LINKS OF SPIRITUAL INTIMACY WITH OBSERVED EMOTIONAL INTIMACY AND PERCEIVED MARITAL QUALITY AMONG COUPLES DURING THEIR FIRST PREGNANCY

Emily A. Padgett

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

December 2010

Committee:

Annette Mahoney, Advisor

Kenneth Pargament

Alfred DeMaris

ii

ABSTRACT

Annette Mahoney, Advisor

This study explores the role that spiritual intimacy plays in marital relationships of couples who are expecting their first child. Spiritual intimacy is defined as spouses disclosing their beliefs and feelings regarding spirituality to each other and providing empathetic support about such disclosures. One hundred seventy eight married couples reported on spiritual intimacy and four areas of marital quality (i.e., use of collaboration to discuss conflict, general marital satisfaction, marital love, and spiritual satisfaction with the marriage). Each couple was also video-recorded having a ten minute conversation about their vulnerabilities related to becoming a parent to obtain a direct assessment of the degree of emotional intimacy and warmth shared by the couple. Specifically, the observed interactions were coded for each partner’s use of positive self disclosure, and positive support given to partner. In addition, couples were coded on the degree of general negativity and general affection and warmth the spouses exhibited toward each other. Wife and husband self-reports of spiritual intimacy correlated with observations of greater positive support, warmth/affection and less negativity during emotionally intimate interactions, and with both spouses’ self-reports of marital love and spiritual satisfaction, and wives’ marital satisfaction. Spiritual intimacy also predicted unique variance for these variables after controlling for demographic variables and general religiousness. Although couple collaboration accounted for the variance of spiritual intimacy in regards to self-reported marital satisfaction, it did not explain variance in self-reports of marital love and satisfaction with the spiritual state of the relationship. iii

To Matthew: my husband, my best friend, and brother in Christ. I am blessed to be your wife

and am eager to see what God has in store for our life together. I love you. iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I express my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Annette Mahoney for not only mentoring me through this project, but also for teaching me wonderful clinical skills and continuing to remind me of my talents and passions. I also want to thank my other committee members, Dr. Kenneth Pargament and Dr. Alfred DeMaris, for their feedback and their helpful insights regarding this project. I am appreciative of the families who participated in the New

Arrivals: Passage to Parenthood Study (NAPPS) for opening their homes and their lives to us during a very special and intimate time for their families. I am also thankful for all the graduate and undergraduate students who were involved in data collection and data entry, with a specific thank you to graduate students Jeremy Cummings, Michelle LeRoy, and Steve Lucero who coded the marital interactions used in this Master’s thesis. Last but not least, I am grateful for all the support, love, and encouragement given to me by my family, friends, church family, and husband during this process. I cannot imagine my life without the blessings of such wonderful people.

First and foremost, I am grateful to God and Jesus Christ for the life and faith I have been given, and for being my guiding lights throughout all times of my journey here on earth

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5

Global Religiousness and Marital Functioning...... 5

Marital satisfaction...... 5

Marital communication and conflict ...... 6

Emotional Intimacy in Marriage ...... 9

Conceptualizations of emotional intimacy...... 9

Research on marital interactions on emotional intimacy ...... 13

Relational Spirituality and Spiritual Intimacy in Marriage ...... 19

Conceptual framework of relational spirituality ...... 19

Spiritual intimacy as a form of relational spirituality ...... 23

Research related to spiritual intimacy ...... 24

Possible Links between Spiritual and Emotional Intimacy ...... 27

Religion, Spirituality, and Emotional Intimacy as Relevant Factors during

Pregnancy……...... 29

Religion and spirituality during pregnancy...... 29

Emotional intimacy during pregnancy ...... 32

The interplay of emotional and spiritual intimacy during pregnancy ...... 35

Marital Satisfaction, Love, and Spiritual Satisfaction as Other Indicators of Marital

Quality…………...... 36

Background information on measures of marital quality ...... 36 vi

Marital quality during transition to parenthood ...... 38

Spiritual satisfaction...... 39

Possible links between spiritual intimacy and marital quality ...... 40

Collaboration as a possible influential variable on marital quality ...... 41

The Present Study ...... 42

First goal and related hypotheses ...... 42

Second goal and related hypotheses ...... 43

Ways this present study addresses limitations and adds to the literature ...... 44

METHOD…...... 46

Participants…...... 46

Procedure…...... 46

Instrumentation: Participant Information and Control Variables ...... 47

Demographics ...... 47

Global religiousness ...... 48

Couple collaboration ...... 49

Instrumentation: Predictor Variable ...... 49

Spiritual intimacy ...... 49

Instrumentation: Criterion Variables ...... 50

Setting up observational interactions ...... 50

Coding emotional intimacy in observational interactions ...... 50

Marital satisfaction...... 52

Marital love ...... 53

Spiritual satisfaction...... 54 vii

RESULTS…...... 55

Preliminary and Descriptive Correlational Statistics ...... 55

Inferential Statistics ...... 57

Findings regarding the first goal of the study ...... 57

Findings regarding the second goal of the study ...... 60

Post hoc analyses ...... 63

DISCUSSION …...... 64

Overview of Key Findings Linking Spiritual Intimacy to Marital Quality ...... 60

Discussion of Null Findings...... 70

Implications, Limitations, and Future Research ...... 71

CONCLUSION…...... 76

REFERENCES…………… ...... 78

APPENDIX A. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ...... 92

APPENDIX B. COUPLE COLLABORATION...... 93

APPENDIX C. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY ...... 94

APPENDIX D. VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST...... 95

APPENDIX E. OBSERVATIONAL CODING MANUAL ...... 96

APPENDIX F. MARITAL SATISFACTION ...... 105

APPENDIX G. MARITAL LOVE ...... 106

APPENDIX H. SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION ...... 107

APPENDIX I. TABLES ...... 108 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table . Page

1 Descriptive Information for Sample: General Demographics for Husbands and

Wives ...... 108

2 Descriptive Information for Sample: Religiousness/Spirituality Indicators for

Husbands and Wives ...... 109

3 Descriptive Information for Sample: Marital Criterion Variables ...... 110

4 Intercorrelations of Religious Variables of Each Spouse and Each Spouse’s Self

Report of the Couple ...... 111

5 Bivariate Correlations of Self Report of Marital Quality with Behavioral

Observations of the Couple ...... 112

6 Bivariate Correlations of Demographic Variables with Behavioral Observations of

the Couple and Each Spouse’s Report of Marital Quality ...... 113

7 Bivariate Correlations of Self Report of Spiritual Intimacy of the Couple and

Behavioral Observations of the Couple ...... 115

8 Bivariate Correlations of Each Spouse’s Self Report of Couple Spiritual Intimacy

and Self Report of Marital Quality ...... 116

9 Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on

Observed Couple Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global

Religiousness, and Collaboration of the Couple ...... 117

10 Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Self

Report Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and

Collaboration of the Couple ...... 121 ix

11 Post- Hoc Analyses–Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of

Collaboration on Self Report Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global

Religiousness, and Spiritual Intimacy of the Couple ...... 124

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 1

INTRODUCTION

The intersection of religion, spirituality, and the health and social sciences has increased greatly since the 1960‟s (Weaver, Pargament, Flannelly, & Oppenheimer, 2006), but only most recently has this intersection involved how religion and spirituality play a role in marital relationships. A significant amount of research has shown that some measures of religiosity and spirituality are tied to positive marital outcomes (Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank,

2001), but very little research has explored the role that religion and spirituality may play during times of transformation in relationships, such as preparing for parenthood or major violations of marital vows (e.g., sexual infidelity) (Mahoney, in press). Related to this study, no research exists on links between religious variables and the marital functioning of pregnant couples.

It is important to better understand factors tied to positive marital functioning during pregnancy as this may help buffer couples from the typical declines in marital functioning that occur during the transition to parenthood. Namely, a considerable amount of evidence indicates that couples experience decreases in marital satisfaction, decreases in positive interactions, and increases in marital conflict after the birth of their first child (e.g., Belsky, Lang, & Rovine,

1985; Belsky & Pensky, 1988; Belsky & Rovine, 1990; Belsky, Spanier, & Rovine, 1983). A meta-analysis on publications and dissertations regarding the transition to parenthood also indicated that parents have lower marital satisfaction than non-parents. Becoming a parent had greater influence on drops in marital satisfaction than any other demographic factor, and mothers were particularly affected when their children were infants (Twenge, 2003). Additionally, some research indicates that onset of decline in marital functioning occurs between the last trimester of pregnancy and the first three months of the child‟s life (Belsky, Lang, & Rovine, 1985), SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 2

Of course, although some couples experience declines in positive marital functioning, not all couples do. Research is not clear on the factors which discriminate between couples who experience decline and couples who remain unchanged or experience increases in marital functioning, and there is little research examining what influences rates of decrease and increase.

Some research has indicated that certain demographic factors and styles of relationship functioning play a role (e.g., Belsky & Rovine, 1990; Shapiro, Gottman, & Carrère, 2000), but we are still very much left in the dark in understanding how couples function and relate to each other during pregnancy.

Certain patterns of behavior and marital functioning may not only influence how the couple handles the transition, but it could also have an impact on the child. For example, married mothers make better prenatal health decisions than unmarried mothers, and mothers who experience relationship conflict and physical abuse are more likely to use drugs, smoke, or drink alcohol during pregnancy (Kimbro, 2008). More research is necessary to determine how couples function specifically during the period of pregnancy to explore the consequences on postnatal relationship functioning and child development. Such research would signal what characteristics should be longitudinally tracked across the transition to parenthood. One such factor which could influence marital functioning during this time is religion and spirituality.

While some research has been published regarding the role of religion in pregnancy, it has primarily focused on how religion influences prenatal health decisions (e.g., Jesse & Reed,

2003), health outcomes for the baby (e.g., Najman, Williams, Keeping, Morrison, & Andersen,

1988), and prenatal anxiety and depression symptoms (e.g., Mann, McKeown, Bacon,

Vesselinov, & Bush, 2007a, 2008b). No research has been conducted on how aspects of religion SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 3 or spirituality may influence the father‟s experience of pregnancy, let alone the prenatal marital relationship.

Furthermore, when marriage and pregnancy researchers have used religious constructs, they have focused on implementing measures of individual religiousness (e.g., religious attendance and private prayer), not how marital partners engage in religiousness and spirituality together as a unit (e.g., joint prayer and spiritual self-disclosure). One way couples can engage in spirituality as a unit is through spiritual intimacy, which is defined for the purpose of this project as spouses disclosing their beliefs and feelings regarding spirituality to each other and providing empathetic support about each other‟s disclosures. Although couples may have spiritually intimate discussions throughout all seasons of their marriage, it could be argued that spiritual intimacy may be especially likely to occur during pregnancy, as each spouse‟s thoughts and feelings about religion and spirituality could influence the way they desire to raise their child as well as the way they view their marriage while preparing for and journeying through the transition.

Spiritual intimacy is not the only form of intimacy which may occur during first pregnancies; opportunities for emotional intimacy are also likely to be present. Pregnancy can be full of joy, expectation, excitement, and love for the new addition to the family and couples may often share such intense positive feelings with each other. Of course this period of time can also be a time of negative emotions, such as nervousness, anxiety, fear, insecurity and self-doubt as the couple anticipates their responsibility for someone other than themselves as well as the changes which will occur in their marital dynamics. It has been documented that pregnancy can induce symptoms of depression and anxiety in both expectant mothers and fathers (e.g., Marcus,

Flynn, Blow, & Barry, 2003; Ross & McClean, 2006; Condon, Boyce, & Corkindale, 2004). As SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 4 the due-date draws near, the partners have opportunities to share both their positive and negative emotions with each other and seek support from one another. After all, pregnancy marks the advent of a significant, life-changing event, particularly if couples are experiencing it for the first time as individuals and as a couple. Discussions which center on each partner disclosing feelings of vulnerability and giving and receiving support are examples of marital emotional intimacy, a construct that has not been studied as much as marital conflict. Although some research exists on expectant mothers‟ and fathers‟ perceived general social support (e.g. Orr, 2004; Boyce,

Condon, Barton, & Corkindale, 2007), the specific construct of emotional intimacy between spouses has not been studied in pregnant married couples.

Given the limited data available on both the constructs of spiritual intimacy and emotional intimacy, it is not surprising that nothing is known about how self-reported spiritual intimacy may relate to observations of emotional intimacy between spouses. This study will provide a rationale for why it is reasonable to expect these two facets of intimacy to be interrelated with each other. Thus, one main goal of this study was to examine the interrelationship of perceived spiritual intimacy and observations of emotional intimacy between couples during pregnancy. Another major goal of this project was to examine whether spiritual intimacy was also be tied to self-reports of marital love, marital satisfaction, and satisfaction with the spiritual well-being of the marriage even after taking into account spouses‟ self-reports of the degree to which they use positive communication strategies to discuss conflicts. To set the stage for this Master‟s thesis, I first offer a literature review regarding religiousness in marriage, emotional intimacy in marriage, spiritual intimacy as a form of relational spirituality, religiousness during pregnancy, emotional intimacy during pregnancy, and other relevant forms of marital quality. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 5

LITERATURE REVIEW

Global Religiousness and Marital Functioning

Much of the psychological research on religion and spirituality up until this point of time has focused on how religion and spirituality relate to individual functioning, rather than examine the ways in which religion and spirituality relate to marital relationship functioning. For example, a meta-analysis by Mahoney and colleagues located only 38 studies published in peer- reviewed journals from 1980-1999 which measured marital quality alongside measures of religiousness and spirituality (2001). Nevertheless, this literature alongside findings from the past decade (Mahoney, in press), indicate that measures of religiousness and spirituality do indeed relate to marital functioning. In this section, I refer to the overall findings of those reviews. Specifically, I will note that the current trend has been to ask married individuals about their own individual religious and spiritual lives to see if individual religiousness is related to marital outcomes. Although the review articles include a variety of marital criterion, this summary will focus on the marital constructs of interest in this Master‟s thesis. Each of these marital constructs is briefly discussed next and discussed again in more detail as they may related to the primary predictor variables examined in this study.

Marital satisfaction. The first outcome of interest is marital satisfaction, a construct that has been studied very often in marital research using a religious or spiritual variable. In a meta- analysis on religious constructs in marital research between 1980 and 1999 (Mahoney et al.,

2001), promising results were found which indicate that higher personal religiousness among married couples is associated with higher levels of marital satisfaction, with a large overall effect size (r = .15). Additionally, further analyses suggested that personal religiousness may be even more relevant for those individual‟s who report belonging to a church community (r = .27) in SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 6 comparison to community and national samples (r = .11). Other religious constructs were studied, though all had smaller effect sizes. For example, many studies found church attendance to significantly predict greater marital satisfaction, but the overall effect size was small (r =

.074). Additionally, being affiliated with a religious denomination was linked to higher marital satisfaction, but with weaker results (r = .05). Furthermore, being religiously homogamous, meaning that the partner‟s share religious beliefs, affiliations, or levels of personal religiousness, also relates to higher marital satisfaction, though the average effect size was quite small (r =.

045).

In a review of research published in the last decade, overall religiousness continues to relate to higher marital satisfaction, but with some exceptions to the rule (Mahoney, in press).

Myers‟ generational research indicates that religious homogamy related to higher marital satisfaction from 1980-1997, but the effect was lower in the younger generations (Myers, 2006).

Additionally, research on newlywed couples indicated that husbands religiousness only increased marital satisfaction if the husband was psychologically well adjusted (Sullivan, 2001), while other research supported that change occurs in marital satisfaction depending on spousal levels of extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity (Brimhall & Butler, 2007). Additionally, research on married and unmarried new parents in urban settings suggests that parents attending religious services together and fathers‟ individual attendance influence relationship satisfaction regardless of marital status, while women‟s individual attendance has no significant effect (Wilcox &

Wolfinger, 2008; Wolfinger & Wilcox, 2008).

Marital communication and conflict. Marital communication skills and level of spousal conflict have also been researched using religious variables. In the meta-analysis by Mahoney and colleagues (2001), the only dimension of marital communication studied was frequency of SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 7 conflict, as there as an insufficient number of studies on other forms of communication, such as emotional intimacy, to generate summary meta-analysis statistics. The overall effect size of affiliation, church attendance, or personal religiousness on marital conflict resulted in an effect size of zero, with only four studies finding significant results. Of those studies, religion had potential benefits in the context of marital conflict, as frequent Bible reading was related to less frequent conflict (Booth, Johnson, Branaman, & Sica, 1995 ), religious devoutness was associated with more effective conflict resolution (Scanzoni & Arnett, 1987), and overall religiousness was related to higher use of collaboration during conflict (Mahoney et al., 1999).

More recently, research on religious dissimilarity indicated that different levels of attendance between husband and wife were related to higher levels of overall conflict, while dissimilarity regarding literal interpretations of the Bible increased conflict specifically in the realm of household labor and finances (Curtis & Ellison, 2002). A study on prayer noted that spouses who pray amidst relationship conflict experience less negative feelings toward their partner, develop increased understanding of their partner, feel increased responsibility for self-change and reconciliation, and experience God/the Divine as a coach to help the couple solve problems

(Butler, Stout, & Gardner, 2002). Qualitative research also indicates that couples give credit to their religiousness in the areas of conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and repairing of the relationship after conflict (Lambert & Dollahite, 2006).

The research mentioned above used self-report data to assess marital communication patterns, while self-report measures tend to be the mode of choice in the majority of marital research, observational data can be helpful in obtaining more objective information about marital functioning. Very little marital research has examined marital observational data with religious variables. Using premarital couples, one study did not find self-reported overall religiousness to SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 8 be connected to observational measures of problem solving or emotional invalidation for either husbands or wives (Clements, Stanley, & Markman, 2004). In another study, religiosity, as measured by 4-item measure of attendance, importance, coping, and self-described religiousness, did not account for either positive or negative behaviors in conflict discussions for husbands or wives among two different samples of newlywed couples (Sullivan, 2001). However, a study on

African American married couples found that spousal reports of general religiousness (i.e., frequency and importance of religious attendance) were positively correlated with marital interaction quality, which included observational measures of harmony, engagement, communication, and warmth (Brody, Stoneman, Flor, & McCrary, 1994). Additionally, this index of religiousness was found to have direct effects on marital quality by using structural- equation modeling. One major methodological problem, however, is that the marital observational data was derived from family interactions including the married couple and their eldest child, rather than the couple alone.

To my knowledge, these three studies represent the only studies published in peer- reviewed journals that link measures of spousal religiousness to direct observations of marital communication patterns. However, two of the studies focused on conflict/problem solving and negative emotional behaviors rather than exploring patterns other than those that typically occur in the context of discussing disagreements. Important, but alternative, patterns of dialogue include discussions that are more likely to elicit evidence of whether spouses are capable of disclosing sensitive information about their thoughts and feelings regarding their personal vulnerabilities, and providing each other with emotional support when such disclosures are shared (i.e., engage in emotionally intimacy). Although religiousness may not necessarily facilitate problem solving or conflict, it may aid marital couples during more emotionally laden SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 9 discussions that are likely to elicit self-disclosure and emotional support. An in-depth discussion of one particular aspect of religiousness, namely spirituality intimacy, that may facilitate emotional intimacy – that is, self-disclosure and emotional support during dyadic discussions focused on vulnerabilities - is offered later. But first it is discussed what is meant by observed emotional intimacy and how it is conceptualized for this study.

Emotional Intimacy in Marriage

Conceptualizations of emotional intimacy. A review of the intimacy literature can leave one quite confused as to what “intimacy” actually is, as it has been conceptualized as emotions, feeling of closeness, sexual relations, companionship, and self-disclosure, just to name a few. Indeed, one researcher has said that “intimacy is too broad a concept…to be of much value to scholars” (Prager, 1995, p. 18), suggesting that it must be broken down into components in order to measure aspects of intimacy appropriately. For the purpose of this project, intimacy is conceptualized as emotional intimacy, which is defined as a “sequence of events in which behavior vulnerable to interpersonal punishment is reinforced by the response of another person”

(Cordova & Scott, 2001, p. 77). Rather than rely on self-reports of this construct, this project will utilize observations of marital interactions where couples were asked to dialogue together about their insecurities, vulnerabilities and apprehensions about being pregnant and on the verge of having their first child. To help provide a justification for this approach, I review below a few of the most popular conceptualizations of emotional intimacy. Thus, my discussion is oriented toward the goal of justifying the definitional and observational approach used to capture intimacy in this study.

Reis and Shaver (1988) created one of the first models of intimacy as an interpersonal interactional process between two parties. Their definition of intimacy is “a process that SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 10 involves communication of personal feelings and information to another person who responds warmly and sympathetically. This response validates the first person‟s experiences, and thereby deepens the relationship and encourages returned affection and support” (Reis & Shaver, 1988, p. 375). Their model thus incorporates emotional responses, perceptions of feeling understood, validated, and cared for, as well as motives, needs, goals, and fears of each individual in the interaction. Although it is understandable why Reis and Shaver included perceptions of feeling understood, motives, fears, etc., in their model, these aspects are not easily observed through interpersonal interactions. There is empirical support, however, for the validity of this model, using both self-report ratings (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005; Manne, Ostroff, Rini, Fox,

Goldstein, & Grana, 2004) and observational ratings (Mitchell, Castellani, Herrington, Joseph,

Doss, & Snyder, 2008).

Fruzzetti and Jacobson also have a definition of intimacy that is based on dyadic interactions, but it is viewed through their lenses as clinicians who follow the theory of

Behavioral Marital Therapy (1990). In their definition, intimacy occurs through a sequence of behaviors. These behaviors include one partner sharing information that is “self revealing and/or relationship-focused in content” (p. 126) and the other partner “respond[ing] in a positive, understanding, and/or self-revealing way her- or himself” (p. 126-127). Thus, their definition requires reciprocity, and they note that the interactions should also result in positive emotional arousal. Fruzzetti and Jacobson ultimately see the intimacy interventions as the answer to changing demand/withdraw patterns which occur so often in distressed couples.

