scores for Sacred Qualities of Marital Sexuality Subscale (n = 83). Mean score = 40.22 (SD = 17.76). Possible and actual scores range from 10-70.

Sanctification of Marital Sexuality 146 Figure 6

Distribution of Scores for Total Sanctification of Marital Sexuality Scale

15

12

9

6

Frequency

3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Total Sanctification of Marital Sexuality

Distribution of scores for Total Sanctification of Marital Sexuality scale (n = 83). Mean score = 74.76 (SD = 34.37). Possible and actual scores range from 29-140.