Prager, quoted earlier, suggests in her model of intimacy that the construct includes both intimate interactions and intimate relationships, with intimate interactions being further parceled into verbal and non-verbal intimate behavior and intimate experience, which is one‟s perception SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 11 of closeness and intimacy. Prager restricted intimate interactions to positive behaviors and experiences, noting that “conversations that generate negative affect between the partners is not usually experienced as intimate” (Prager, 1995, pg. 22). Though intimate behavior includes self- disclosure and sympathetic support, it also includes other intimate moments, such as sexual experiences and instances of shared silence.

The models of Reis and Shaver, Fruzzetti and Jacobson, and Prager do not translate easily into measuring intimacy in an observational laboratory setting since they all incorporate perceived experience and other behaviors which may not occur during observed interactions.

Additionally, they do not fully include the possibility of negative behavior occurring during intimacy. A bit of modification is necessary to include observational measurement and the possible negative component of intimacy. Therefore, the model used here is a behavioral interpretation given by Cordova & Scott (2001), which, in many respects, is similar to the summarized models.

The most recent publications by Cordova and his colleagues do not rely heavily on behavioral psychology terms, although the earlier model is distinctly behavioral. The model assumes that intimacy is dyadic and can be observed and measured during intimate events, and intimacy is defined as “a sequence of events in which behavior vulnerable to interpersonal punishment is reinforced by the response of another person” (p. 77). In the context of pregnancy, an example of vulnerable disclosure could be a wife revealing her anxiety about the physical pains of labor. A husband could positively reinforce her statement by saying, “Well, that‟s a legitimate worry. I‟m sure a lot of first-time moms are scared about that.” Positive reinforcement could also occur, and may be evident in attentive listening and nodding without saying a word. Furthermore, a wife could feel scared or anxious to share her feelings due to SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 12 prior punishment of sharing. For example, continuing with the above scenario a wife may feel vulnerable about making certain statements, anticipating that a husband could easily punish the response by saying “Oh, women give birth every day – you‟ll be fine.” Any partner response that removes an anticipatory fear a spouse might have about having exposed vulnerable feeling could be conceptualized as negatively reinforcing the self-disclosure. An example of negative reinforcement would be a validating response such as “Oh, that makes sense to me,” as it reduces the wife‟s fears of being misunderstood or invalidated.

In this behavioral model, it is assumed that punishment of personal disclosures and self- revelation will sometimes occur during intimate events. As individuals continue to behave vulnerably more frequently and in different ways, each individual in the relationship begins to have their own sense of how willingly each person shares information, and how well each person supports the other. An increase in vulnerable interactions also results in more opportunities for punishment to occur. Cordova and Scott (2001) note that “punishment of interpersonal vulnerability is integral to all intimate partnerships,” (p. 78) but punishment becomes a barrier to intimacy when it becomes more probable than reinforcement. Furthermore, they suggest that since punishment and negativity are likely to occur at times, the way in which the disclosing partner responds to such behavior will be important in maintaining the relationship (Cordova &

Scott, 2001). Two behavioral coding systems have been created based on this model, the

Intimacy Coding System (Dorian & Cordova, 1999, as cited in Dorian & Cordova, 2004), and the Emotional Skills Coding System (Mirgain & Cordova, 2003 as cited in Mirgain & Cordova,

2007). More recently, Cordova and colleagues have used the construct “emotional skillfulness” which includes many behaviors which may be observed during interaction among intimate couples, such as empathy, support, and sharing emotions. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 13

In couples literature, many of the studies on intimacy use self-report questionnaires and rely on measures of perceived intimacy, such as asking how close one feels to their romantic partner. Very few studies were found which used measures based on the more behavioral definition and conceptual framework of intimacy similar to the one used for this Master‟s thesis or direct observation of the components of emotional intimacy including positive self-disclosure and supportive, empathetic listening; in addition negativity between partners was also assessed which takes into account the degree of punishing responses by each partner as well as levels of warmth and affection the partners displayed besides direct responses to disclosures. A short review of relevant literature is made available here to demonstrate the inconsistencies and limits in the research on couples‟ intimacy.

Research on marital interactions centered on emotional intimacy. One recent interview-based study employed the concept of “emotional skillfulness.” The study included 92 married couples, and each spouse was asked to complete a questionnaire about their own ability and their partner‟s ability to identify and express emotions during couple communication

(Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005). The couples also reported on their marital satisfaction and intimate safety (e.g. “I feel comfortable telling my partner things I would not tell anyone else”).

Self-report survey data indicated that deficits in identifying and expressing emotions were correlated with lower scores in satisfaction and intimate safety for both husbands and wives.

Additionally, wives‟ satisfaction and intimate safety were rated higher when husband reported fewer difficulties in identifying and communicating emotions. However, husbands‟ satisfaction and intimate safety were generally not related to wives‟ reported emotion skills, suggesting that men may be satisfied or feel intimately safe even if their wives have difficulty identifying and expressing their emotions. Furthermore, support was found for the notion that emotion skills SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 14 facilitate intimacy, in that the individual‟s sense of intimate safety mediated the relationship between self-report of marital satisfaction and emotion skills for both husbands and wives

(Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005).

Two studies have been conducted on intimacy occurring on a daily basis, with focus on what actual behaviors occur during interactions perceived by partners to be intimate. One such study asked 113 married and cohabiting couples to keep personal daily diary for one week about interactions with their partners (Lippert & Prager, 2001). Partners were asked to rate every daily interaction, five minutes or longer, they had with their partner, rating both their own behavior and their partners, as well as noting the overall intimacy of the interaction. Data analysis suggested that 53% of the variance in overall perceived intimacy of the interactions was due to the combination of self and partner disclosure of information, disclosure of emotions, and expression of positive feelings, as well as overall pleasantness of the interaction and perceived partner understanding. Additionally, partner scores of relationship satisfaction and perceived interaction intimacy were summed to create couple scores, with higher couple satisfaction scores predicting higher couple scores of perceived interaction intimacy. Couple scores of relationship satisfaction also predicted the link between the average perceived intimacy of a couple and frequency of disclosure. Limitations include not requiring the couples to be alone with each other during intimate interactions, and not providing the couple with a definition of intimacy, but instead allowing the participants to implicitly imply the definition themselves.

Instead of having couples rate each and every interaction, the other daily diary study had participants rate, on average, how often they and their partners engaged in certain behaviors across all interactions each day for 42 consecutive days (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005).

The 96 married couples rated concepts in line with Reis and Shaver‟s model, namely self- SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 15 disclosure, partner disclosure, partner responsiveness (i.e. the reporting partner perceiving the listening partner to be understanding, validating, and caring) and perceived intimacy, which was defined as “a momentary feeling of closeness or connectedness toward one‟s spouse, not specific to physical contact” (p 317). Self-disclosure and partner disclosure both significantly predicted feelings of intimacy, but their effects were significantly decreased when partner responsiveness was entered into the model, indicating that partner responsiveness mediated the effect of disclosure on intimacy. Furthermore, self-disclosure was more important for husbands than for wives in regards to husband‟s perceived intimacy, while partner responsiveness was more important for wives than husbands in regards to wives‟ perceived intimacy. Intimacy was also related to other measures of marital functioning; higher reports of global marital satisfaction were related to higher daily intimacy ratings for both husbands and wives, and spouses who were similar on a measure of overall relationship intimacy also had similar reports of daily intimacy.

Another study explored how perceived and behavioral intimacy played a role among heterosexual couples in which the wives were breast-cancer patients (Manne et al., 2004).

Participants were asked to report on the same measures from the daily diary study Laurenceau and colleagues (2005) in regards to a cancer-related discussion. This study clearly indicated the importance of how partners‟ responses to each other‟s disclosures influence perceived intimacy among couples in a time of crises. Partner responsiveness was directly related to intimacy for both patients and their husbands, and it also mediated the relationships between intimacy and disclosure by both the self and the partner. Interestingly, female patients‟ report of how often their husbands disclosed was directly related to intimacy. For the ill wives, then, the more often their husband‟s self-disclosed, the more they felt close to their husbands, but husbands‟ and wives‟ reports of intimacy were not connected to their own self-disclosures. However, one SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 16 limitation of this study was that breast-cancer is a more serious stressor for couples which may have different implications than more normative stressors, such as financial strain, behavioral problems in children, or expecting their first child, as the present study will be exploring.

Although there is evidence that intimacy matters in couple relationships, these studies could have perhaps demonstrated different or more telling results if they had used behavioral observational measures of intimacy. Although behavioral observations of marriage have been frequently employed in the past four decades of research on couples, the interactions have almost exclusively been focused on a topic of conflict. In a review of empirical research which used observational coding systems, Heyman (2001) noted that most research had been conducted on distressed couples using conflict paradigms, and that very little research had explored what conversations among couples look like when they are happy and/or not fighting. He also explained that researchers can not assume that an absence of the negative behaviors typically found among dissatisfied couples is what, in turn, is responsible for the satisfaction of other couples. Rather, research is necessary to discover what behaviors satisfied, non-distressed couples may display which distressed couples do not (Heyman, 2001).

One question is whether these more positive dyadic behaviors can be observationally coded in a reliable and valid manner. One study has indicated that it is possible (Mirgain &

Cordova, 2007). Although this study coded for “emotional skillfulness,” such as empathy, support, and verbally expressed emotions, they unfortunately did not code for self-disclosure and resorted back to using an interaction which was focused on a topic of conflict. Despite these limitations in their observational coding and chosen interaction, they still found interesting results. There were few significant correlations between observational and self-report measures of emotional skillfulness, the observations were rated reliably, and they uniquely predicted SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 17 variance in marital satisfaction and perceived intimate safety (a construct including items about comfort level with their partner on a variety of situations/topics) when compared to self-report of emotional skillfulness. At this time, Cordova‟s lab has not published any articles on behavioral self-disclosure and partner support in regards to intimate interactions and emotional skillfulness, and their research called for further examination of observational coding.

Another question is how often couples engage in discussions focused on revealing their vulnerabilities to each other. One study used observational data to look at the frequencies of this kind of discussion among 27 married couples, half of whom were distressed. The couples were asked to share with each other their own personal problems and stressors, and were instructed to discuss these issues with each other for 10 minutes. The interactions were analyzed by using a microanalytic coding system based on the interpersonal process of intimacy concepts outlined by

Reis and Shaver (Roberts & Greenburg, 2002). There were no gender differences among most of the behaviors, but it was found that wives engaged in validation and complimenting toward the husbands more often than the husbands did toward the wives. Of all the comments coded,

13% were vulnerable disclosures. Expressions of love, care, affection or concern for the partner only occurred in 25% of interactions, while statements of active understanding (e.g. paraphrasing, empathy) occurred in 93% of interactions, and 74% of interactions included statements of validation (e.g. showing faith or confidence in partner, accepting the partner).

Additionally, 73% of the interactions included advice and guidance, with intrusive and suggestive statements occurring with similar frequency. The authors of this particular study used these frequencies to refute comments made by John Gottman‟s lab that behaviors such as active listening and empathy do not occur among married couples. The researchers using this specific paradigm note that Gottman‟s lab has continued to use conflict interactions to observe these SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 18 behaviors, but it is likely that more positive behaviors occur during discussions that are focused on vulnerability and personal emotional distress. Vulnerability and empathy do occur among couples, but research tells us little about what these interactions look like and what they are related to.

Only one study was found that used behavioral observational measures and a conceptualization of emotional intimacy which is similar to that which is used in this project.

This exemplary project was conducted by Mitchell and colleagues (2008), and they too used Reis and Shaver‟s conceptualization of intimacy was used to design and inform their coding system, which demonstrated a reputable level of reliability. They also employed an interaction during which partners shared when they each had their feelings hurt by the other (Dorian & Cordova,

2004). Results indicated that men‟s self-report of intimacy was predicted by how often they verbally disclosed and responded empathically during the interaction. However, women‟s report of intimacy was not predicted by their own disclosure and responses, but by their male partners‟ disclosure and responses, indicating a level of interdependency of each spouses behaviors and perceptions (Mitchell et al., 2008).

As one can see, a review of the available literature indicates that emotionally intimate behaviors do occur among couples, such behaviors are related to relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship intimacy, and males and females tend to show differences in their behaviors and perceptions of intimacy in the relationship. However, most of the studies used only self-report data and there are inconsistencies as to how intimacy is conceptualized.

Based on all reported research, however, the key elements of emotionally intimate discussions appear to be self-disclosure and empathic listening. Other elements of emotionally intimate discussions to attend to include a feeling of closeness, which may be observed in SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 19 warmth and affection between the couple, a well as absence of negativity toward the partner, as negativity is a form of punishment and may actually be a sign of decreased emotional intimacy.

The study by Mitchell and colleagues is a fabulous start to learning more about the factors that are tied to these components and this study will focus on spiritual intimacy as a factor that may be tied to direct observations of emotionally intimate discussions. Before understanding spiritual intimacy, however, it is important to first describe the concept from which it came; relational spirituality.

Relational Spirituality and Spiritual Intimacy in Marriage

Conceptual framework of relational spirituality. As mentioned earlier, a great deal of research in the area of religion and marriage has used measures regarding individual religious attendance, prayer, Biblical conservatism, and affiliation. These typical measures cannot discriminate what it is about religion and spirituality that makes a difference, nor identify both the positive and potentially negative influences of religion and spirituality within marital relationships. Furthermore, most of the research which has been conducted has relied on self- report measures of marital outcomes, which are prone to the influence of social desirability and do not necessarily have the richness of observational data, especially in the realm of communication. Lastly, the research has focused on individual religiousness, rather than how couples actually use religiousness and spirituality in the marriage. The next section will summarize a framework to use to facilitate a deeper examination of the roles of religion for marriage. This discussion helps set the stage for the specific hypotheses that are tested in this study.

The current trend in the research on religion and family life is to ask individuals in familial or spousal relationships about their religious or spiritual lives as individuals, not about SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 20 religious or spiritual aspects of the relationships. Specifically, many researchers assess a given family member‟s level of personal religiousness and spirituality (e.g., religious affiliation or attendance) and/or similarity of religiousness between two family members, and then examine if these kinds of global markers of religiousness are linked to marital functioning (Mahoney et al.,

2001; Mahoney, in press). By and large, with few exceptions, researchers have ignored the possibility that a marital relationship itself can be perceived as possessing spiritual or religious qualities or behaviors that may be tied to the functioning of the relationship as a whole.

Mahoney (in press) has developed a conceptual framework labeled relational spirituality that helps to identify and articulate various ways such experiences may occur.

Mahoney‟s framework borrows from Pargament‟s definitions of spirituality and religion; spirituality as defined by Pargament is “a search for the sacred” (1997, p. 12), and religion is defined as “a search for significance in ways related to the sacred” (1997, p. 34), so that the main function of religion is spirituality. The term “sacred” is explained as having two components.

The first component is the center of the sacred, or the core, which is whatever or whoever an individual perceives to be at the center of their spiritual belief system, whether it be a divine being or transcendent reality. The second component includes a variety of objects of aspects of life which become sacred due to their association with the sacred core. Examples can be time, place, people, objects, life events and transitions, or relationships, the focus of this proposal

(Pargament & Mahoney, 2005).

The term “search” used in both definitions above implies and assumes that humans are goal-directed individuals who are looking for and striving after objects or aspects of life that hold personal importance and significance. The search also incorporates the pathways one follows in order to discover, conserve, and transform the sacred. Discovery incorporates how an individual SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 21 finds and relates to the sacred, conservation is the way an individual maintains their relationship to the sacred, and transformation is when an individual has to modify the way they think about, relate to, and pursue the sacred, usually in the face of trial and tribulation (Pargament, 2007).

Broadly speaking, relational spirituality encompasses the multi-level interface between the search for the sacred and the search for relationships. There are many religious and spiritual behaviors and beliefs that pertain to family relationships which have the potential to act as a resource or a burden for the three interactive stages over time of creating, conserving, and transforming of family relationships, and in the specific case here, marriage. In regards to marriage, the creation stage involves steps in the forming a relationship and the structure of the union (e.g., selecting a partner, making a commitment to partner, resolving gender-related roles that each partner could play), the conservation stage involves maintaining positive processes which preserve the relationship and protect outcomes such as divorce, domestic violence, or infidelity, and the transformation stage involves making significant changes in the marriage due distressing times in the life of a couple (e.g. becoming parents, infidelity, financial problems)

(Mahoney, in press).

Each of the three stages in Mahoney‟s framework also include three-tiers to organize various religious and spiritual beliefs and behaviors which could impact the marriage. The first tier that applies to the stages involves a spouse‟s individual perceived connection to God/the

Divine. For example, a spouse may rely on a felt relationship with God/the Divine to inform them on how to create and sustain their marriage in daily life, how to view their partner, and how to make necessary change during time of marital crises or stress. The second tier involves ways a marriage could be imbued with spiritual properties itself, such as a spouse having spiritual or religious cognitions about the couple (i.e. the sacredness of the marriage), as well as spiritual and SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 22 religious behaviors a couple engage in together to create, maintain, or transform their marriage.

The third tier concerns how a spouse or couple may rely on their spiritual or religious community for support in their marriage and to gain knowledge about being in a marital relationship. For more information on the conceptualization of this framework and all three tiers, the reader is directed to Mahoney‟s work (in press).

The tier of interest in this study is the second tier, specifically the spiritual and religious behaviors which marital couple engage in together as a dyad. Such behaviors can include attending religious services together, reading scriptural texts with one other, praying with each other, and engaging in spiritual or religious rituals together. In the past, researchers have used spouses‟ reports of individual religious activity to create pair-wise homogamy scores within couples on global indicators of religiousness such as (dis)similar type of religious affiliation, religious attendance rates, or frequency of personal prayer. However, such indicators can not be assumed to reflect shared religious activity. For instance, spouses could attend different churches at similar rates or pray privately but separately at similar rates. Of course, it is also the case that similarity on such variables does often reflect shared religious activities, and such indicators are linked to better marital functioning, as mentioned earlier (Mahoney et al., 2001).

However, there is evidence that engaging in these activities together is helpful for marriage. A handful of studies have directly assessed the degree to which couples engage in religious activities together. The effect sizes of such studies tend to be stronger and more consistent than relying on homogamy scores based on global indicators. For instance, Mahoney et al. (1999) found that higher rates of joint religious activities (e.g., church attendance, prayer, discussing personal spiritual issues, and celebrating religious holidays) related to self-reports of higher marital adjustment and less frequent marital conflict. Additionally, in regards to conflict, SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 23 higher joint religiousness was associated with more frequent use of collaboration by wives, and less frequent use of verbal aggression and by husbands. Furthermore, husbands and wives who reported higher joint religiousness were more likely to say that their spouses were more collaborative and used less stalemating during conflict (Mahoney et al, 1999). Lichter and

Carmalt (2009) employed five joint religious activity items used in Mahoney et al., and found that husbands and wives who reported higher rates of joint religious activity scored higher on five different measures of marital quality. Additionally, participation in joint religious activities significantly predicted marital quality outcomes, and couples reporting differences regarding joint religious activities also differed on their reports of marital quality (Lichter & Carmalt,

2009). There is also qualitative evidence that attending church, praying, and reading scripture together are all helpful for couples during conflict resolution (Lambert & Dollahite, 2001).

Celebrating religious rituals and holidays together also relates to higher marital satisfaction

(Fiese & Tomcho, 2001). Overall, joint religious activities appear to help marital couples maintain their relationship.

Spiritual intimacy as a form of relational spirituality. Engaging in various religious rituals in the home (e.g., mealtime prayer) as well as religious activities outside the home (e.g., attend religious services) are not the only ways couples can integrate spirituality in their marriage. Couples could also experience spiritual intimacy with one another. The notion of spiritual intimacy is derived partly from the conceptual understanding of emotional intimacy, which was defined earlier as a “sequence of events in which behavior vulnerable to interpersonal punishment is reinforced by the response of another person” (Cordova & Scott, 2001, p. 77).

Spiritual intimacy, in turn, involves emotionally intimate interactions focused specifically on spirituality. It is a dyadic activity in which partners are able to dialogue about their own religious SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 24 and spiritual views and listen supportively and non-judgmentally while the other partner shares their views and beliefs. That being said, spiritual intimacy does not require partners to have similar spiritualities. Hypothetically, spouses may report high levels of spiritual intimacy even if they individually belong to different faith traditions, use alternative religious practices to facilitate their own sense of connection to God (e.g., scripture readings, prayer, nature walks, religious attendance), or differ considerably in their personal level of religious devotion.

Furthermore, spiritual intimacy is labeled as “spiritual” because the mechanisms involved may not necessarily be tied to organized religion or specific religious theologies.

Spiritual intimacy could be helpful for couples when they are creating and structuring their marriage, when they make efforts to maintain and conserve their marriage and the closeness of their relationship, and when they need to work through time of distress or transition that requires the structure or processes of their relationship to be significantly modified. Spiritual intimacy in this form can be measured by asking spouses whether or not they and their partner disclose information regarding spiritual matters and whether they each display support and empathy in the role of listener. Very little research has been published regarding spiritual intimacy in marital or family relationships, but prior attempts have been made to capture aspects of spiritual intimacy.

Research related to spiritual intimacy. Farber and Sohn (2007) asked married individuals in therapy to fill out a questionnaire about the extent of their disclosure to their spouse regarding certain topics and the importance of those topics in the context of their marital relationship. This questionnaire had a subscale about values which included views on race, politics, social class, but also items regarding religious and spiritual beliefs and practices (Farber

& Sohn, 1999). It was found that values were one of the most extensively disclosed topics SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 25 within marriage. Furthermore, participants were significantly more likely to disclose information about values to their spouse than to their therapist, and also viewed these disclosures as more important and relevant in the context of their marriage than in the context of therapy

(Farber & Sohn, 2007). Due to the design of the questionnaire, it is impossible to determine the specific role religious and spiritual disclosures played in the marital relationship.

Disclosure centered on spiritual or religious beliefs was also the focus of a study by

Brelsford and Mahoney (2008), although the family relationship in question was a parent-child relationship. One hundred thirty college students and their mothers were asked how often they each disclosed and discussed their personal views and practices regarding religion or spirituality with each other. Spiritual disclosure was defined as “the disclosure of personal religious and spiritual beliefs and practices between two or more individuals.” Their 20-item measure focused on specific aspects of spiritual disclosure, such as views about religious texts, views on God, religious practices they each engage in, and their individual spiritual journeys. After controlling for measures of global religiousness and demographics, reports of greater spiritual disclosure by both college students and their mothers were related to higher relationship satisfaction, less dysfunctional communication, less verbal aggression, greater use of collaborative strategies for conflict resolution, and increased level of general disclosure. After controlling for general religiousness, spiritual disclosure uniquely predicted collaborative conflict resolution strategies used by mothers and students based on their self-report, as well as the mother‟s report of the student‟s use of collaboration. Furthermore, general religiousness did not moderate these links, indicating that spiritual disclosure was beneficial even for those who did not note being very religious (Brelsford & Mahoney, 2008). SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 26

Two other studies were found which used the term “spiritual intimacy” and attempted to create a scale to measure the construct in the context of distressed couples. In both cases, the construct was embedded as a subscale of larger scales focused on couple‟s intimacy, but they appear to conceptualize spiritual intimacy in different ways. The earlier of the two measures is a subscale from the PAIR inventory by Schaefer and Olson (1981). The inventory is now currently marketed through the second author‟s company and has five subscales; emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational intimacy. Although spiritual intimacy was one of the original proposed subscales, the items were dropped because “they were conceptually and empirically unclear” (Schaefer & Olson, 1981, p. 51). The spiritual intimacy subscale had 6 items, including “I think that our perceptions of God are basically the same,” “I feel close to my spouse when we‟re in worship,” and “My [spouse] and I are united by our faith.” A critique of these items would be that they focus on thoughts and actions regarding religiosity or spirituality, and also infer a sense of unity. These items may be better conceptualized as perceived religious similarity or perceived experience of shared religious activities, not necessarily intimacy regarding religious or spiritual topics.

Despite the fact that the spiritual intimacy subscale was dropped from the PAIR, other researchers used the scale to measure spiritual intimacy in a study regarding marital satisfaction

(Hatch, James, & Schumm, 1986). For those participants who found spiritual intimacy applicable, data analysis indicated that spiritual intimacy had a positive correlation with emotional intimacy and marital satisfaction for both husbands and wives. An interaction effect was also found, so that women reported lower levels of emotional intimacy when they perceived their marriage as having low spiritual intimacy and their husband perceived high spiritual intimacy. Hatch et al. did note that more research was necessary on this construct and measure, SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 27 stating that the items from the spiritual intimacy scale “often assumed a degree of mutuality even if that was not shared by one‟s spouse” (p. 544).

The other spiritual intimacy scale is a subscale of the Emotional, Sexual, and Spiritual

Intimacy Scale (ESSI) (Davis, Pallen, DeMaio, & Jackson, 2000). The spiritual factor of this scale was defined by eleven items, including “Religion is not important in my intimate relationship,” and “I am more attracted to my partner when we discuss our spiritual beliefs.”

When looking at the items as a whole, they are more a measure of the importance of spirituality in one‟s intimate relationship, and how close one feels to their partner through shared beliefs or behaviors. No other information is available on this scale, as it was not found cited in the couple‟s literature.

The previous research provides a starting point for those interested in the measurement of disclosure of spiritual and religious thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. However, the first two studies miss an essential aspect of how and why communication of a disclosing nature occurs – perceptions of giving and receiving reinforcement and support between partners. Secondly, the other studies focus on the similarity of religious or spiritual beliefs and the importance religion or spiritually may play in the relationship. In order to capture spiritual intimacy as defined in this study, a measure of this construct must include items regarding frequency of spiritual disclosure by each partner as well as perceived support and empathy given by each partner.

Such a measure was developed as part of a longitudinal study on the transition to parenthood among married couples and will be discussed later in the methods (described in Mahoney,

Pargament & DeMaris, 2009a).

Possible Links between Spiritual and Emotional Intimacy SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 28

Spiritual intimacy overlaps with emotional intimacy but is made a spiritual construct by focusing the extent to which partners disclose and support each other with regard to spiritual and religious topics. It is believed that that perceived spiritual intimacy should be tied to general observed emotional intimacy because it presumably requires considerable skill, sensitivity, and trust to discuss sacred matters for the following reasons. First, spiritual beliefs tend to be very personal and private, and may actually be considered a “taboo” topic by some individuals.

Second, spiritual beliefs may be at the core of an individual‟s identity and worldview, and sharing their spiritual beliefs may allow another individual to see their most private aspects of their identity. Third, spiritual disclosures may include spiritual doubts and struggles which could be difficult for an individual to share due to shame, feelings of being alone in their struggle, or fear of a listener‟s reactions. Fourth, because it is impossible to prove via empirical methods that one‟s spiritual beliefs are ontologically “true,” people may be reluctant to expose their beliefs to other people who may call into question or critique the validity of one‟s spiritual experiences.

Thus, individuals may only reveal such information to partners who are perceived to be particularly trustworthy and respectful. Because of this, disclosures related to spirituality require a speaker to be open and vulnerable in a non-defensive manner. Reciprocally, a listener must display sensitivity, listening, and support, while also refraining from being insensitive of another‟s beliefs or struggles or trying to make an individual change their spiritual beliefs.

In theory, because spiritual intimacy may be more personal, vulnerable, and require more emotional skill, it should be related to how well the couple can be emotionally intimate in a more general sense. Furthermore, it should be related to couples‟ observed abilities to be emotionally intimate with each other based on direct observation of the types of behaviors Cordova and colleagues have identified as critical components of emotionally skillful behaviors during SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 29 discussions about emotionally laden and sensitive topics. But why study spiritual intimacy and its possible influence on emotional intimacy during pregnancy? Because research indicates that religion and spirituality may be a positive influence for mothers during pregnancy and that emotional support is relevant for both parents experiencing a pregnancy, as evidenced in the following section.

Religion, Spirituality, and Emotional Intimacy as Relevant Factors during Pregnancy

Religion and spirituality during pregnancy. As mentioned earlier, the transition to parenthood can be a difficult period for couples leading to decreases in marital functioning. We do not know much about what occurs during pregnancy that could influence how a couple responds to the transition, and there is scant and conflicting evidence regarding the role of religion and spirituality during this period of family life. One study found that religious mothers had gains in marital satisfaction across the transition (Nock, Sanchez, & Wright, 2008), while another found no evidence that self-reported religiosity influenced changes after the child‟s birth

(Doss, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009). However, the focus of this study is on pregnancy, not the transition to parenthood itself. One longitudinal study on 106 married women did discover that women who attended religious services experienced stability or increases in marital satisfaction during pregnancy, and half of the sample were in the first pregnancy (Snowden,

Schott, Awalt, & Gillis-Knox, 1988). This is the only published research located regarding how individual religiousness relates to marital outcomes during pregnancy, but there is a larger body of evidence regarding individual religiousness and its impact on the mothers functioning and coping during pregnancy, as well as pregnancy outcomes.

Regarding obstetric outcomes, there is some evidence that being religiously affiliated is related to better health outcome for mother and baby. One study found that mothers who were SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 30 affiliated with mainline or evangelical Christianity had fewer maternal complications (e.g., infection), and fewer neonatal complications (e.g., birth trauma) than patients with no religious preference (King & Hueston, 1994). Other studies have found that members of sect religions

(e.g. Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Mormon, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Assembly of God) had longer gestational periods and delivered heavier babies (Najman et al., 1988; Fønnebø, 1994). The researchers suggested this was due to better health behaviors valued by the sects, such as eating breakfast more, smoking tobacco and marijuana less, and consuming alcohol, coffee, and tea less.

Other evidence indicates that religion and spirituality is tied to less risky health behaviors during pregnancy, primarily smoking, alcohol, and drug use. Jesse and colleagues conducted research on both Appalachian women and low-income white and African American women during pregnancy (Jesse, Graham, & Swanson, 2005; Jesse & Reed, 2003). Religious attendance was associated with less smoking among both groups of women, while salience of spiritual beliefs was related to lower levels of smoking among Appalachian women. No results were found regarding substance use (i.e., alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs), perhaps due to the low base-rate of such behaviors. Using a more diverse sample of women, a different study found that both self-rated religiousness and report of religious participation were related to lower odds of smoking (Mann, McKeown, Bacon, Vesselinov, & Bush, 2007b). Religious service attendance, daily importance of religion, and being religiously affiliated were also found to be inversely related to smoking during pregnancy in a national sample of American women (Gillum &

Sullins, 2008).

There is also evidence that religion and spirituality may protect against anxiety and depression during pregnancy. There has been a focus in women‟s mental health literature on SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 31 postpartum depression and anxiety, but some researchers have argued that depression and anxiety during pregnancy are important to consider in their own rites, as early screening, detection and intervention could lead to better mental and behavioral health outcomes for the child and mother (e.g., Austin, 2004; Buist 2002). Among a sample of rural southern women in the U.S., having less spiritual perspective of life significantly related to a higher risk of depression during pregnancy (Jesse & Swanson, 2007), while higher levels of religiosity were correlated with more depressive symptoms in a sample of low-income pregnant women in an urban setting (Jesse, Walcott-McQuigg, Mariella, & Swanson, 2005). Overall religiosity and spirituality has been found to be negatively correlated with depressive symptoms during pregnancy, but the effect was diminished as social support increased, indicating that religion and spirituality may help pregnant women cope with a lack of social support. Also, when specific aspects of religiosity and spirituality were analyzed, measures of spirituality predicted more variance in depression scores than religious measures (Mann et al., 2007a). Using the same sample, Mann and colleagues (2008a) found participation in organized religious activities during pregnancy to be a strong protective factor for post partum depressive symptoms, but only for women who frequently attended religious services. Regarding anxiety, overall religiosity and spirituality has been found to be related to a lower chance of screening positive for anxiety during pregnancy, with self-rated religiosity, self-rated spirituality, and participation in nonorganized religious being the specific factors driving the relationship (Mann et al., 2008b).

Spiritual coping is another way in which religion and spirituality play a role during pregnancy. Positive spiritual coping (e.g. prayer for baby‟s health, reading religious texts) was found to be the most frequently used form of coping among a sample of pregnant women.

Greater religiosity and optimism were the strongest predictors for using positive spiritual coping SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 32 at all three time points during pregnancy (Hamilton & Lobel, 2008). Qualitative research with low-income pregnant women revealed that the most common way faith and spirituality affected pregnancy was through guidance and support. Other themes included feeling protected and blessed through their spirituality, feeling contact with God, gaining strength and confidence through their spirituality, and using their spirituality when facing difficult situations, such as an unintended pregnancy or being unmarried (Jesse, Schoneboom, & Blanchard, 2007). Lastly, there is qualitative evidence that spirituality may help some women cope with the prospect and experience of childbirth (Callister, Semenic, Foster, 1999).

This summary of available research on religion and pregnancy indicates that most, if not all, of the available research is focused on how the mother‟s religion and spirituality is related to their decisions, health, coping, and initial health outcomes for the child. As such, this research has largely ignored how the father‟s religion and spirituality relates to his experience of pregnancy, and how individual and dyadic spirituality could influence the marital relationship during pregnancy (exception, Snowden et al., 1988). Spiritual intimacy could be one such dyadic factor that influences the marital relationship. Additionally, an implication of the marital relationship during pregnancy is emotional support and intimacy between the couple as each partner experiences emotions related to the experience of pregnancy.

Emotional intimacy during pregnancy. Researchers interested in emotional intimacy between couples have rarely examined this component of marriage during the stage of life when partners experience a wide variety of emotions: pregnancy. Pregnant couples are likely to be excited, happy, joyful, and anticipating, but they may also be vulnerable to feelings of depression, anxiety, worry, and fear, especially if it is the first child for both or either of them.

This is not to say that all first time parents experience levels of anxiety and depression worthy of SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 33 clinical diagnosis, but these emotions may occur during pregnancy, giving partners ample opportunities to share, listen, and support one another.

In a study on husbands and wives during the last trimester of their first pregnancy, Assor and Assor (1984) found that husbands were less emotionally focused on their marriages than wives. Specifically, wives were more likely to seek interpersonal gratification primarily through their marriage, seek affection and support from their husbands, try to satisfy needs in ways that were equally satisfying for them and their husbands, and more likely to become irritated when their needs were not met. Furthermore, wives desired affection from their husbands more often than they desired being the nurturer for their husbands. It may be that during this time, women desire and seek after emotional support and affection, but that their husbands may not be able to meet their needs in the desired ways.

One study looked at whether or not pregnant women perceived their male partner as someone who was intimately supportive to her during her pregnancy (Gallagher, Hobfoll, Ritter,

& Lavin, 1997). While both married and cohabiting women had greater perceived intimate support than women who were not married or living with their partner, only married women increased in perceived intimacy during their pregnancy. Women who were not married or living with their partner reported lower intimacy and greater depression during pregnancy as well as increased depression after the pregnancy. Intimate support was negatively correlated with depression during and after pregnancy for the entire sample, but those who lived with or were married to their partners were less likely to become depressed, or stay depressed, during pregnancy or after childbirth when initial depression scores were controlled for. There are also implications for the child, as one review of social support and pregnancy noted that, overall, higher social support results in lower rates of pregnancy and birth complications (Orr, 2004). SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 34

Another review article noted that women who report higher levels of stress and lower levels of social support may affect the mother‟s neoendocrine, immune, and cardiovascular systems, which are related to poorer birth outcomes and adversity in fetal development (Federenko &

Wadhwa, 2004).

There is less information regarding fathers‟ experience stress and support during pregnancy. It has been mistakenly thought that women and men experience pregnancy in different ways, but there is evidence that men and women relate to and think about their unborn child in ways that are more similar than different (Condon, 1985). One study focused on the father‟s experience of pregnancy indicates that fathers do experience psychological distress during pregnancy, which further related to social support and relationship functioning. A sample of new fathers interviewed over the first year of their child‟s life indicated that pregnancy was the most stressful time period, with only small significant improvements 3 months post-birth. In the last trimester, fathers were more likely to report drinking more alcohol, being depressed and irritable, experiencing somatic symptoms, and displaying more negative affect (Condon et al.,

2004). When the time period of pregnancy was examined closely, those fathers who were considered to be distressed reported poorer relationship and life quality, inadequate social support, more anxiety and depression symptoms, and perceived their female partners to be less caring and more controlling (Boyce et al., 2007).

Social support and, perhaps even more importantly, partner support are necessary and helpful during pregnancy for both partners, but the research has focused on individual outcomes for parents and the child. Additionally, although some research focuses on intimate support by a partner (e.g., Gallagher et. al., 1997), others have used the broad term of “social support” which can include a variety of family members, colleagues, and friends. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 35

The interplay of emotional and spiritual intimacy during pregnancy. Research is currently unavailable regarding the possible interplay and overlaps between emotional and spiritual intimacy in marriage, let alone during pregnancy. However, it is reasonable to suggest that the degree to which couples are able to engage in spiritual intimacy may be tied to their ability to support each other with the positive and negative emotions they experience during pregnancy. Spiritual intimacy may be an aspect of overall intimacy that signals closeness given the sensitive and “unprovable” nature of spiritual beliefs or practices. The previously cited research gives evidence of the importance of emotional support between the couple in predicting individual emotional difficulties, such as stress and depression, spouses may encounter during a pregnancy. Though these findings do not always point directly to relationship functioning, it can be assumed that individual difficulties would likely impact an intimate relationship.

Understanding this research should help one understand just how difficult a pregnancy may be on a couple, indicating an obviously relevancy of emotional intimacy during this stage of the couples‟ marriage.

Just as no explicit research exists on how spiritual intimacy may impact emotional intimacy during pregnancy, more research is additionally necessary to determine just how couples engage in spiritual intimacy relates to other measure of marital functioning and quality, such as marital satisfaction and perceived love in the relationship. Although studies have not directly verified whether spiritual intimacy is tied to perceived marital love or satisfaction, the previously cited handful of studies on links between emotional intimacy and marital functioning give support for these ideas. As will be seen, the patterns of available findings are not entirely consistent and much of the research ties emotional intimacy of individual personal adjustment

(e.g., depression) rather than relationship quality. The next section describes measures of SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 36 perceived marital quality used in this study, how marital quality may be impacted during pregnancy, and offers a rationale for why spiritual intimacy is likely to be related to such measures of marital quality.

Marital Satisfaction, Love, and Spiritual Satisfaction as Other Indicators of Marital

Quality

Background information on measures of marital quality. Given the virtually non- existent empirical research on spiritual intimacy and perceived marital functioning as reported by spouses, I now provide background information about the marital constructs that were selected for this study. Marital quality is a construct often studied in marital research, but what is meant by “marital quality?” Marital quality has been given a variety of labels, such as adjustment, satisfaction, happiness, companionship, integration, stability, or other words which appear to be synonymous with “quality” (Spanier & Lewis, 1980 as cited in Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). In a review of the assessment of marital quality, Fincham and Bradbury not only criticized researchers for inconsistency in definitions, but also the way in which marital quality was being measured (1987). They noted that the popular self-report tools of measurement at the time, the

Marital Adjustment Test (Locke and Wallace, 1959) and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier,

1976), were longer, multi-item measures which included a variety of specific aspects of marital functioning, such as communication, topics of conflict, time spent together, and sexual satisfaction. Researchers were employing separate measures of such specific aspects of functioning alongside the longer, multi-item measure of marital quality, only to find that they were correlated. This was not surprising, as they were not measuring completely unique constructs, thereby confusing descriptions of specific components of marriage with an evaluation of the marriage. In response to this, Fincham and Bradbury exhorted researchers to begin using SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 37 global measures which would simply ask research participants to report an overall evaluation of the marital relationship. A little over a decade later, Bradbury, Fincham, and Beach (2000) returned to the scene to find that the suggestions were taken seriously, as researchers were using shorter, global measurements for overall satisfaction while measuring other aspects of marital functioning separately.

It is important to note that the definition of marital quality in this project is the overall perception of the state of one‟s marriage evidenced by spouses‟ subjective general satisfaction with relationship and feelings of love toward their partner. In response to Fincham and

Bradbury‟s work (1987), marital satisfaction will be measured globally using the Kansas Marital

Satisfaction scale (KMS; Schumm et al., 1986), which is a three-item measure about overall satisfaction with one‟s marriage and partner. Marital love will also be measured using the love sub-scale by Braiker and Kelly (1979), which focuses on how the participant perceives their relationship to be close, intimate, special and loving. It reportedly has good internal, test-retest, and inter-spousal reliability and has also been found to be sensitive to marital change across the transition to parenthood (Belsky et al., 1985).

Overall, marital quality can be influenced by a number of variables. A recent review on determinants of marital satisfaction note patterns of cognition and emotional affect, the individual‟s physiology, relationship patterns (e.g. demand/withdraw), social support, domestic violence, the presence of children, spousal background/characteristics (e.g. parental divorce, psychopathology), life stressors (e.g. work, illness) and overall factors of social context as all being influential (Bradbury et al., 2000). From an interest of outcomes, however, it is generally accepted that poor marital quality is associated with a variety of negative aspects of individual functioning. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 38

For example, one study using a nationally representative sample of 2,677 married and cohabiting adults noted that those experiencing relationship discord also reported work impairment, difficulties fulfilling social roles with family and friends, high levels of overall distress, poor health, and were more likely to report suicidal ideation. Generally, these outcomes continued to occur even after statistically controlling for criteria of substance use, mood and anxiety disorders (Whisman & Uebelacker, 2006). Another nationally representative sample comparing married to divorced individuals found interesting results. Their 12-year longitudinal study of 1,150 participants found that those who reported being unhappily married had lower levels of overall happiness, satisfaction of life, and self-esteem, and reported more symptoms of poor health and psychological distress. Additionally, the researchers argued that staying unhappily married was more detrimental than obtaining a divorce, as unhappily married participants continued to report lower levels of all outcomes (except psychological distress) than their divorced and remarried counterparts (Hawkins & Booth, 2005).

Marital quality during transition to parenthood. As mentioned earlier, decreases in marital quality tend to occur after a couple has their first child. At the present time, research has not clearly indicated which factors ameliorate or exacerbate this decline, and pregnancy research may inform what factors to attend to when researching the transition to parenthood. Some research indicates that couples who are younger, have less education, have been married fewer years, and who have lower incomes experience the most declines over the first year of their first child‟s life (Belsky & Rovine, 1990). Less interpersonal sensitivity among husbands and lower self-esteem in both partners also may play a role in decline. Counterintuitively, decline also occurs among couples who have higher prenatal romance scores, perhaps due to unrealistic expectations of their relationship withstanding demands of childrearing for the first time (Belsky SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 39

& Rovine, 1990). There is also evidence that husband‟s negativity toward their wife, husband‟s disappointment in marriage, and both spouses feeling their lives are too hectic all influence declines in marital satisfaction during the transition to parenthood. However, maintenance or increase in marital satisfaction occurs when husbands express fondness and affection toward their wife, and when both spouses express high awareness of each other and the needs in their relationship (Shapiro et al., 2000). One study of pregnant women found that being pregnant with one‟s first child may actually be protective of marital satisfaction during the prenatal period.

Among the women, those whose marital satisfaction remained stable or increased did not have other children, so it may be that pregnancy brings couples together (Snowden et al., 1988).

Spiritual satisfaction. The previously discussed aspects of marital functioning are so- called “secular” features of the marital relationship, but in the vein of relational spirituality, marital satisfaction could also be considered from a spiritual standpoint. Most, if not all, research on religion and spirituality in marriage has utilized measures of religiousness as predictor variables, but there may be ways to conceptualize religiousness and spirituality as an outcome measure which is focused on the relationship. For example, although marital satisfaction has been consistently studied and measured in couple literature, no published research has looked at the satisfaction of spiritual state of one‟s marriage. For spouses who report being religious and or spiritual, the satisfaction of the spiritual state of marriage could be a valued outcome particularly for couples who may view having a child and forming a family as a key element of each partner‟s spiritual life and the couples‟ spiritual journey together. The measure employed in this project follows the suggestions of Fincham and Bradbury (1987) by using global items which ask participants to report an overall evaluation of the spiritual state of their marriage. Spiritual satisfaction does not require partners to be spiritual themselves or agree SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 40 on spiritual matters, but simply whether or not each spouse is satisfied with the spirituality in their marital relationship. To my knowledge, satisfaction with the spiritual state of marriage has not previously been measured in the literature.

Possible links between spiritual intimacy and marital quality. This study aims to examine spiritual intimacy as a new construct that may be related to subjective marital satisfaction and love. The more couples are able to share their spiritual beliefs, doubts and joys, the more they may feel a sense of dependence, appreciation, bonding, and closeness with their partner, which would influence perceived satisfaction of the relationship and love toward their partner. This study will examine this question empirically, and there is already evidence that this relationship exists by using a measure of spiritual intimacy that was developed as part of a longitudinal study on the transition to parenthood among married couples (described in

Mahoney, Pargament & DeMaris, 2009a). Preliminary data analysis has been performed on survey data regarding spiritual intimacy using the same couples used in this Master‟s thesis.

When the couples‟ babies were six months old, spiritual intimacy was found to be positively correlated with marital satisfaction for husbands and wives, and also displayed concurrent validity in that it was correlated with shared spiritual activities reported by husbands and wives.

Furthermore, spiritual intimacy predicted unique variance in solidarity and support in coparenting, suggesting that measuring dyadic spirituality at a deeper level may be able to tell us more about other aspects of dyadic relationships (Mahoney, Pargament, & DeMaris, 2009b).

The same spiritual intimacy scale has also been used in an unpublished Master‟s thesis and preliminary project by Krystal Hernandez (2008, 2009) at Bowling Green State University.

Hernandez reported both cross-sectional and longitudinal results regarding the sanctification of marital sexuality among newlywed couples, using spiritual intimacy as an outcome measure. The SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 41 individuals were first surveyed when they had been married for an average of 13 months. At that time, spiritual intimacy was negatively correlated with global sexual distress, but was positively correlated with sanctification of marital sexuality, sexual satisfaction, sexual intimacy, marital satisfaction, and time and effort spent to bond sexually as a couple. Spiritual intimacy was positively correlated with the same variables one year later, with the exception of sanctification of marital sexuality. Furthermore, spiritual intimacy was negatively correlated with even more variables, including global sexual distress, negative secular coping, global depression, global anxiety, global anger, negative religious coping, and divorce proneness. These fascinating results suggest that spiritual intimacy may be a protective factor over the first year of marriage, a period of time that is considered to be a stressful transition for many couples, but more research is necessary to determine causality.

At the present time, there is no direct evidence to suggest that spiritual intimacy relates to spiritual satisfaction with the marriage, as, to my knowledge, marital spiritual satisfaction has not be used in other studies. But the above research indicating that spiritual intimacy influences other areas of marital quality suggests that this is likely to be the case. Furthermore, spiritual intimacy and spiritual satisfaction are both spiritually focused measures. If spouses feel that as a couple they are able to listen to each other‟s spiritual disclosures and be supportive, understanding and caring toward another during such disclosures, then it would intuitively follow that they would likely also be satisfied with the level of spirituality within their marriage.

Collaboration as a possible influential variable on marital quality. One last comment regarding spiritual intimacy and marital quality is that some may question whether links between the two constructs merely reflect good communication skills between the partners. For example, couple‟s ability to use collaborative strategies to discuss conflicts require the ability to listen to a SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 42 partner‟s point of view, remain calm, try to understand each other, and express thoughts and feelings openly. Observational research has tied such communication skills to better marital quality (e.g. Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010). In short, couples who are able to disclose and discuss disagreements in a respectful and cooperative manner tend to report higher marital satisfaction and love than couples who are unable to use these skills. Earlier cited work by Brelsford and Mahoney (2008) indicated that spiritual disclosure uniquely predicted collaborative conflict resolution strategies used by mothers and students based on their self- report, as well as the mother‟s report of the student‟s use of collaboration. In order to help determine if spiritual intimacy may capture relationship dynamics that operate beyond these kinds of positive communication skills, I will control for couples‟ self-reports of collaborative strategies to resolve conflict in examining links between spiritual intimacy and marital love and satisfaction as well as marital spiritual satisfaction. Similarly, I will determine whether the marital quality of pregnant couples is uniquely predicted by spiritual intimacy after controlling for positive communication skills.

The Present Study

First goal and related hypotheses. One major goal of this study was to examine links between self-reported spiritual intimacy and direct observations of emotional intimacy. Based on literature covered in this proposal, it could be expected that husbands‟ and wives‟ self-reports of higher spiritual intimacy will be correlated with observations of the key components of emotional intimacy: self-disclosure, empathic support, warmth and affection, and negativity expressed during an interaction where couples are asked to reveal and discuss their deepest fears, apprehensions and concerns about their pregnancy and impeding transition to parenthood.

Additionally, it is predicted the spiritual intimacy will predict unique variance in each of the SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 43 above behaviors. Although spiritual intimacy is likely to be very difficult to directly observe, it is reasonable to assume that this construct should overlap with emotional intimacy during this kind of discussion. Specifically, it was predicted that those who report higher levels of spiritual intimacy with their partner will display more positive behavior (self-disclosure, support, and affection) and less negative behavior as a couple during intimacy interactions.

Second goal and related hypotheses. The second major goal of this study was to examine whether spiritual intimacy would translate into higher levels of perceived marital satisfaction and love as well as higher general satisfaction with the spiritual state of one‟s marriage. Thus, it was predicted that those who report higher levels of spiritual intimacy with their partner will report greater overall marital satisfaction, greater reports of love, and greater satisfaction regarding the spiritual state of their marriage. It order to rule out the possibility that any direct linkages were merely due to demographic factors, a regression model was used to control for these factors, including age, length of marriage, education, and income. Further, another regression model was run to rule out the possibility that spiritual intimacy did not predict unique variance beyond general religiousness (i.e., religious attendance and frequency of prayer).

Significant findings would bolster evidence that spiritual intimacy may be a specific aspect of religion and spirituality that makes a difference to marital quality. Finally, questions could be raised as to whether the construct of spiritual intimacy merely taps into couples‟ ability to be respectful and engaged in constructive communication strategies when difficult topics need to be discussed. Thus, a final model was run to determine if spiritual intimacy accounted for perceived marital satisfaction and love and spiritual satisfaction with the marriage beyond spouses‟ self- reports of the couple‟s ability to collaborate during conflict. Although collaborative communication to resolve conflict and spiritual intimacy use similar processes (e.g. listening, SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 44 sharing ideas, etc.), it is hypothesized that spiritual intimacy will predict over collaboration due to the nature of the topic, and the theory that spiritual intimacy may require a higher level of emotion and communication skills.

Ways this present study addresses limitations and adds to the literature. The present study aims to add to the lack of observational marital research related to religious constructs, as well as adding to positive psychology by focusing on interactions which are designed to elicit positive marital interactions focused on disclosures of vulnerability rather than couples engaged in conflictual discussions about disagreements. Additionally, it adds to the current knowledge regarding relationship functioning during pregnancy. This information may inform transition to parenthood researchers about which specific relationship aspects should be studied during pregnancy in order to determine which couples experience decline in marital functioning and which couples persevere and or experience gains. It also adds to the religion and spirituality research by employing a new way of measuring religiousness and spirituality within a marital relationship and by using a spiritual measure as an outcome.

This study also aims to add to the literature by addressing certain limitations of current research on intimacy. The observational research conducted on the construct of intimacy has proved to be promising, yet there is room for improvement. The current project builds and improves upon past observational research in a variety of ways. Most observational research has been conducted in a laboratory setting where the couple may feel uncomfortable and the task contrived, but the present study uses interactions which were filmed in the comfort of the participants‟ homes. Furthermore, most observational research has been conducted using conflict interactions, not positive or neutral interactions. Although some couples may have married because they could fight well, it is probably more likely that couples get married because SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 45 they experience intimacy and support through other interactions. Even so, research which has focused on observed intimate behaviors have used a conflict interaction or a hurt feelings paradigm (e.g. Dorian & Cordova, 2004). The latter has been described by one of the researchers who developed it as “extremely emotionally challenging…and requires a great deal of emotion skill to handle positively” (J.V. Cordova, personal communication), and using a conflict discussion to observe more positive behaviors does not make complete intuitive sense.

Using a topic such as this could easily lead the couple into a conflict discussion, and different priming paradigms could be helpful in understanding other important aspects of the couples‟ relationship.

Additionally, there is little research as to how couples function and interact with one another during times of crises and transition during the family life cycles. Crises and transition adds a significant amount of stress to the marital relationship, and there is not much evidence to indicate how couples relate during these times, let alone how their functioning helps or hinders their ability to cope individually and as a couple during difficult times. The present study uses interactions during which married couples discussed their vulnerabilities related to becoming parents. Using such a topic allows partners to talk about a normative experience for many couples which may be an exciting and/or difficult transition in their life. This interaction is different from others used in marital literature in that it does not require couples to focus on the actions of each other, but allows them to discuss an event they are experiencing together and which may elicit fears and concerns for both partners.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 46

METHOD

An existing dataset was used for this Master‟s thesis. The dataset is from the New

Arrivals: Passage to Parenthood Study (NAPPS). This longitudinal study of married couples experiencing the transition to parenthood was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, and

Drs. Annette Mahoney, Kenneth I. Pargament, and Alfred DeMaris from Bowling Green State

University were the primary investigators. Although the couples were assessed at four different time points, the data used for this project was from the first time point when the wives were in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Participants

178 couples were assessed when the wives were in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Couples were recruited from an economically diverse, mid-sized, Midwestern city, as well as the surrounding rural and suburban communities. Couples were recruited through child-birth classes

(64 %), flyers in doctor‟s offices, retail business, and newspapers ads (14 %), as well as “word of mouth” referrals (15%), and direct mail (8%). Couples were eligible if they were married, they were both the biological parents of the expected child, and the expected child was the first child for each partner. Furthermore, the couple had to be English speaking, and at least one spouse needed to describe themselves as “slightly spiritual” or “slightly religious” on a screening form; however, no couples were excluded based on this criteria. Using the National Survey of Family

Growth for comparison, the wives in the NAPPS study had similar rates of religious attendance when compared to wives in the NSFG who were having their first or second child with their husband who did not have any children from previous relationships; unfortunately, no such norms were available for husbands (Mahoney et al., 2009a)

Procedure SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 47

A trained graduate student accompanied by another trained graduate or undergraduate student visited each couple‟s home to administer surveys and obtain taped observational data.

Conducting home visits were more convenient for couples, and also allowed a more natural and comfortable setting for the observational interactions. Each spouse filled out a two-part survey, and the spouses were instructed not to discuss their answers or any questions they may have had with each other. The surveys contained hundreds of items regarding many different aspects of religion, spirituality, marriage, pregnancy, and child-rearing. The surveys were constructed using items from pre-existing scales or scales which were created specifically for the study, and the scales pertinent to this particular study are described below. The couples were also filmed in private for two ten-minute discussions, one which regarded their vulnerabilities in connection to become a parent. After filling out the vulnerabilities checklist, each partner was asked to also write down any other thoughts or feelings on the back. Participants were allowed to view their checklists before the researchers left the room, but they were not allowed to keep them during their discussion in order to facilitate a more natural discussion. Home visits lasted approximately 2.5-3 hours, and couples were reimbursed with a gift bag as well as a $50 gift card to their choice of Walmart, Babies „R‟ Us, & Kroger.

Instrumentation: Participant Information and Control Variables

Demographics. Demographic information was collected from each spouse.

Demographic questions used for this project were age, ethnicity, education level, average annual household income, religious affiliation, couple Biblical conservatism and length of marriage and pregnancy. Wives were an average of 27.2 years old (SD = 4.0) and husbands were 28.7 (SD =

4.4). Self-described ethnicity as Caucasian for both partners occurred in 80% of the couples, while 20% of the couples had one Caucasian partner and one non-Caucasian partner. The SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 48 breakdown of highest education for husbands and wives, respectively, was 12% and 6% high school, 28% and 23% partial college or post-high school education, 42% and 45% college degree, and 18% and 26% graduate/professional degree. In 2005-06 dollars, household income was broadly distributed as follows: 8% at 0-$25,000, 29% at $25-50,000, 30% at $50-75,000,

19% at $75,000-100,000, and 13% at greater than $100,000. The self-reported religious affiliation preference of wives was 34.5% non-denominational Christian, 31.6% Protestant,

26.0% Catholic, 4.5% None, 2.8% Other, and 6% Jewish. For husbands, self-reported affiliation was 31.5% Protestant, 28.1% non-denominational Christian, 27.0% Catholic, 6.7% None, 5.6%

Other, .6% Jewish, and .6% Muslim. Spouses were also asked about their Biblical conservatism; by adding spouse‟s scores, it was determined that 50.6% of the couples would be considered

Biblically conservative. Furthermore, demographic information was collected regarding the marital relationship and the pregnancy. Average length of the marriage was 2.6 years (SD = 2.1), and the average weeks of pregnancy was 35.1 weeks (SD = 2.8). After exploratory correlational analyses were conducted, it was determined to only use length of marriage, average income, and the age and education of each spouse as control variables in the regression models. Refer to

Appendix A for the items, and Tables 1 and 2 for all reported descriptive statistics.

Global religiousness. Research in both psychology and sociology of religion frequently use items such as religious attendance and frequency of prayer to determine individual religiousness. These items were included in the NAPPS survey, and they were used to assess global religiousness of each partner. Religious attendance and frequency of prayer were both measured by using an 8-point scale (religious attendance: 1 = never, 8 = several times a week; frequency of prayer: 1 = never, 8 = more than once per day). The two items were added into a composite sum, called global religiousness, with higher scores indicating higher levels of SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 49 religiosity/spirituality. Husbands‟ mean of global religiousness was 10.49 (SD = 4.13) and wives was 11.10 (SD=3.92). Refer to Table 2 for more descriptive statistics and Appendix A for the items.

Couple collaboration. Spouses were asked about their abilities to handle conflict through collaborative behaviors. The 8 items for this measure come from the collaboration subscale of Kerig‟s Couple Conflicts and Problem-solving Strategies (Kerig, 1996). Example items include “Try to find a solution that meets both of our needs equally,” and “Express thoughts and feelings openly” (the full list of items can be found in Appendix B). Each spouse answered the items in regards to the frequency of their own and their spouse‟s collaborative behavior using a 4-point scale (0 = Never; 3= often), then each partner‟s reports of self and spouse collaboration were combined to yield an index of couple collaboration. Husbands‟ and wives‟ scores were similar with husbands reporting a mean of 38.93 (SD = 5.40) and wives a mean of 39.48 (SD = 5.34; t = .97, p>.05). Husbands and wives reported the same range of 22-

48. Participants generally did not use the lower half of the scale, as the lowest possible score was zero. Both spouses‟ report of couple collaboration had high internal consistencies in this study (α = .84 for wives, α = .82) (Table 3).

Instrumentation : Predictor Variable

Spiritual intimacy. Spiritual intimacy was assessed using an 8-item measure which was specifically designed by the principal investigators of NAPPS. To my knowledge, it is the only scale of its kind and it has not been published at this time. Although other measures of spiritual intimacy have been published and researched, they tend to capture shared religious/spiritual activities or importance of shared spirituality. This measure used here attempts to capture how comfortable, open, and supported the spouse feels in regards to what they share with their partner SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 50 about their spiritual beliefs. There are four items regarding the respondent‟s behavior (e.g. “I feel safe being completely open and honest with my spouse about my faith.”) and four items regarding what their spouse‟s behavior (e.g. “My spouse shares his spiritual questions or struggles with me.”). Each item is answered on a 4-point scale from (0 = not at all; 3 = a great deal). Two items are reverse scored, and a total sum was calculated for each spouse‟s report.

Refer to Appendix C for the items. Both husbands‟ and wives‟ reports of spiritual intimacy in the marriage were found to have good internal consistency (α = .79, α = .81 respectively). Husbands and wives also had similar means, with husbands reporting a mean of 18.25 (SD=4.21) and wives reporting a mean of M=18.52 (SD=3.92; t = .63, p>.05). However, participants did not use the lower end of the possible range, as the lowest reported score on the scale was 7 for husbands and 9 for wives, with the lowest possible being zero. Participants did use the higher end of the scale, with many endorsing a score of 24, which is the highest score one could endorse on the spiritual intimacy scale (Table 2).

Instrumentation: Criterion Variables

Setting up observational interactions. Each spouse was asked to respond to a vulnerabilities checklist of 22 ways they may have been feeling vulnerable, anxious, worried, or insecure about in regard to being pregnant and expecting a child. They were also asked to spend some time thinking about other ways in which they were vulnerable or experiencing self-doubt and to write those thoughts on the back of their checklist. This checklist was used as a primer for their ten-minute discussion, and was not used for statistical analyses. Refer to Appendix D for the checklist.

Coding emotional intimacy in behavioral interactions. The coding system used for the emotional intimacy interactions incorporated aspects of the System for Coding Interactions in SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 51

Dyads (SCID) by Neena Malik and Kristin Lindahl (2000, as cited in Malik & Lindahl, 2004), as well as the Intimacy Coding System by Marina Dorian and James Cordova (1999, as cited in

Dorian & Cordova, 2004), and the Emotion Skills Coding System by Shilagh Mirgain and James

Cordova (2003). Both researchers gave permission for their systems to be modified for the purposes of the NAPPS study. The original four codes from the Intimacy Coding System were used, but renamed. The four overall constructs were: positive self disclosure, positive support toward the partner, negativity toward the partner, and affection/warmth/displaying positive emotions. The more specific codes from the Emotion Skills Coding System and the SCID were used to supplement the content of each overall code. The SCID informed the content of the

Negativity construct, while the systems of Cordova and colleagues systems informed the others.

Each construct was scored on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 = none to very low; 7 = very high). Three graduate students in clinical psychology were trained on the coding system, each rater coded every interaction, and meetings were held to ensure reliability and validity. For the analyses, the scores from each spouse were added together to create couple scores for each observed behavior.

A copy of the coding manual can be found in Appendix E.

The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for interrater reliability of the behavioral observations of each spouse indicate that the trained coders were able to use the coding system to rate husbands and wives reliably using the four behavior categories. ICCs were determined for each of the behavior codes and were not determined for husbands and wives separately. The

ICCs and ranges for codes can be found in Table 3. The ICC for the total number of ratings across all behavior codes was .91. When the behavior codes were examined individually the

ICCs decreased but were still at a level usually accepted in research (positive self-disclosure

α=.85; positive support α=.78; negativity α=.85; affection/warmth α=.83). The range of ratings SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 52 for the codes are as follows: positive self-disclosure was 2.33-7.00 for husbands and 1.33-7.00 for wives; positive support was 2.00-6.00 for husbands and 1.33-6.00 for wives; negativity toward the partner was 1.00-5.33 for husbands and 1.00-6.00 for wives; affection and warmth was 1.33-7.00 for husbands and 1.00-7.00 for wives.

Additionally, the husbands and wives scores were added for many of the following analyses, so that the possible range for every couple behavior score was 2-14. After adding their scores together, the means were 8.87 (SD=1.97) for positive self disclosure, 8.01 (SD=1.76) for positive support, 3.14 (SD=1.55) for negativity toward the partner, and 8.0 (SD=2.05) for affection and warmth. Due to the low variability in the scores on negativity, partners were given scores of 0 or 1 based on a split that broke the group approximately into half, with 0 being low negativity, and 1 being moderate to high negativity; these scores were then added for a couple score of negativity. These modified scores regarding negativity toward the partner were used for all correlational and regression analyses. The lower variability was expected as the interaction used was designed to elicit disclosure and positive or neutral feelings, rather than elicit conflict and negativity. The other three codes were left unchanged as they appeared to be normally distributed.

Marital satisfaction. The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS) was used to assess global marital satisfaction. This scale was created by Schumm and colleagues and although it only consists of three items, it has been shown to be reliable (α = .93) and has discriminant and concurrent validity with other measures of marital functioning (Schumm et al., 1986). A sample item is “How satisfied are you with your marriage?” The KMS uses a 7-point scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 7 = extremely satisfied), and the items were summed to create a score for satisfaction. Refer to Appendix F for the items. The Kansas Marital Satisfaction scale showed a SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 53 high level of internal consistency in this study, with α = .90 for both spouses. Husbands and wives reported similar levels of marital satisfaction with husbands reporting a mean of 19.26

(SD= 2.13) and wives a mean of 19.54 (SD=1.87; t = 1.32, p>.05) out of a possible score of 21.

Wives did not use the bottom half of the scale (range of 10-21), while husbands did (range of 4-

21) (Table 3).

Marital love. Feelings of marital love were assessed with the love sub-scale from Braiker and Kelley (1979). As noted earlier, the love scale has good internal, test-retest, and inter-spousal reliability and has also been found to be sensitive to marital change across the transition to parenthood, a time when marriages tends to deteriorate (Belsky et al.,1985). There are 10 items regarding feelings of love, which focus on how much the participant perceives the relationship with their spouse to be close, intimate, special, and loving. Sample items include “How committed to you feel toward your spouse?,” “To what extent do you love your spouse at this stage?,” and “To what extent do you feel that the things that happen to your spouse also affect or are important to you?” Each of the items is answered on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 9 = very much), and a composite sum was used so that each partner had a total score, with higher numbers indicating greater perceived love in the marriage. Refer to Appendix G for the items.

The measure for love had lower, yet still acceptable, alpha coefficients with α = .78 for husbands and α = .69 for wives. Husbands reported lower levels of mean (M=80.19, SD=6.80), than wives

(M=83.51, SD=5.22; t = 5.16, p<.05). Both reported averages on the higher end of the scales, as the highest possible score was 90. Participants did not endorse items using the bottom range of the scale; the lowest score possible was a 10, but the lowest reported score was 50 for husbands and 65 for wives (Table 3). SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 54

Spiritual satisfaction. Spiritual satisfaction was assessed using a three-item measure designed to measure a partner‟s satisfaction with the spiritual aspect of the marital relationship.

One sample item is “How satisfied are you with the level of spirituality in your marriage?” This measure has not been used in prior research, and was designed by the principal investigators of the NAPPS project. Each item is answered on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 7 = extremely satisfied) and the items were summed for a composite score. Refer to Appendix H for all items. This measure had high internal consistency for both spouses (husbands α = .92; wives

α=.93). Spouses reported similar levels of spiritual satisfaction, with husbands reporting a mean of 15.45 (SD=3.40) and wives reporting a mean of 18.52 (SD= 3.18; t = .06, p>.05), and both reported average spiritual satisfaction on the higher end of the scale. Additionally, participants endorsed items on the full range of the scale (3-21 for husbands; 6-21 for wives) (Table 3).

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 55

RESULTS

Preliminary and Descriptive Correlational Statistics

All religious variables were positively correlated as expected (Table 4). Spiritual intimacy within the dyad as reported by each spouse was significantly correlated with their self- report of individual global religiousness (r=.29, p<.001 for husbands; r=36, p<.001 for wives).

Spiritual intimacy as reported by each spouse was also correlated with couple Christian conservatism (r=.19, p<.05 for husband; r=.32, p<.001 for wives). Husbands‟ and wives‟ reports of spiritual intimacy were correlated at r = .33 (p<.001).

Observations of the couple, which were combined scores of the observations of each spouse, and self-report measures were analyzed against and with each other (Table 5). Observed positive support was highly correlated with both positive self disclosure (r = .75, p<.001) and affection and warmth (r = .71, p<.001). Positive support was additionally correlate with negativity toward the partner in the expected direction (r = -.27, p<.001), and positive self disclosure was related to affection and warmth (r = .54, p<.001). Negativity toward the partner did not have a significant correlation with both positive self disclosure (r = -.13, p = n.s) and affection and warmth (r = -.12, p = n.s.). Many of the husband and wife self-report measures of marital quality were significantly correlated with one another (Table 5). Husbands‟ and wives‟ reports of marital satisfaction were correlated with each other at r = .25 (p<.01), love at r = .34

(p<.001), and spiritual satisfaction at r = .25 (p<.01). All other intercorrelations of self-report of marital quality were significantly correlated, with the exceptions of husbands‟ spiritual satisfaction not being correlated with wives‟ love and marital satisfaction, and wives‟ spiritual satisfaction not being correlated with husbands‟ marital satisfaction. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 56

Observed positive self disclosure of the couple was not significantly correlated with any of the self-report measures by husbands and wives, and observed negativity of the couple was only significantly related to husbands‟ self-report of love (r =-.20, p<.01). Observed positive support of the couple was positively correlated with both wives‟ and husbands‟ reports of marital satisfaction (r =.29, p<.001; r =.18, p<.05), as well as both spouses reports of love (r = .31, p<.001 for wives; r =.25, p<.01 for husbands). Observations of the couples‟ affection and warmth resulted in a similar pattern, being positively related to both spouses reports of marital satisfaction (r = .29, p<.001 for wives; r =.18, p<.05 for husbands) and love (r = .21, p<.01 for wives; r =.23, p<.01 for husbands). Additionally, observed affection and warmth was related to husbands‟ self-report of spiritual satisfaction (r =.16, p<.05)

Correlations were also calculated for all outcome variables and demographic variables to determine if any demographics were significantly related (Tables 6 and 7). The couple‟s minority status was positively correlated to husband‟s spiritual satisfaction (r =.16, p<.05 ) and the number of months married also was correlated with husband‟s spiritual satisfaction (r =.15, p<.05). Both wives‟ and husbands‟ age were significantly correlated with wives‟ report of couple collaboration (r = .24, p<.01; r = .21, p<.01 respectively). Both spouses global religiousness were correlated with their own levels of spiritual satisfaction (r = .21, p<.01 for wives; r = .15, p<.05 for husbands). Wives‟ global religiousness was also correlated with their own spiritual satisfaction at r =. 21 ( p<.01) and husbands‟ report of spiritual satisfaction at r

=.16 (p<.05), while husbands‟ global religiousness correlated with their own spiritual satisfaction at r =.17 ( p<.05) and with wives‟ spiritual satisfaction at r = .32 (p<.001).

Regarding correlations specific to each spouses‟ demographics, wives‟ education was negatively related to wives‟ self-report of spiritual satisfaction (r =.-.16, p<.05), while wives‟ age SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 57 was correlated with husbands‟ spiritual satisfaction (r =.22, p<.01). Husbands‟ education was significantly correlated with the couple‟s observed positive support (r = .18, p<.05), husbands‟ report of couple collaboration (r = .24, p<.01), husband‟s report of marital satisfaction (r = .16, p<.05), and husbands‟ spiritual satisfaction (r = .23, p<.05). Husband‟s education was also correlated with wives‟ report of couple collaboration (r = .27, p<.001) and wives‟ spiritual satisfaction (r = .23, p<.01). Lastly, husbands‟ global religiousness was correlated with husbands‟ self-report of love (r =23, p<.01).

Inferential Statistics

Findings regarding the first goal of the study. One major hypothesis was that each spouse‟s self-reports of higher spiritual intimacy on the part of the couple would be correlated with higher levels of observations of behavioral components of emotional intimacy and would also significantly predict ratings of the couples‟ behaviors during intimacy interactions after controlling for demographics (i.e., age, length of marriage, education, and income) and measures of general religiousness (i.e., religious attendance and frequency of prayer).

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine if spiritual intimacy was a significant predictor. For each criterion variable, separate analyses were conducted by using predictor variables as reported by husbands and wives. Additionally, three models were created in order to demonstrate how the unique variance and standardized beta weights of spiritual intimacy changed as more predictors were added to the model. Model 1 only had spiritual intimacy entered as a predictor, so that the standardized beta weights were synonymous with bivariate correlations. For ease of reviewing the entire pattern of bivariate correlations, Table 7 displays the matrix of associations between the primary predictor and criterion variables.

However, for the most part, I discuss the same set of findings by examining the beta weights SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 58 from Model 1 in the regression models. In Model 2, demographics (i.e., age, education, average income, and length of marriage) were entered in the first step, followed by spiritual intimacy.

Lastly, in Model 3 global religiousness was entered between demographics and spiritual intimacy. To provide a conservative test of the power of spiritual intimacy, both husband and wife demographics were entered together for the separate analyses. The results can be found in

Table 9.

Regarding observed couple self-disclosure, wives‟ report of spiritual intimacy was marginally related to observed couple self disclosure in Model 1 (β=.14, p<.10, ∆R2 = .021).

Spiritual intimacy likewise approached significance in Model 2 (β=.15, ∆R2 = .021, p<.10) after controlling for demographic factors. When global religiousness was entered in Model 3, spiritual intimacy was clearly no longer significant (β=.11, ∆R2 = .010, p = n.s.). Husbands‟ self-reports yielded more consistent and robust results where spiritual intimacy was significantly correlated with the level of self-disclosure exhibited by the couple in Model 1 (β=.17, ∆R2 = .028, p<.05).

Further, husbands‟ reports of spiritual intimacy remained a significant predictor when demographic variables were entered in Model 2 (β=.18, ∆R2 = .029, p<.05). In Model 3, husbands‟ spiritual intimacy only marginally approached significance after taking into account global religiousness (β=.15, ∆R2 = .020, p<.10).

In the analyses involving observed positive support between partners, reports of spiritual intimacy by both wives and husbands predicted this behavior, even after controlling for demographics and global religiousness. Specifically, Model 1 shows that wives‟ reports of spiritual intimacy of the couple was significantly correlated with observed positive support

(β=.20, ∆R2 = .038, p<.01), and remained a significant predictor after demographics were entered in Model 2(β=.18, ∆R2 = .029, p<.05) and in Model 3 after also controlling for global SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 59 religiousness (β =.18, ∆R2 = .025, p<.05). When using the husbands‟ self-reports of spiritual intimacy, the same pattern of findings occurred. In Model 1, husbands‟ report of spiritual intimacy was correlated with observed positive support (β=.19, ∆R2 = .035, p<.05). This predictor remained significant after demographics were entered in Model 2(β=.17, ∆R2 = .027, p<.05) and after controlling for global religiousness in Model 3 (β =.17, ∆R2 = .025, p<.05).

Both husband‟s and wives‟ reports of spiritual intimacy were also significant predictors of observed negativity partners exhibited toward each other. Wives‟ report of spiritual intimacy of the couple significantly correlated with observed negativity in Model 1 (β =-.17, ∆R2 = .028, p<.05). It remained a significant predictor of variance in negativity toward the partner after demographics were entered in Model 2 (β =-.15, ∆R2 = .022, p<.05), and after global religiousness was entered in Model 3 (β=-.17, ∆R2 = .024, p<.05). The same connections were found for husbands‟ report of spiritual intimacy. For husbands, report of spiritual intimacy of the couple had a significant negative relationship with negativity toward the partner (β =-.17, ∆R2 =

.030, p<.05). Husbands‟ reports of spiritual intimacy remained a significant predictor of variance after demographics were entered in Model 2 (β =-.15, ∆R2 = .026, p<.05) and after global religiousness was entered in Model 3 (β=-.17, ∆R2 = .027, p<.05).

Regarding observations of couples‟ affection and warmth, results differed between husband‟s and wives‟ reports of spiritual intimacy of the couple. Wives‟ report continued to be a significant variable, as it was significantly correlated with observed affection and warmth (β

=.21, ∆R2 = .045, p<.01), and remained significant after demographics were entered in Model 2

(β =.19, ∆R2 = .034, p<.05) and after wives‟ global religiousness was entered in Model 3 (β =.18,

∆R2 = .027, p<.05). Husbands‟ report of spiritual intimacy was also significantly correlated with observed affection and warmth (β =.21, ∆R2 = .037, p<.05),and remained a significant predictor SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 60 after demographics were entered in Model 2 (β =.17, ∆R2 = .027, p<.05). However, when husbands‟ global religiousness was entered in Model 3, spiritual intimacy was only marginally significant (β =.15, ∆R2 = .020, p<.10).

Findings regarding the second goal of the study. The other major hypothesis was that spiritual intimacy of the couple as reported by each spouse would be correlated with their respective reports of marital satisfaction, love, and satisfaction regarding the spiritual state of their marriage, and that spiritual intimacy would be a significant predictor of self-reports of marital quality after controlling for demographics, general religiousness, as well as self-report of couple collaboration. The same models for hierarchical regression were used as with the observational data, except for an extra model was used to control for couple collaboration.

Couple collaboration was added due to the possibility that a spouse‟s perception of spiritual intimacy could be an artifact of their view on the couple‟s overall collaborative communication skills. Additionally, husbands‟ and wives‟ self-reports of marital quality were not combined to create a “couple level” score because the items are inherently about the relationship, and partners were not asked about what he or she believed about the other partner‟s behaviors. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that each variable assesses the respondents‟ views of the couple‟s relationship, not merely each party‟s individual behavior. Bivariate correlations between spiritual intimacy and the focal variables can be found in Table 8 for an overview of these findings. But below, I discussion these linkages in terms of the beta weights in the first regression model; regression analyses are available in Table 10.

Model 1 shows that wives‟ report of spiritual intimacy of the couple was significantly correlated with their reports of marital satisfaction (β=.26, ∆R2 = .069, p<.001). Spiritual intimacy continued to predict marital satisfaction after demographics were entered in Model 2 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 61

(β=.25, ∆R2 = .060, p<.001) and after global religiousness was also entered into Model 3 (β=.23,

∆R2 = .042, p<.01). When wives‟ report of couple collaboration was entered in Model 4, report of spiritual intimacy was no longer a significant predictor (β=.11, ∆R2 = .009, p=n.s.). Couple collaboration was a strong predictor in the model, as it accounted for 22.3% of unique variance

(p<.001; β=.48, p<.001) and fully accounted for the predictive power of spiritual intimacy. As can be seen in Model 1, husbands‟ reports of spiritual intimacy was not significantly correlated with self-reports of marital satisfaction (β=.13, ∆R2 = .017, p=n.s). Not surprisingly, therefore, spiritual intimacy also did not predict husbands‟ marital satisfaction in either Model 2 (β=.12,

∆R2 = .013, p=n.s.), Model 3 (β=.14, ∆R2 = .017, p=n.s), or Model 4 (β=.12, ∆R2 = .012, p=n.s.).

For self-report of love, wives‟ report of spiritual intimacy was correlated in Model 1 with their reports of love in the relationship (β=.33, ∆R2 = .108, p<.001). Wives‟ reported spiritual intimacy remained significant in Model 2 (β=.33, ∆R2 = .102, p<.001) after controlling for demographics and in Model 3 after controlling for global religiousness (β=.34, ∆R2 = .093, p<.001). Further, in Model 4, spiritual intimacy continued to robustly predict love (β=.27, ∆R2 =

.054, p<.001), despite the strong contribution that couple collaboration also made to this indicator of marital quality (β=.30, ∆R2 = .113, p<.01).

The analyses on husbands self-reports of predictor variables in relation to self-report of love produced similar results. Husbands‟ report of spiritual intimacy was significantly correlated with self-reports of love in Model 1 (β=.37, ∆R2 = .134, p<.001) and in Model 2 after entering demographics (β=.31, ∆R2 = .088, p<.001). In Model 3, global religiousness was a significant predictor (β=.15, ∆R2 = .030, p<.05), and husbands‟ reports of spiritual intimacy remained significant as well (β=.29, ∆R2 = .078, p<.001). In Model 4, husbands‟ reports of couple collaboration was a significant predictor of variance in self-reports of love (β=.28, ∆R2 = .084, SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 62 p<.001). Couple collaboration only partially accounted for the variance due to spiritual intimacy, however, as husbands‟ reports of spiritual intimacy remained a significant predictor of self- reported marital love (β=.26, ∆R2 = .061, p<.001).

Spiritual satisfaction, the last marital quality variable in question, was significantly related to spiritual intimacy as reported by both spouses. For wives, reports of spiritual intimacy was correlated with reports of spiritual satisfaction in Model 1 (β=.57, ∆R2 = .321, p<.001) and was additionally significant in Model 2 after controlling for demographics of the couple (β=.51,

∆R2 = .236, p<.001). In Model 3, spiritual intimacy remained a significant predictor after controlling for general religiousness (β=.51, ∆R2 = .205, p<.001). The robust findings continued when wives‟ report of couple collaboration was entered in Model 4, as collaboration was not a significant predictor (β=.01, ∆R2 = .014, p = n.s.) and spiritual intimacy uniquely predicted

19.1% of the variance (β=.50, p<.001).

In regards to husbands‟ reports of spiritual satisfaction, husbands‟ self-report of spiritual intimacy was significantly correlated with spiritual satisfaction in Model 1 (β=.54, ∆R2 = .286, p<.001). In Model 2, husbands‟ reports of spiritual intimacy remained a significant predictor of variance in spiritual satisfaction after controlling for demographics variables (β=.52, ∆R2 = .248, p<.001). Spiritual intimacy also remained significant in Model 3 after global religiousness was entered in the model (β=.51, R2 = .227, p<.001). In Model 4, the robust findings continued as husbands‟ reports of spiritual intimacy accounted for 21.7% of unique variance in the model

(β=.51, p<.001) and couple collaboration was not significant (β=.07, ∆R2 = .015, p = n.s.). For both husbands and wives, couple collaboration did not affect the unique variance of self-reports of spiritual satisfaction as predicted by reports of spiritual intimacy of the couple. Spiritual SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 63 satisfaction was the only self-report measure of marital quality that was significantly predicted by spiritual intimacy and not predicted by couple collaboration.

Post hoc analyses. Couple collaboration was a significant predictor in the model for both marital satisfaction and marital love. Post-hoc analyses were conducted where couple collaboration was put in as the last step for each four models, with spiritual intimacy being the third step in Model 4, essentially switching their places from the previous analyses. The purpose of these analyses was to check whether spiritual intimacy and couple collaboration had interchangeable predictive value in the models. Results can be found in Table 11. Results indicate that there were no analyses conducted in which spiritual intimacy fully accounted for couple collaboration, as couple collaboration remained significant in all models after spiritual intimacy was entered in the step before it. This demonstrates that spiritual intimacy and couple collaboration were accounting for different aspects of the variance and that couple collaboration may have more influence in the models than spiritual intimacy.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 64

DISCUSSION

Overview of Key Findings Linking Spiritual intimacy to Marital Quality

This study is the first to examine the construct of spiritual intimacy alongside both observational and self-report measures of marital quality. Furthermore, it is one of the few studies considering these relationship aspects during a relatively normative stage of marriage: the expecting of a couples‟ first child. Overall, spiritual intimacy was found to be related to a variety of forms of marital quality, both observed and self-report. However, it is interesting that although husbands‟ and wives‟ perceptions of the couple‟s level of spiritual intimacy were significantly correlated with each other, their self-reports of spiritual intimacy did not always relate in the same way with marital constructs. It may be that husbands and wives are not necessarily viewing the spiritual intimacy of their relationship in the same manner, and this could have different implications for their individual behaviors as well as how they interact with one another.

The study‟s first hypothesis was largely supported by the final model of regression analyses for observed emotional intimacy, as husbands‟ and wives‟ reports of the couple‟s spiritual intimacy significantly predicted variance in both the level of positive support and negativity the couple exhibited during a videotaped interaction where the couples were asked to discuss their vulnerabilities about their first pregnancy. Wives‟ report of spiritual intimacy was also a significant predictor for the level of warmth and affection the couple displayed toward each other. All of these effects were found even after controlling for demographics and global religiousness. Findings which did not support the hypothesis included spiritual intimacy as reported by both spouses failing to relate to observations of the couples‟ level of self disclosure SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 65 to each other, and husbands‟ report of spiritual intimacy failing to predict observed warmth and affection between the couple.

The second hypothesis was supported for two out of the three self-report measures of marital quality. Specifically, both spouses‟ reports of spiritual intimacy significant predicted variance in both marital love and spiritual satisfaction after controlling for demographic factors, the global level of religiousness of the spouse, and the degree that the spouse perceived that the couple was able to use respectful and collaborative communication strategies to discuss conflicts.

Contrary to predictions, neither spouses‟ reports of spiritual intimacy predicted variance in a 3- item indicator of global marital satisfaction after controlling for constructive communication skills.

Overall, the pattern of findings provides initial empirical evidence that spiritual intimacy is a legitimate specific element of religion and spirituality that is tied to relationship quality in the context of marriage. These findings help illuminate possible mechanisms to help account for the fact that global measures of religion and spirituality (e.g. church attendance, personal religiousness, prayer, denominational similarity) relate to positive aspects of marital functioning, such as higher marital satisfaction, better skills for handling conflict (via self-report), and lower frequency of marital conflict. In short, spiritual intimacy provides a specific window into connections between religion/spirituality and marital functioning because spiritual intimacy focuses on an aspect of religion and spirituality within the marital relationship, rather than general levels of involvement in religion or spirituality by a given spouse Furthermore, the construct of spiritual intimacy offers one way to shed more light about marital behaviors centered on religion and spirituality that appears to overlap with emotional intimacy between spouses which encompasses positive listening skills. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 66

Several reasons can be offered for the relationship between supportive listening and spiritual intimacy that emerged in this study. Spiritual intimacy involves couples‟ reports on the degree to which each partner can engage in supportive listening and responding while their partner shares spiritually focused disclosures, a task which may be especially challenging for several reasons. For one thing, spiritual beliefs may be at the core of both spouses‟ identities and worldview; it is not empirically possible to “prove” which spouse has “correct” beliefs, and at times spouses may have differing views. Remaining supportive, neutral, or even interested in the other‟s point of view could be difficult at times, but an ability to do so is a real sign of positive support. A partner‟s spiritual disclosures may also often include spiritual doubts and struggles, and a listener needs to be able to handle such disclosure with care and understanding, not ridicule or condemnation. Rather, the listener needs to maintain a stance of acceptance even if the spouse confesses to having struggles in faith and doubts that he or she previously did not have. Such disclosures could elicit strong feelings of threat for a listener who may fear that his or her spouse will not be able to resolve these spiritual struggles which could ultimately represent a profound area that was once shared between spouses. A listening spouse may be especially tempted in such circumstances to try to counteract and refute a spouse‟s spiritual disclosures as a means of pushing resolution, and in the process, fail to express sufficient empathy or support. This kind of verbal punishment, in turn, may lead to more distance between the dyad. However, if spouses are able to show the depth of empathetic listening that may be required when spiritual matters are shared, then it follows that these skills could transfer into other emotionally vulnerable discussions and situations.

Another very intriguing finding is that spiritual intimacy was related to lower levels of negativity expressed toward the partner. Perhaps spiritual intimacy signals a strong commitment SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 67 by couples to hold back negativity toward each other because of a history where partners experience each other being accepting when sharing some of the most sensitive material that people can reveal to one another over time, namely conversations centered on spiritual matters.

Because of this history, couples may be extra cautious to avoid resorting to contemptuous or disparaging comments when discussing vulnerable topics such as pregnancy because such verbal punishment would undermine either person‟s willingness to re-enter into revealing discussions about spirituality and other vulnerable topics in the future. Reciprocally, the ability to refrain from ridicule, insensitivity or even coercing another to change their spiritual beliefs or convictions may be tied to being able to display similar communication skills during other potentially vulnerable discussions.

A third finding was that self-reports of spiritual intimacy additionally predicted variance in both observed affection and warmth as well as self-reports of marital love. Spiritual intimacy may play a role in this aspect of relational functioning because partners may feel that they can only talk about their spirituality if their relationship is one facilitates warmth, love, and an aura of “togetherness.” It may be that spiritual intimacy also leads to more observed warmth and affection, as the feelings of love do not simply remain feelings but manifest as actions of physical and verbal affection.

Overall, the significant findings that emerged in this study about spiritual intimacy and indicators of marital functioning could support the notion that spiritual intimacy may facilitate spouses in creating a genuinely vulnerable relationship which allows spouses to see their partners as special and valuable soul-mates, as someone to support, show affection toward, and someone who is not an enemy with whom to battle. This perception could increase verbal responses of support and understanding, showing warmth and affection, and could help increase one‟s self SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 68 regulation to be more cognizant of not crossing the line into a realm of initiating potentially harmful interactions in an effort to promote more positive interactions.

The philosophy of Martin Buber can add to this notion of seeking the partner as a soul- mate. In his classic work, I and Thou (1970), Buber describes two ways in which humans engage in the world. The first is the mode of “experience” in which humans observe the world around them rather than actually participate in it. In this mode, everything, even people, is viewed as an “It” which humans observe in order to collect and analyze data so that they think intellectually and reasonably about their surroundings in order to utilize them for gain. Buber argues that “I-It” relating is the typical way that Western culture operates, but notes that it is not fulfilling and not sufficient for human existence.

The other mode of engaging in the world is called “encounter,” which is when humans encounter the world with their whole self and view objects and other people in their entirety as well, so that others are seen as “Thou,” or more understandably “You.” “I-Thou” relating allows humans to relate genuinely and fully with the world and other people, and it a necessary aspect of being truly human. It shortens the distance between the human and the previously viewed “It” and both are modified by the relationship between the two. Spiritual intimacy could be interpreted in this manner. Couples who experience spiritually intimate are engaging in “I-

Thou” relating, where they experience each other at a genuine, deeper level, and feel as if they know each other entirely, allowing them to connect on a deeper level and be bonded in a special and significant relationship. If this is how spiritual intimacy influences the marital relationship, then it follows that spiritual intimacy should be relating to less negativity, feelings of love in the relationship, and affection and warmth. If spouses view each other as important and relate on a deeper level, then they are likely to avoid hurting one another, and have special emotional SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 69 feelings of love and care for each other, which do not simply remain as feelings but manifest themselves in affectionate and warm behavior.

Although all of these relationships have been framed as spiritual intimacy predicting marital quality, it is very likely that these relationships are reciprocal. The data was cross sectional and causality can not be determined through such analyses. For example, it is impossible to know if spiritual intimacy results in lower negativity, or if spiritual intimacy only occurs in relationships which already have low levels of negative communication patterns. The same argument stands for positive support, affection and warmth, and love; it may be that these qualities are necessary before spiritual intimacy can occur. Furthermore, these variables may have a circular effect on each other. If spiritual intimacy is indeed created as a byproduct of general emotional intimacy, then perhaps spiritual intimacy reinforces those other aspects of marital quality. And what is to be said about couples who do not use spiritual intimacy? It could be argued that they are missing out on a resource for their marriage, or the opposite could be true that the actually have high levels of emotional intimacy, but emotional intimacy does not influence spiritual intimacy because it is not relevant to them. Additionally, for couples for whom spirituality and religion is relevant to them, they could have trouble accessing spiritual intimacy because they do not have emotional intimacy.

Similar explanations could be used to explain the findings regarding spiritual satisfaction, which is discussed on its own here as it is not conceptualized as a “general” indicator of marital quality since it is specifically focused on spirituality. Spiritual intimacy and spiritual satisfaction had a robust relationship, which makes intuitive sense due to both measures being focused on spirituality. This relationship continued even after controlling for collaboration which was not a significant predictor of variance anyway. This is evidence that general indicators of marital SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 70 functioning do not necessarily matter for satisfaction with the spiritual well-being of the relationship. A couple truly must be experiencing spiritual intimacy in their relationship, and perhaps other forms of relational spirituality (i.e. joint religious activities), to help them feel satisfied with this aspect of their relationship. It may also be a relationship aspect that is not applicable to them for a variety of reasons, such as not being a highly spiritual couple or spouses having very different beliefs which result in practicing their faiths as individuals.

It is also noteworthy that self-reports of spiritual intimacy and collaborative communication skills to deal with disagreements appear to overlap. This suggests that a certain level of collaboration may be necessary for spiritual intimacy to occur, which is why collaboration sometimes accounted for part or all of the unique variance previously predicted by spiritual intimacy. In the instance of marital satisfaction as reported by wives, collaboration accounted for the unique variance of spiritual intimacy, suggesting that collaboration played a more important and powerful role in these areas of marital quality. This coincides with a finding in marital research that couples who handle conflict better, that is collaborate, tend to have higher marital satisfaction and lower risk of divorce (Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, &

Whitton, 2010). Additionally, reports of couple collaboration partially accounted for a part of the variance for marital love, indicating that spiritual intimacy was not the only variable involved. Of course, there could also be other third variables which contribute to the processes between spiritual intimacy, emotional intimacy, and other forms of marital quality, or even fully account for their relationships. More research is needed to determine such variables, but possibilities could include time spent together on a daily basis, frequency of communication, level of conflict, relationship distress, or perceived life stress.

Discussion of Null Findings SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 71

Spiritual intimacy was related to most areas of marital quality, with the exception of self- reported marital satisfaction and observed positive self disclosure. In the present study, spouses did not necessarily need to perceive a high level of spiritual intimacy within the couple to have satisfaction with the marriage. This finding could be due to the very restricted variability in and high levels of general marital satisfaction. It will be recalled that the maximum score on this 3- item measure was 21 with wives‟ reporting a mean of 19.54 (SD = 1.87) and husbands a mean of

19.26 (SD = 2.13).

On one hand, the lack of findings may have been an artifact of the design of the marital interactions. Specifically, when setting up the interaction, the couples were instructed to spend their time sharing with one another their vulnerabilities and fears related to becoming a new parent. Thus, some spouses may have been considerably more open than they typically are and their behavior represented a response to setting demands rather than tapping into the level of disclosure that normally occurs within the context of their marriage around sensitive matters. In short, demand characteristics may have created “error variance” that obscured links between the observations of disclosures during the videotaped interactions and naturally occurring level of disclosure that was assessed via self-reports of spiritual discussions. In addition, it is important to recall that self-reports of spiritual intimacy taps into whether couples are willing to disclose spiritual joys and struggles. Apparently, for some couples, the degree of willingness to do this may be high when they are less willing to share vulnerabilities about pregnancy, and conversely many spouses may feel comfortable sharing private feelings or thoughts about pregnancy and yet be reluctant to share spiritual vulnerabilities.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Research SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 72

The findings of this study have a variety of implications. First, understanding spiritual intimacy and how it relates to marital quality has implications for mental health professionals, especially those who may work with religious or spiritual clients as individuals or couples. This may be particularly important for couples who have spiritual differences which appear to be at the center and/or exacerbate relationship dysfunction. However, this study did not necessarily focus on spiritual differences between couples, and the evidence showed that spiritual intimacy is a positive resource for relationship functioning in a variety of couples. In regards to therapy with pregnancy couples, pregnant couples may be likely to seek out therapy services due to increased stresses and vulnerabilities about becoming parents. Spirituality may be an important factor for mental health professionals to assess for and attend to in the therapy process, especially in regards to their spiritual or religious beliefs surrounding becoming parents and raising a child.

There are similar implications for clergy who may find themselves engaging in premarital or marital counseling with couples in their congregation. Couples who are affiliated with a religious organization may first turn to their pastor or lay pastor when experiencing difficulty in their marriage. Such couples may benefit from clergy members who are able to help them learn how to communicate better about their spiritual or religious beliefs, as this kind of communication may act as a resource in their marital and spiritual lives. Again, this may be more pertinent for couples who are experiencing spiritual differences or struggles, especially if they are about family life, but the study shows that it is a positive resource for relationship functioning overall.

Furthermore, this study was conducted with married couples who were nearing the birth of their first child. As many other studies on religion and spirituality during pregnancy suggested, spirituality can be an important aspect to for professionals in obstetrics and midwifery SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 73 to take into considering when working with their patients. Perhaps this is not currently occurring in the obstetrics field due to the often present tension between science and spirituality.

Professionals in this field may not feel it is their place to bring up the topic of spirituality, and they may not believe in spirituality as a valid resource. However, these professionals may be performing a service to their patients if they are willing to ask their patients about their religious or spiritual beliefs and discuss how their beliefs may be helpful to them during this time of their life. Furthermore, by opening up lines of communication about spirituality, obstetrics professionals would be able to refer their patients to their pastors, local spiritual resources, or mental health professionals if a patient is experiencing spiritual struggle or spiritual differences with her partner which makes it difficult to cope with pregnancy and anticipate the birth of their child.

The study exhibited many strengths, such as multimodal measurement, reports from both spouses, and a large sample. Additionally, observational measures were used at the level of the couple than breaking it down between husbands and wives. Although that is the typical way research is conducted, the approach only describes the behavior of each spouse out of the context of the other partner. If, for example, only one spouse is behaving affectionately or engaging in high levels of self disclosure, how can that interaction be viewed as positive? Through the present study‟s method of measurement, couples were seen on a continuum, and only those pairs where both partners engaged in a specific behavior were viewed as highly functioning on the respective constructs. Additionally, the study has added to research regarding the intersection of religion/spirituality and relationships by using measures of relational spiritually as both a predictor and criterion measure. Both had acceptable levels of internal consistency and related significantly to self-report and observed measures of marital quality. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 74

Despite these strengths, there are still a variety of limitations which need to be recognized and hopefully addressed further in future research. Perhaps the largest limitation is that the study was conducted using cross-sectional data. Longitudinal analyses would be necessary to determine if spiritual intimacy influences marital quality across time and if it is a helpful relationship aspect to facilitate stable marital quality during the transition to parenthood.

Furthermore, longitudinal analyses would be an appropriate way to explore if spiritual intimacy is simply a result of other positive relationship qualities or if it is unique in its own right. Thus, the application of fixed effects analytic model would be an interesting statistical technique to use to see if the links between spiritual intimacy and observed and self-reported marital quality remain even after controlling for unmeasured characteristics of the couples. Lastly, since it was found that spiritual intimacy often significantly predicted observed emotionally intimacy, a future project could examine whether observed emotional intimacy and self-reported spiritual intimacy independently and uniquely contribute to perceived love and satisfaction. Lastly, the measure of spiritual intimacy is a very new measure and more exploratory analyses should be performed to understand its construction better. The measure has items asking about each spouses‟ disclosure and support in the context of spiritually focused discussion. Factor analysis could show if the items fall into these categories, and splitting up the measure into subscale could perhaps show differences between husbands and wives and to see whether disclosure or support in spiritual contexts influence marital outcomes in difference manners.

The sample for this study was primarily Caucasian, Christian, educated and middle-class.

It can not be assumed that the same results would occur similarly among different racial groups, members of different religious and spiritual backgrounds, or different SES groups. Additionally, the sample did not include many interfaith couples; interfaith meaning different religions, such as SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 75

Jewish and Christian, rather than different denominations, such as Lutheran and Methodist. It would be interesting to if there are any differences in how spiritual intimacy influences the marital quality of spouses who come from different versus similar religious and spiritual backgrounds.

The sample used was a community sample of married couples who became pregnancy with their first child after their wedding and they reported remarkably high marital well- functioning as group with very little variability in indicators of negative dynamics. Using a clinical or at-risk sample may have resulted in more negativity or stressors among couples for which spiritual intimacy could have different implications. Even comparing a clinical to community sample would be helpful to explore how spiritual intimacy processes occur for couples who have varying levels of distress. Also, all married couples were anticipating the birth of the first biological child for both spouses. Increasingly in our current culture, this context is becoming less typical setting as the family situation into which babies are born; in the 1990s,

63% of U.S. women in the 1990s reported they cohabited with a partner prior to marriage, 18% of children were born to cohabiting mothers (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2006), and up to 65% of children are expected to spend some time living with unmarried parents due to non-marital births among cohabiting couples, or non-marital unions following divorce (Bumpass & Lu, 2000).

Based on current research that pre-engagement cohabiting may be detrimental to relationships

(Kline, Stanley, Markman, Olmos-Gallo, St. Peters, Whitton, & Prado, 2004) it would be interesting to repeat this study with cohabiting couples to examine if spiritual intimacy possibly protects/strengthens the relationship. Overall, different kinds of couples, such as unmarried, remarried, same-sex couples, and those with step-children, should also be studied during the transition of having their first child together. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 76

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that spiritual intimacy is an appropriate measure to use when exploring how spirituality within a marital relationship relates to other aspect of marital communication and functioning. Additionally, there is evidence that abilities of a couple to share and listen to one another‟s spiritual disclosures may be helpful during a married couple‟s first pregnancy, which is a normative yet often emotionally vulnerable period in the journey of marriage for many couples. Specifically, spiritual intimacy may help enhance a couple‟s skills at listening attentively and supportively while remaining neutral, understanding, and empathetic.

Additionally, spiritual intimacy appears to be related to decreased negativity during discussions of vulnerabilities related to becoming parents, so that spiritual intimacy may help spouses consider one another as soulmates to be treated respectfully and lovingly rather than as enemies on either side of a battle line. Furthermore, spiritual intimacy may help foster affection, warmth, and love in a couple, as it related to observation of a couple‟s friendship and physical and verbal affection as well as self-reports of love in the marriage. Lastly, spiritual intimacy may be particularly important for the spiritual well being of the marriage, as it was strongly correlated with self-reports of spiritual satisfaction. This may be particularly important for couples who place a higher value on sharing and understanding one another‟s spirituality.

This Master‟s thesis has helped to further the field of psychology of religion and family life by using a relationally focused measure of spirituality and obtaining self-reports and observational data of both spouses for each couple in the study. Furthermore, by using a marital interaction focused on emotional vulnerabilities of a shared circumstance, that is pregnancy, the observational methods allowed exploration positive aspects of marital communication instead of conflict and problem solving communication, which has been the prevailing paradigm in marital SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 77 observational research. As this is the first study to incorporate such variables, this Master‟s thesis sets the stage for further research in how spiritual intimacy may be related to other aspects of marital functioning as well as how it may influence marital relationships across time.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 78

REFERENCES

Assor, A., & Assor, T. (1985). Emotional involvement in marriage during the last trimester of

pregnancy: A comparison of husbands and wives. Journal of Psychology, 119(3), 243-252.

Austin, M.-P. (2004). Antenatal screening and early intervention for "perinatal" distress,

depression and anxiety: Where to from here? Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 7(1), 1-6.

doi:10.1007/s00737-003-0034-4

Belsky, J., Lang, M. E., & Rovine, M. (1985). Stability and change in marriage across the

transition to parenthood: A second study. Journal of Marriage & Family, 47(4), 855-865.

doi:10.2307/352329

Belsky, J., & Pensky, E. (1988). Marital change across the transition to parenthood. Marriage &

Family Review, 12(3-4), 133-156. doi:10.1300/J002v12n03_08

Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of marital change across the transition to parenthood:

Pregnancy to three years postpartum. Journal of Marriage & Family, 52(1), 5-19.

doi:10.2307/352833

Belsky, J., Spanier, G. B., & Rovine, M. (1983). Stability and change in marriage across the

transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage & Family, 45(3), 567-577.

doi:10.2307/351661

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(3), 661-671.

doi:10.2307/353921

Boyce, P., Condon, J., Barton, J., & Corkindale, C. (2007). First-time fathers' study:

Psychological distress in expectant fathers during pregnancy. Australian & New Zealand

Journal of Psychiatry, 41(9), 718-725. doi:10.1080/00048670701517959 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 79

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and

determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage & Family,

62(4), 964-980. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

Braiker, H., Kelly, H., Burgess, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (1979). Conflict in the development of

close relationships. In R. Burgess & T. Huston (Eds.) Social exchange and developing

relationships. New York: Academic Press.

Brelsford, G. M., & Mahoney, A. (2008). Spiritual disclosure between older adolescents and

their mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 62-70. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.62

Brimhall, A. S., & Butler, M. H. (2007). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic religious motivation and the

marital relationship. American Journal of Family Therapy, 35(3), 235-249.

doi:10.1080/01926180600814684

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Flor, D., & McCrary, C. (1994). Religion's role in organizing family

relationships: Family process in rural, two-parent African American families. Journal of

Marriage & Family, 56(4), 878-888. doi:10.2307/353600

Buist, A. (2002). Mental health in pregnancy: The sleeping giant. Australasian Psychiatry, 10(3),

203-206. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1665.2002.00448.x

Bumpass, L., & Hsien-Hen Lu. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children's

family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29-41.

doi:10.1080/713779060

Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A., & Gardner, B. C. (2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual:

Clinical implications of religious couples' report of relationship softening, healing

perspective, and change responsibility. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(1), 19-37.

doi:10.1080/019261802753455624 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 80

Callister, L. C., Semenic, S., & Foster, J. C. (1999). Cultural and spiritual meanings of childbirth.

Orthodox Jewish and Mormon women. Journal of Holistic Nursing,, 17(3), 280-295.

doi:10.1177/089801019901700305

Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Before they said “I do”:

Discriminating among marital outcomes over 13 years. Journal of Marriage & Family,

66(3), 613-626. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00041.x

Condon, J. T. (1985). The parental-foetal relationship – a comparison of male and female

expectant parents. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4(4), 271-284.

doi:10.3109/01674828509016729

Condon, J. T., Boyce, P., & Corkindale, C. J. (2004). The first-time fathers study: A prospective

study of the mental health and wellbeing of men during the transition to parenthood.

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(1), 56-64. doi:10.1111/j.1440-

1614.2004.01298.x

Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. B., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy

as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 218-235.

doi:10.1521/jscp.24.2.218.62270

Cordova, J. V., & Scott, R. L. (2001). Intimacy: A behavioral interpretation. The Behavior

Analyst, 24(1), 75-86. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC2731357/pdf/behavan00009-0077.pdf

Curtis, K. T., & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religious heterogamy and marital conflict: Findings from

the national survey of families and households. Journal of Family Issues, 23(4), 551-576.

doi:10.1177/0192513X02023004005 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 81

Davis, J. L., Pallen, R. J., DeMaio, C. M., & Jackson, T. L. (2000). The emotional, sexual, and

spiritual intimacy scale (ESSI). Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, vol. 18. (pp.

289-296). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.

Dorian, M., & Cordova, J.V. (1999). The Intimacy Coding System. Unpublished coding manual,

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Dorian, M., & Cordova, J.V. (2004). Coding intimacy in couples‟ interactions. In D.H. Baucom

& P.K. Kerig (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 243-256). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Doss, B. D., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). The effect of the

transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 96(3), 601-619. doi:10.1037/a0013969

Farber, B.A., & Sohn, A.E. (1999). Disclosure to Spouse Inventory. Unpublished measure,

Columbia University, New York.

Farber, B. A., & Sohn, A. E. (2007). Patterns of self-disclosure in psychotherapy and marriage.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(2), 226-231. doi:10.1037/0033-

3204.44.2.226

Federenko, I. S., & Wadhwa, P. D. (2004). Women's mental health during pregnancy influences

fetal and infant developmental and health outcomes. CNS Spectrums, 9(3), 198-206.

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(4), 597-609. doi:10.1037//0893-3200.15.4.597 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 82

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Lambert, N., Stillman, T., & Braithwaite, S. (2008). Spiritual

behaviors and relationship satisfaction: A critical analysis of the role of prayer. Journal of

Social & Clinical Psychology, 27(4), 362-388. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.4.362

Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation.

Journal of Marriage & the Family, 49(4), 797-809. doi:10.2307/351973

Fønnebø, V. (1994). The healthy Seventh-day Adventist lifestyle: What is the Norwegian

experience? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59(5), 1124-1129. Retrieved from

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/59/5/1124S

Fruzzetti, A. E., & Jacobson, N. S. (1990). Toward a behavioral conceptualization of adult

intimacy: Implications for marital therapy. Emotions and the family: For better or for

worse. (pp. 117-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gallagher, R. W., Hobfoll, S. E., Ritter, C., & Lavin, J. (1997). Marriage, intimate support and

depression during pregnancy: A study of inner-city women. Journal of Health Psychology,

2(4), 457-469. doi:10.1177/135910539700200403

Gillum, R. F., & Sullins, D. P. (2008). Cigarette smoking during pregnancy: Independent

associations with religious participation. Southern Medical Journal, 101(7), 686-692.

Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Abstract/2008/07000/

Cigarette_Smoking_During_Pregnancy__Independent.18.aspx

Goodman, M. A., & Dollahite, D. C. (2006). How religious couples perceive the influence of

God in their marriage. Review of Religious Research, 48(2), 141-155. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20058129

Hamilton, J. G., & Lobel, M. (2008). Types, patterns, and predictors of coping with stress during

pregnancy: Examination of the revised prenatal coping inventory in a diverse sample. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 83

Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 29(2), 97-104.

doi:10.1080/01674820701690624

Hatch, R. C., James, D. E., & Schumm, W. R. (1986). Spiritual intimacy and marital satisfaction.

Family Relations, 35(4), 539-545. doi:10.2307/584515

Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality

marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84(1), 445-465. Retrieved from

doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0103

Hernandez, K. M. (2008). Sacred sexual unions: The sanctification of marital sexuality among

newlyweds. Unpublished master‟s thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green,

OH.

Hernandez, K. M. (2009). Sex through a sacred lens: The longitudinal effects of sanctifying

marital sexuality. Unpublished preliminary project, Bowling Green State University,

Bowling Green, OH.

Heyman, R. E. (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applications,

stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 5-35.

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5

Jesse, D. E., Graham, M., & Swanson, M. (2005). Psychosocial and spiritual factors associated

with smoking and substance use during pregnancy in African American and White low-

income women. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 35(1), 68-77.

doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2006.00010.x

Jesse, D. E., & Reed, P. G. (2003). Effects of spirituality and psychosocial well-being on health

risk behaviors in Appalachian pregnant women. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, &

Neonatal Nursing, 33(6), 739-747. doi:10.1177/0884217504270669 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 84

Jesse, D. E., Schoneboom, C., & Blanchard, A. (2007). The effect of faith or spirituality in

pregnancy: A content analysis. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25(3), 151-158.

doi:10.1177/0898010106293593

Jesse, D. E., & Swanson, M. S. (2007). Risks and resources associated with antepartum risk for

depression among rural southern women. Nursing Research, 56(6), 378-386.

doi:10.1097/01.NNR.0000299856.98170.19

Jesse, D. E., Walcott-McQuigg, J., Mariella, A., & Swanson, M. S. (2005). Risks and protective

factors associated with symptoms of depression in low-income African American and

Caucasian women during pregnancy. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 50(5), 405-

410. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.05.001

Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children's living arrangements: New

estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663-1692.

doi:10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.47

Kerig, P. K. (1996). Assessing the links between interparental conflict and child adjustment: The

conflicts and problem-solving scales. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(4), 454-473.

doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.454

Kimbro, R. T. (2008). Together forever? Romantic relationship characteristics and prenatal

health behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(3), 745-757. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2008.00518.x

King, D. E., & Hueston, W. (1994). Religious affiliation and obstetric outcome. Southern

Medical Journal, 87(11), 1125-1128. doi:10.1097/00007611-199411000-00013

Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P., St. Peters, M., Whitton, S. W., &

Prado, L. M. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 85

for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 311-318.

doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.311

Lambert, N. M., & Dollahite, D. C. (2006). How religiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, and

overcome marital conflict. Family Relations, 55(4), 439-449. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3729.2006.00413.x

Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of

intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family

Psychology, 19(2), 314-323. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314

Lichter, D. T., & Carmalt, J. H. (2009). Religion and marital quality among low-income couples.

Social Science Research, 38(1), 168-187. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.07.003

Lippert, T., & Prager, K. J. (2001). Daily experiences of intimacy: A study of couples. Personal

Relationships, 8(3), 283-298. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00041.x

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their

reliability and validity. Marriage & Family Living, 21(3), 251-255. doi:10.2307/348022

Mahoney, A. (in press). Religion in the home from 1999-2010: A decade review from a

relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., & DeMaris, A. (2009a). Couples viewing marriage and

pregnancy through the lens of the sacred: A descriptive study. In R.L. Piedmont & A.

Village (Eds.), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, The Netherlands: Leiden.

doi:10.1163/ej.9789004175624.i-334.7

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., & DeMaris, A. (2009b, April). Spiritual intimacy and spiritual

activities between parents: Links to coparenting infants beyond marital satisfaction. In A.

Mahoney (Chair), Going deeper in examining shared spiritual dialogue and activities SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 86

between family members. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Research

in Child Development, Denver, CO.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999).

Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in

marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 321-338. doi:10.1037/0893-

3200.13.3.321

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home

in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between

religion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 559-596.

doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.559

Malik, N.M., & Lindahl, K.M. (2000). System for Coding Interactions in Dyads (SCID).

Unpublished manual, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.

Malik, N.M., & Lindahl, K.M. (2004). System for coding interactions in dyads. In D.H. Baucom

& P.K. Kerig (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 173-188). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Mann, J. R., McKeown, R. E., Bacon, J., Vesselinov, R., & Bush, F. (2007a). Religiosity,

spirituality, and depressive symptoms in pregnant women. International Journal of

Psychiatry in Medicine, 37(3), 301-313. doi:10.2190/PM.37.3.g

Mann, J. R., McKeown, R. E., Bacon, J., Vesselinov, R., & Bush, F. (2007b). Religiosity,

spirituality, and tobacco use by pregnant women. Southern Medical Journal, 100(9), 867-

872. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Abstract/2007/09000/

Religiosity,_Spirituality,_and_Tobacco_Use_by.5.aspx SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 87

Mann, J. R., McKeown, R. E., Bacon, J., Vesselinov, R., & Bush, F. (2008a). Do antenatal

religious and spiritual factors impact the risk of postpartum depressive symptoms? Journal

of Women's Health, 17(5), 745-755. doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.0627

Mann, J. R., McKeown, R. E., Bacon, J., Vesselinov, R., & Bush, F. (2008b). Religiosity,

spirituality and antenatal anxiety in southern U.S. women. Archives of Women's Mental

Health, 11(1), 19-26. doi:10.1007/s00737-008-0218-z

Manne, S., Ostroff, J., Rini, C., Fox, K., Goldstein, L., & Grana, G. (2004). The interpersonal

process model of intimacy: The role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner

responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. Journal of

Family Psychology, 18(4), 589-599. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.589

Marcus, S. M., Flynn, H. A., Blow, F. C., & Barry, K. L. (2003). Depressive symptoms among

pregnant women screened in obstetrics settings. Journal of Women's Health, 12(4), 373-380.

doi:10.1089/154099903765448880

Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). The

premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of

marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 289-298. doi:10.1037/a0019481

Mirgain, S.A., & Cordova, J.V. (2003, November). The development and preliminary validation

of the Emotional Skillfulness Coding System. Poster session presented at the annual meeting

of the Association for the Advancement of Behavioral Therapy, Boston, MA.

Mirgain, S. A., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Emotion skills and marital health: The association

between observed and self-reported emotion skills, intimacy, and marital satisfaction.

Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 26(9), 983-1009. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.9.983 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 88

Mitchell, A. E., Castellani, A. M., Herrington, R. L., Joseph, J. I., Doss, B. D., & Snyder, D. K.

(2008). Predictors of intimacy in couples' discussions of relationship injuries: An

observational study. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 21-29. doi:10.1037/0893-

3200.22.1.21

Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational

patterns, 1980 – 1997. Journal of Marriage & Family, 68(2), 292-304. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2006.00253.x

Najman, J. M., Williams, G. M., Keeping, J. D., Morrison, J., & Andersen, M. J. (1988).

Religious values, practices and pregnancy outcomes: A comparison of the impact of sect

and mainstream Christian affiliation. Social Science & Medicine, 26(4), 401-407.

doi:10.1016/0277-9536(88)90308-5

Nock, S. L., Sanchez, L. A., & Wright, J. D. (2008). Covenant marriage: The movement to

reclaim tradition in marriage Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, US.

Orr, S. T. (2004). Social support and pregnancy outcome: A review of the literature. Clinical

Obstetrics and Gynecology, 47(4), 842-855. doi:10.1097/01.grf.0000141451.68933.9f

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing

the sacred. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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(3), 179-

198. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1503_1

Prager, K.J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York, NY: Guilford Press. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 89

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Handbook of personal

relationships: Theory, research and interventions. (pp. 367-389). Oxford, England: John

Wiley & Sons.

Roberts, L. J., & Greenberg, D. R. (2002). Observational "windows" to intimacy processes in

marriage. Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction. (pp.

118-149). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511500077.008

Ross, L. E., & McLean, L. M. (2006). Anxiety disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum

period: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(8), 1285-1298.

doi:10.4088/JCP.v67n0818

Scanzoni, J., & Arnett, C. (1987). Enlarging the understanding of marital commitment via

religious devoutness, gender role preferences, and locus of marital control. Journal of

Family Issues, 8(1), 136-156. doi:10.1177/019251387008001007

Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The PAIR inventory. Journal of

Marital & Family Therapy, 7(1), 47-60. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x

Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C., Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., &

Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital

Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage & Family, 48(2), 381. doi:10.2307/352405

Shapiro, A. F., Gottman, J. M., & Carrere, S. (2000). The baby and the marriage: Identifying

factors that buffer against decline in marital satisfaction after the first baby arrives. Journal

of Family Psychology, 14(1), 59-70. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.1.59 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 90

Snowden, L. R., Schott, T. L., Awalt, S. J., & Gillis-Knox, J. (1988). Marital satisfaction in

pregnancy: Stability and change. Journal of Marriage & Family, 50(2), 325-333.

doi:10.2307/352000

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of

marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage & Family, 38(1), 15-28.

doi.org/10.2307/350547

Spanier, G. B., & Lewis, R. A. (1980). Marital quality: A review of the seventies. Journal of

Marriage & Family, 42(4), 825. doi:10.2307/351827

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(4), 610-626. doi:10.1037//0893-3200.15.4.610

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage & Family, 65(3), 574-583. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2003.00574.x

Weaver, A. J., Pargament, K. I., Flannelly, K. J., & Oppenheimer, J. E. (2006). Trends in the

scientific study of religion, spirituality, and health: 1965–2000. Journal of Religion &

Health, 45(2), 208-214. doi:10.1007/s10943-006-9011-3

Whisman, M. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2006). Impairment and distress associated with

relationship discord in a national sample of married or cohabiting adults. Journal of Family

Psychology, 20(3), 369-377. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.369

Wilcox, W. B., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2008). Living and loving “decent”: Religion and

relationship quality among urban parents. Social Science Research, 37(3), 828-843.

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.11.001 SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 91

Wolfinger, N. H., & Wilcox, W. B. (2008). Happily ever after? religion, marital status, gender

and relationship quality in urban families. Social Forces, 86(3), 1311-1337.

doi:10.1353/sof.0.0023

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 92

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Your age: ____ years

How would you describe your ethnicity? ____Caucasian/Euro-American ____Asian American ____Multi-racial/ethnic ____African American ____Hispanic or Latino ____Other: ______

What is your highest educational background? ____Less than 7 years ____Junior high school ____Partial high school (10th-11th grade) ____High school graduation ____Partial college/post high school training (1 year or more) ____Standard college graduation ____Graduate/professional degree

What is your approximate, combined 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

What is your religious preference? _____ Christian/Protestant _____ Muslim _____ Christian/Catholic _____ Jewish _____ Non-denominational Christian _____ None _____ Other (specify): ______

Strongly Strongly To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Disagree Agree

The Bible is God's word and everything will happen exactly as it says. 1 2 3 4 5

The Bible is the answer to all important human problems. 1 2 3 4 5

How long have you and your spouse been married? ____Years ____Months

What is the date you were married? ______/______/______

What week are you in your pregnancy? Week _____

How often do you attend religious services? _____ Several times a week _____ About once per month _____ Less than once per year _____ Every week _____ Several times a year _____ Never _____ 2-3 times per month _____ About once or twice a year

How often do you pray privately in places other than church or synagogue or temple? _____ More than once per _____ Once a week _____ Less than once a month day _____ Once a day _____ A few times a month _____ Never _____ A few times a week _____ Once a month

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 93

APPENDIX B

COUPLE COLLABORATION

What strategies do you and your spouse use when you have disagreements with each other? Using the four point scale below, show how often YOU use each strategy on the left side and how often YOUR SPOUSE uses each strategy on the right side. Remember the first response that comes to mind is probably the best one.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 0 1 2 3

Me Spouse Talk it out with the other one Express thoughts and feelings openly Listen to the other‟s point of view Try to understand what the other is really feeling Try to reason with the other Try to find a solution that meets both of our needs equally Accept the blame, apologize Compromise, meet the other half way, “split the difference”

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 94

APPENDIX C

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY

Not at Some Quite A great Please indicate how true the following statements are for you. all -what a bit deal

I feel safe being completely open and honest with my spouse about my 1. 0 1 2 3 faith. 2. I tend to keep my spiritual side private and separate from my marriage. 0 1 2 3 My spouse really knows how to listen when I talk about my spiritual 3. 0 1 2 3 needs, thoughts, and feelings. My spouse is supportive when I reveal my spiritual questions or struggles 4. 0 1 2 3 to him.

My spouse doesn‟t disclose his thoughts or feelings about spirituality with 5. 0 1 2 3 me.

6. My spouse shares his spiritual questions or struggles with me. 0 1 2 3

I try not to be judgmental or critical when my spouse shares his ideas 7. 0 1 2 3 about spirituality.

I try to be supportive when my spouse discloses spiritual questions or 8. 0 1 2 3 struggles. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 95

APPENDIX D

VULNERABILITIES CHECKLIST

Questions about yourself that pregnancy and becoming a parent can trigger

Here is a list of questions people may ask themselves when they experience a pregnancy and the prospect of becoming a parent. Such questions can trigger deep feelings of vulnerability. By vulnerability, we mean feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, self-doubt, or worry. Please read over this list and check off any of the questions below that you have had.

_____ 1. Am I handling this pregnancy the right way? _____ 2. Am I really emotionally ready to be a parent? _____ 3. Will I avoid the mistakes my parents made? _____ 4. Will I be as good as my parents were? _____ 5. Am I ready to give up the freedom to do what I want, when I want? _____ 6. Am I patient enough to deal with the noise, confusion, and 24-hour-a-day responsibility that a baby brings with it? _____ 7. Am I too young/too old to deal with becoming a parent? _____ 8. Will I be able to afford a baby? _____ 9. Will having a baby derail my career or educational plans? _____ 10. Will I like doing things with my baby? _____ 11. Will I be able to handle a marriage and a baby at the same time? _____ 12. Will I be jealous of how much time and energy my child gets from my spouse? _____ 13. Will I be able to handle the sleep deprivation caused by a baby? _____ 14. Will I be able to handle it if our baby is seriously ill, has colic, or other stressful health problems? _____ 15. Will I be able to handle it if our baby has a difficult temperament or negative personality traits similar to other family members? _____ 16. How difficult, long, or painful will the labor and delivery be - will I do a good job in the labor situation? _____ 17. Will I be able to handle a child and job at the same time? _____ 18. Will having a child interfere with my job or making a living?

Now please turn over this piece of paper and spend a couple of minutes writing about ways in which this pregnancy or becoming a parent has triggered feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, self- doubt, or worry on your part. You don‟t need to limit yourself to the issues above. The list is only to help remind you of feelings of vulnerability you may have about parenthood. You may very well be facing other issues that create feelings of vulnerability that are not on this list. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 96

APPENDIX E

OBSERVATIONAL CODING SYSTEM

Marital Vulnerability Interactions Coding System as of April 18, 2008

General Guidelines

- Watch the tape one time to get a general sense of the flow of the dialogue, the quality of the couples‟ relationship, and each individual‟s style of relating to the partner. Be cautious not to let your own personal affinity or dislike of a given partner excessively color your ratings. But do allow your assessment of the couples‟ overall dynamics and the quality of their relationship inform your ratings of specific constructs.

- Watch tape second time focused on what the wife does and says.

- Watch tape a third time focused on what the husband does and says.

- In most cases, watch tape a fourth time to generate ratings.

- Make sure to consider the full range of scores and to use the entire range of options.

- When you experience a strong clash between what the coding manual appears to say as to how you should rate an individual on a construct and your own common sense about the intent of the construct, then make sure to bring this up as a discussion point in reliability meetings; this clash indicates a lack of clarity and validity in how the intent of the code is communicated.

1. Positive Self-Disclosure

Concise definition = volunteering thoughts & feelings about oneself that exposes one‟s fears, needs, wishes, vulnerabilities and intense emotions, and opens oneself up to rejection and invalidation by partner; talking about negative emotions other than anger (anxiety, worries, sadness, shame, embarrassment); being self-reflective and non-defensively opening up when asked questions by spouse, sustaining eye contact, honesty, humor about self

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 None/ Low Mod Mod Mod High Very Very low Low High High

Positive Self-Disclosure includes: - Verbal Self Disclosure: The self-disclosure code assesses the extent to which the partner verbally discloses information about themselves to their partner. For higher levels, this disclosure must be significant or private information whose disclosure makes the partner vulnerable.

Disclosures often will take the form of "I statements." They can include an evaluative SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 97

opinion about self ("I think I could do better about that."), an emotion one is feeling (I'm angry, anxious, nervous, pissed off, happy, worried, jealous, etc.), or provide an analysis for why one feels or acts a certain way. (e.g., "It's hard for me to trust people because…" "I get clingy when…"). Self disclosure can often make a person vulnerable in front of their partner, and it's a fairly sophisticated skill because one has to be self-aware and comfortable enough to make oneself vulnerable.

Low to moderate ratings should be used for relatively commonplace disclosures about one's own opinions, feelings, or behaviors about oneself that could risk rejection ("I think I could do better about cleaning the house." "I think I am doing better about handling money now."). Moderate to high ratings should reflect disclosure of a relatively serious personal issue that reveal more self-scrutiny and emotion, such as self-esteem (e.g., "I am really insecure about looking for a new job"), personal relationships (e.g., "Because I'm really shy, I don't really like to hang with other people"), or emotions ("I worry if I'll be able to adjust how I handle work after the baby comes"), or behaviors ("I know sometimes don't do things around the house because I know I can get you to do it because I am pregnant.").

Note: Not all statements that begin with "I feel" are self disclosures. A statement such as "I feel you are a jerk" is not self disclosure, but an example of verbal aggression. Likewise, a statement such as "I feel you don't listen to me" is not a self disclosure but rather a criticism of the partner's behavior. The statement "I don't care (where we go out to dinner" is also not a self-disclosure. There may be instances where "I don't care…" would be considered a disclosure, but it would depend on the context.

- Displaying Soft Negative Emotions: This element reflects the extent to which partners are able and clear in communicating soft negative and vulnerable-making emotions. The negative affect displayed includes sadness, anxiety, despair and fear. Not anger, but hurt. This is a measure of how comfortable the person is being with and communicating soft emotions. The act of crying, especially when accompanied by relevant statements, would typically be highly revealing of soft negative emotions. However, if it highly ambiguous as to what the meaning or revelation is in the crying, crying may not be codeable or may be a negative emotion.

- Self-Awareness of Internal Feeling States: Look for all speech contributions, emotion language, which mention a positive or negative feeling, and directly reveals the past, present or future affective experience of the speaker. (do not include manners of speech, such as "I feel like…."). This characteristic focuses on the use of emotion words and is conceptualized as the partner's skillfulness at identifying and communicating their emotions. Feeling statements are coded when the speaker describes the feeling being communicated, the situation in which the feeling occurs, or the problem to which the feeling refers. The feeling may be expressed by using a feeling word or by describing the feeling. This category also includes conditional feelings and negation of feelings. Purely physical sensations and stable affective personality traits (e.g., a jovial person) are not included, nor, in general, SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 98

are preferences, wants or needs. To what extent can the partner use emotion words? If the person can only talk about his/her partners emotions and not his/her own emotions, then the score should be lower.

Benign Control in Delivery or "Spoon Full of Sugar": Using a soft approach when outlining conflict issue or when communicating vulnerability, fears, hurt or frustration to one's partner. How careful is this person being with his/her partner's feelings in the course of making self-disclosures? Is the person trying to soften the impact of what he/she is saying so it does not create or escalate tension between the partners? To what degree is the person taking into account the partner's feelings as they deliver the message? Soft behaviors may involve expressing support and validation of others‟ view in the process of sharing one‟s own feelings. May also offer positive feedback to partner before outlining conflict / frustration.

Being non-defensive and self-reflective/opening up The individual responds to questions or probes in open, self-reflective and honest way, and is able to sustain a focus on one‟s own thoughts and feelings (e.g., “I statements”). This includes being able to elaborate and expand on one‟s own emotions or feelings with or without prompting. Being non-defensive also includes opening up emotionally, rather than avoiding, shutting down, redirecting discussion negatively or simply into a problem solving mode, or shifting focus away from internal emotions or experience when asked questions.

Being self-evaluative about one‟s own problematic role in relationship This element refers to disclosing appropriately and non-defensively about one‟s own inadequacies and limitations in the relationship. Using “I statements” to talk about how one may create problems for relationship or partner increases the rating. Often this could open one up to criticism from partner.

Note: The degree to which the individual actively engages in avoidance or withdrawal or emotional inhibition would be coded under Negatively Toward Partner. Sometimes an individual may not display much self-reflection, but still he/she may talk a lot in a positive manner and seem to have a very civil, constructive discussion (probably akin to a problem-solving discussion).

2. Positive Support toward Partner

Concise definition = “yes and” statements; expression of empathy; validation; overt acknowledgment of what spouse has said (e.g., summarizing, paraphrasing); appropriate probing, exploring or asking questions of what spouse means.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 None/ Low Mod Mod Mod High Very Very low Low High High

Positive Support toward Other includes: SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 99

- Benign Control in Receipt or "Sentiment Override": To what degree does the person stay engaged, open, and receptive to his/her partner's message? How open is this person to hearing about his/her partner's vulnerabilities, fears, or complaints? At its best, this has a quality of leaning in rather than away (or attacking) and being open to being influenced by the partner's self-disclosures, complaints/hurts and feelings. Responding positively or neutrally to expressions of frustration or criticism by the partner. Positive or neutral behaviors include validation, apology, sympathy, support, and empathy, offers of reassurance, active/attentive listening, showing caring and understanding, humor, showing trust and acceptance and clarifying the situation. Note that almost all partners, even the best of them, can sometimes be defensive when they listen to self-disclosures by partners. The real distinction here appears to be between those that get stuck rejecting their partner's message and those that eventually open up and validate their partner's point of view. The emotion skill involved here is managing your negative reaction to being complained about in the service of attending to your partner's well-being.

- Perspective Taking The code is more cognitive (thinking) than emotional and measures the degree to which the partner can place him or herself in the partner's shoes. The cognitive ability to see things from the other partner's point of view, or "putting oneself in the other partner's shoes;" not mind reading. This includes a statement which validates and demonstrates understanding of past, present or future feelings, attitudes, beliefs, sensations, and/or motives of the partner. It may also include a summary statement of the other partner's perspective, either past or present. Understands partner's perspective, and expresses interest in clarifying the situations by listening to where partner is "coming from." Perspective taking involves not just simply agreeing („yes-ing') with partner but trying to see ability to adopt partner's view (or at least try it on for size).

- Empathic Concern/Empathy This is a more emotional code than perspective taking and characterized by indicators that the person is resonating emotionally with the partner's emotional experience. The tendency to experience feelings of sympathy and compassion for one's partner. This code measures partners' ability to listen to their partner and communicate that they are listening in an empathic, non-judgmental way.

- Joining by Sharing Own Difficulties (“yes and” statements”) This refers to trying to join with partner by sharing one‟s own vulnerabilities. Statements take the form of “yes-and” or “me-too” and convey that the listener knows how partner feels because he or she reciprocally offers an example of a similar set of feelings or thoughts.

-Validation Validation overlaps with benign control and perspective taking. It includes non-verbal cues (head nodding, eye contact, smiles) and verbal statements that sends the message that the individual takes seriously, respects, understands and validates the other person‟s point of view. This includes direct statements of agreement, bringing up points that reinforce the partner‟s SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 100 comments, paraphrasing or summarizing what the partner said, coming up with more examples about the partner‟s point, or verbally or non-verbally doing things that seems to encourage the speaker to share more of their opinions, vulnerabilities and anxieties.

Probing and exploring partner‟s views Asking questions about the partner that encourages the partner to reveal their emotions, thoughts and experiences, and helps the listener understand what they mean in their statements. Take into account the level of repetition, depth of question (e.g., asking about emotions), and level of sensitivity in asking the questions. Just asking what the partner checked off on the list of vulnerabilities used to set up the interaction reflects a minimal level of level of probing and exploring, but could earn some “credit” for positive support, depending on frequency and level of sincere interest expressed by those types of relatively superficial questions.

3. Negativity toward the partner

Concise definition = Statements that are invalidating, discounting or ignoring spouse; minimizing spouse‟s worries; changing focus from other to self abruptly; disagreeing; domineering; “yes but” statements; or sarcasm; and negative non-verbal behaviors including negative tone of voice, eye rolling, withdrawal, disengagement, distracting or off-topic discussion as a way to deflect spouse‟s comments,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 None/ Low Mod Mod Mod High Very Very low Low High High

Negativity toward Partner includes: Note: The following elements of negativity are listed in ascending order of degree of overt negativity. For example, emotional inhibition and withdrawal are the least overt forms of verbal negativity and verbal aggression is the most overt form of verbal negativity. In the context of a vulnerability interaction, verbal negativity toward the partner will primarily be exhibited by emotional inhibition, withdrawal, invalidation and defensive complaining, with domineering/coercive control and verbal aggression being less frequent. Degree of non-verbal emotional negativity span entire range of negativity and refers mostly to non-verbal cues.

It is unlikely that exhibiting only emotional inhibition and withdrawal would earn more than a 5 on our 7 point scale. However, if such behavior co-occurs with low levels of the more overt forms negativity, scores could go to a 6 or 7, especially if the intensity of the more overt behaviors is higher (e.g., a couple of clear signs of invalidation that shuts down the partner).

- Withdrawal/disengagement Withdrawal/disengagement refers to the degree to which individuals actively avoid interacting with the partner. It refers to how the partners relate to each other (i.e., withdrawing from partner or disengaging from him/her). Engagement refers to actively attending to what is said, as indicated by amount of talking, eye contact, body language, and tone of voice. Withdrawal refers to actively refusing to talk, and disengaging from discussion or ignoring the partner. This will most SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 101

often take the form of poor eye contact and being verbally unresponsive. Other behavioral indicators include sulking, turning one‟s body away from other, slouching, changing body position to create more distance, staring at the wall or ceiling, crossing arms, fidgeting with hair clothing, glasses, or nails, or by becoming indifferent, nonchalant, disinterested, or unresponsive. Withdrawal is also indicated by voice and content (e.g.: "I don't care, do whatever you want," "Fine, let's just get this over with," "I'm tired of talking about this," or "I'm finished; I have nothing else to say.") or by sounding notably bored or disinterested. Withdrawal can also take the form of more pro- active strategies to withdraw from the partner, such as turning one‟s attention to something else in the room (e.g., dog, window, pillows), or abruptly refusing to continue a line of conversation and changing the subject.

- Emotional Inhibition (Constipation) Emotional Inhibition is similar to withdrawal and reflects the extent to which partners appear emotionally uninvolved or disengaged and unaware of their emotional experiences and each other's needs; a conscious effort to suppress emotional feelings. Partners may exhibit behaviors of emotional avoidance, withdrawal, stuffing of their emotional experience or emotional constipation. Emotionally flat or over-controlled. Consistently displaying flat affect or blocking emotional expression while discussing a distressing topic. Partners who interact with their spouse consistently but in a perfunctory or indifferent manner; with little or no emotional involvement, or with flat affect would be rated as high on emotional inhibition.

- Invalidation Invalidation refers to the degree to which the individual invalidates and is insensitive to his/her partner's point of view, feelings or thoughts. This is a behavioral code, although behavior must be interpreted in the emotional context of the interaction. Thus, while invalidation will primarily occur via verbal statements, non-verbal cues may be relevant (tone of voice, eye rolling, sighing in exasperated manner, shaking head and smiling in a patronizing manner). Examples of invalidation include minimizing or dismissing a partner's concerns, telling a partner than something he/she is concerned about is really not a big deal or important, making “yes but” statements without taking other person seriously, offering the partner simplistic advice or "pat answers," displaying a condescending "know it all" attitude rather than taking the partner's concerns seriously, and ignoring or being unresponsive when partner discloses opinions, vulnerabilities and anxieties. Invalidation can take the form of directly contradicting the other person in a disrespectful manner. E.g., If one partner says, "I think it's going to rain today" and the partner responds, "I can't believe you would think that, it's not going to rain" would that be invalidation. The difference between a straight-forward, respectful disagreement versus invalidation is when the statement calls into question the validity of the other person‟s personality, worldview, beliefs or attitudes. Such statements can elicit feelings from the listener that it is not safe to reveal information. E.g., If person says “I can‟t believe you think/said that,” it would an invalidating (and possibly a verbally aggressive comment). However, invalidation can also occur when an individual seems to unwittingly miss, ignore, or override what the partner is saying. This could take form of giving pat advice, SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 102

minimizing, dismissing or “blowing off” the person without a harsh contradiction.

- Non-verbal negative emotion toward partner This refers to the expression of negative emotion to the partner. This includes verbal statements of frustration, irritation, anger, contempt for partner, and emotional defensiveness about the self. Non-verbal cues for emotional negativity include tense, tight, and/or angry body postures and facial expressions (e.g., sitting up rigidly, tightly folding arms, rapidly bouncing legs, tapping fingers, frowning, grimacing, glaring, etc.); tone of voice that is angry, cold, and/or annoyed, or speaking through clenched teeth or in a clipped manner, as if controlling impatience and frustration. Shaking heads, clucking tongues, and rolling eyes are all signs of negativity. Also includes non-verbal cues of tone of voice or facial expression that conveys contempt and disrespect of partner. Averting eyes and refusing to make eye contact can express negative emotion if it appears that behavior represents emotional defensiveness or anger.

- Domineering/Coercive control This refers to the degree the individual dominants the partner and tries to change the partner's thoughts, feelings, or behavior in a coercive, bossy manner. At lower levels, coercive control attempts involve trying to pressure the partner to change his/her thoughts, feelings, actions, or emotions because the partner is viewed as being/doing something wrong. The controlling statements include explicit or implicit "you should be different." Examples include "I just wish you'd make an effort to get along with my father." At higher levels, controlling statements are those that indicate that the person is basically saying, "I am in charge. I decide." The higher the rating, the more domineering and bossy that the individual is. A seeming inability or reluctance to "share the floor" or negotiate, lecturing, and speech-making in order to be in power would result in higher ratings. Higher ratings indicate the person seems to be taking an authoritarian “one-up” stance toward partner. The person may also seem to be badgering the partner, trying to change the partner via guilt induction. Threatening the partner explicitly or implicitly if they don‟t comply with what the speaker wants.

- Defensive complaining or bickering This refers to the degree to a partner complains, vents and bickers with their partner in an ineffective, aversive manner, rather disclosing personal vulnerabilities, anxieties or worries in a revealing or helpful way. The individual may repetitiously voices the same compliant, or tend to raise one complaint after another, and tend to display a whining or one-sided blaming attitude. The focus tends to be on the partner rather than the self. Thus, complaining/bickering statements can take the form of using “you statements” that appear to be an attempt to voice unhappiness and discontent about the partner in a passive, indirect way. Such individuals may react to efforts of partner to constructively discuss problems, compromise or make amends by raising yet another complaint. This can make the listener feel like he/she is in a "no-win" situation and elicit defensiveness or withdrawal. If both partners engage in this behavior, the couple will appear to be stuck in a cyclical pattern of arguing and bickering without getting anywhere. Complaints include statements of unhappiness, discontent, and dissatisfaction without an associated effort to engage in non-defensive disclosures and productive solutions to reduce apprehension. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 103

- Verbal aggression This includes statements are that appear to be hostile, critical, antagonistic or hurtful of the partner. Verbal aggression ranges from mild to intense. Mild forms of aggression can include critical comments directed person's behavior, mild insults, sarcasm, hurtful humor, disgust, and blaming. More intense forms of verbal aggression include negative statements about a person's traits or personality, global put-downs, condescension, mockery, spiteful or hurtful comments, name-calling, critique or attacks of partner‟s character or competence, and swearing (directed at the other partner). Verbal aggression is primarily determined by what the person says. Some verbally aggressive comments can come across as moderately attacking, disgusted, mocking, spiteful, and/or hostile, but no overt change in tone of voice.

4. Affection/Warmth/Displaying Positive Emotions

Concise definition = More verbal affection (determined by the content and tone of each partner's statements to each other), and non-verbal signs of affection, warmth, and positive emotion toward the partner (affectionate touching, gazing lovingly, affection and warmth in voice, shared positive humor), and warm bonding or connection between partners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 None/ Low Mod Mod Mod High Very Very low Low High High

Affection/Displaying Positive Emotions - Verbal affection Affirmations, praises, compliments, talking about the other person‟s positive qualities or actions, endearments, and pet names are considered verbal affection (e.g., “Sweetheart,” "Oh sweetie," "You're really smart.") Also, unconditional or direct statements of affection, such as "I love you," or, "I hope we never break up,” are considered higher level affection. In order for any statement to be considered verbal affection, the tone must be clearly positive, without sarcasm or silly joking.

- Physical affection Physical affection includes actions such as caressing, holding hands as well as less obvious touching (e.g., leaning toward other fondly, touching with feet, sitting close together, resting arm or hand on other‟s shoulder.) Other non-verbal of affection include caring looks, smiles that are warm and validating, a consistently warm and affectionate tone of voice, gazing at other with approval, laughing happily with spouse and sharing mutual humor in a kind way.

- Other expressions of warmth, positive humor, “we-ness” and love Verbal and non-verbal behavior indicating that the partner is trying to keep a friendly connection with the other partner, like smiles, humor, side comments that sustain a sense of “we” in the interaction, caring gestures, and other ways of reinforcing the sense that SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 104

the partner basically likes/loves the other partner and is concerned about the couples‟ connection. Think of this as actively tuning the connection between them throughout the interaction. Other indicators are humorous statements that brings partners together in a positive manner and clearly creates a sense of positive bonding can be part of verbal affection. (Humor that is disruptive, sarcastic or hurtful in any way is not a form of verbal affection. And merely laughing or joking may not be an expression of affection toward the partner).

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 105

APPENDIX F

MARITAL SATISFACTION

Please indicate how true the following statements are for you. Extremely Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Extremely Mixed dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied How satisfied are you with your 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 marriage?

How satisfied are you with your 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 husband as a spouse?

How satisfied are you with your 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 relationship with your spouse?

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 106

APPENDIX G

MARITAL LOVE

The following are questions or statements about certain aspects of your relationship with your spouse. Please answer these questions by circling the number that best describes your relations with your spouse. Not Very

at all Much To what extent do you have a sense of “belonging” or 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 “connectedness” to your spouse? 2. How much do you feel you give to this relationship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. To what extent do you love your spouse at this stage? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

To what extent do you feel that the things that happen to 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 your spouse also affect or are important to you?

To what extent do you feel that your relationship is special 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 compared with others you have been in?

6. How committed do you feel toward your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. How close do you feel toward your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. How much do you need your spouse at this stage? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. How sexually intimate are you with your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. How attached do you feel to your spouse? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 107

APPENDIX H

SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION

Extremely Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Extremely Mixed dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied How satisfied are you with the 1. level of spirituality in your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 marriage?

How satisfied are you with the 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 spiritual state of your marriage?

How satisfied are you with the 3. degree of spiritual closeness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 between you and your spouse?

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 108

TABLES

Table 1

Descriptive Information for Sample: General Demographics for Husbands and Wives (N = 178)

______

Variable Percentage Mean SD Actual Range

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Husbands Wives ______

Age (years) 28.72 27.18 4.44 3.97 20-42 19-41

Length of Marriage (months) 31.49 24.66 1-122

Week of Pregnancy 35.09 2.79 26-39

Ethnicity Caucasian/Euro-American 82.6% 89.9% African American 5.6% 3.9% Asian American 5.1% 3.4% Hispanic or Latino 3.4% 1.7% Multi-racial/ethnic/other 2.8% .6%

Minority Caucasian/Euro-American for both partners 79.8% Non-Caucasian for one or both partners 20.2%

Highest Level of Education Completed Partial high school (10th-11th grade) 1.7% 0% High school graduation 10.1% 6.2% Partial college/post hs training 28.1% 22.5% Standard college graduation 42.1% 44.9% Graduate/professional degree 18% 26.4%

Average Household Income Less than $25,000 5.1% $25,001-50,000 26.4% $50,001-75,000 33.1% $75,001-100,000 21.9% $100,001-130,000 10.7% more than $130,000 2.8% SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 109

Table 2 Descriptive Information for Sample: Religiousness/Spirituality Indicators for Husbands and Wives (N=178) ______Variable Percentage Mean SD Actual Range Alpha

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Husbands Wives ______

Spiritual Intimacy 18.25 18.52 4.21 3.92 7-24 9-24 .79 .81

Global Religiousness 10.49 11.10 4.13 3.92 2-16 2-16 .68 .76

Religious Affiliation Christian/Protestant 31.5% 31.5% Christian/Catholic 27.0% 25.8% Non-denominational Christian 28.1% 34.3% Other 5.6% 2.8% Muslim .6% 0% Jewish .6% .6% None 6.7% 4.5%

Religious Service Attendance Never 5.6% 5.1% Less than once per year 10.1% 6.2% About once or twice a year 12.4% 15.2% Several times a year 11.8% 11.8% About once per month 6.2% 5.6% 2-3 times per month 15.2% 15.7% Every week 28.7% 28.7% Several times a week 10.1% 11.8%

Private Prayer Never 12.9% 5.6% Less than once a month 7.9% 7.9% Once a month 5.1% 4.5% A few times a month 9.6% 9.0% Once a week 4.5% 5.6% A few times a week 18.0% 17.4% Once a day 14.0% 20.8% More than once per day 28.1% 29.2%

Couple Biblical Conservatism Conservative 50.6% Non-conservative 49.4% SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 110

Table 3

Descriptive Information for Sample: Marital Criterion Variables (N=178) ______

Variable Mean SD Actual Range Alpha

Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Husbands Wives Husbands Wives ______

Self-report

Couple Collaboration 38.93 39.48 5.40 5.43 22-48 22-48 .82 .84

Marital Satisfaction 19.26 19.54 2.13 1.87 4-21 10-21 .90 .90

Love 80.19 83.51 6.80 5.22 50-90 65-90 .78 .69

Spiritual Satisfaction 15.45 18.52 3.40 3.18 3-21 6-21 .92 .93

______

Variable Mean SD Actual Range Intraclass Correlation Coefficients Husbands Wives Couple Husbands Wives Couple Husbands Wives ______Behavioral Observations

Positive Self-Disclosure 4.11 4.76 8.87 1.39 1.10 1.97 2.33-7.00 1.33-7.00 .85

Positive Support 3.83 4.18 8.01 1.10 .96 1.76 2.00-6.00 1.33-6.00 .78

Negativity toward Partner 1.67 1.46 3.14 .98 .77 1.55 1.00-5.33 100-6.00 .85

Affection/Warmth 3.92 4.13 8.0 1.18 1.08 2.05 1.33-7.00 1.00-7.00 .83

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 111

Table 4

Intercorrelations of Religious Variables of Each Spouse and Each Spouse’s Self-report of the Couple

Wife Self-report Husband Self- Wife Global Husband Global Couple of Couple report of Couple Religiousness Religiousness Conservatism Spiritual Intimacy Spiritual Intimacy

Wife Global 1 .36*** .78*** .22** .67*** Religiousness

Wife Self-report of Couple 1 .45*** .33*** .32*** Spiritual Intimacy

Husband Global 1 .29*** .60*** Religiousness

Husband Self- report of Couple 1 .19* Spiritual Intimacy

Couple 1 Conservatism

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001, (2-tailed). All correlations represent a sample of N = 170. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 112

Table 5

Bivariate Correlations of Self-report of Marital Quality with Behavioral Observations of the Couple

Obs Couple Obs Couple Obs Couple Obs Couple W Self-report H Self-report W Self-report H Self-report Negativity W Self-report H Self-report Positive Self Positive Affection and Marital Marital Spiritual Spiritual toward Love Love Disclosure Support Warmth Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Partner Obs Couple Positive Self 1 .75*** -.13 .54*** .14 .04 .10 .06 .07 .06 Disclosure Obs Couple Positive 1 -.27*** .71*** .29*** .18* .31*** .25** .14 .12 Support Obs Couple Negativity 1 -.12 -.05 -.13 -.09 -.20** -.03 -.05 toward Partner Obs Couple Affection and 1 .29*** .18* .21** .23** .12 .16* Warmth W Self-report Marital 1 .25** .61*** .22** .27*** .07 Satisfaction H Self-report Marital 1 .25** .56*** .10 .23** Satisfaction

W Self-report 1 .34*** .22** .13 Love

H Self-report 1 .20** .37*** Love

W Self-report Spiritual 1 .25** Satisfaction H Self-report Spiritual 1 Satisfaction Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001, (2-tailed). All correlations represent a sample of N = 170. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 113

Table 6

Bivariate Correlations of Demographic Variables with Behavioral Observations of the Couple and Each Spouse’s Report of Marital Quality

Husband Wife Global Husband Global Wife Age Husband Age Wife Education Average Income Minority Status Months Married Education Religiousness Religiousness

Obs Couple Self .06 .04 .08 .07 .04 .12 .04 .13 .13 Disclosure

Obs Couple .08 .06 .07 .18* .05 -.01 .06 .05 .06 Positive Support

Obs Couple Negativity -.09 -.13 .00 -.13 -.05 .08 -.12 .01 .01 toward Partner

Obs Couple Affection and -.02 -.05 -.01 .11 -.03 .13 -.02 .10 .15 Warmth

W Self-report Couple .24** .21** .06 .27*** .14 -.09 .09 -.05 -.02 Collaboration

W Self-report Marital -.03 .05 -.10 .05 .02 -.05 .01 .13 .10 Satisfaction

W Self-report -.02 .09 -.13 .04 .00 -.04 -.02 .08 .06 Love

W Self-report Spiritual -.03 -.02 -.16* .23** -.11 .00 .03 .21** .32*** Satisfaction

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001, (2-tailed). All correlations represent a sample of N = 170. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 114

Table 6, continued

Bivariate Correlations of Demographic Variables with Behavioral Observations of the Couple and Each Spouse Report of Marital Quality

Husband Wife Global Husband Global Wife Age Husband Age Wife Education Average Income Minority Status Months Married Education Religiousness Religiousness

H Self-report Couple .12 .06 .07 .24** .04 .08 .01 .01 .13 Collaboration

H Self-report Marital -.02 .02 .05 .16* .01 -.08 -.05 .00 -.03 Satisfaction

H Self-report -.03 -.12 -.04 .10 -.11 .07 -.01 .14 .23** Love

H Self-report Spiritual .22** .04 .12 .23* .05 .16* .15* .16* .17* Satisfaction

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001, (2-tailed). All correlations represent a sample of N = 170. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 115

Table 7

Bivariate Correlations of Self-report of Spiritual Intimacy of the Couple and Behavioral Observations of the Couple

W Self-report H Self-report Obs Couple Obs Couple Obs Couple Obs Couple Couple Couple Positive Self Positive Negativity Affection and Spiritual Spiritual Disclosure Support toward Partner Warmth Intimacy Intimacy W Self-report Couple 1 .33*** .14 .20** -.17* .21** Spiritual Intimacy H Self-report Couple 1 .17* .19* -.17* .19* Spiritual Intimacy

Obs Couple Positive Self 1 .75*** -.13 .54*** Disclosure

Obs Couple Positive 1 -.27*** .71*** Support

Obs Couple Negativity 1 -.12 toward Partner

Obs Couple Affection and 1 Warmth Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001, (2-tailed). All correlations represent a sample of N = 170. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients.

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 116

Table 8

Bivariate Correlations of Each Spouse’s Self-report of Couple Spiritual Intimacy and Self-report of Marital Quality

W Self-report H Self-report W Self-report H Self-report W Self-report H Self-report W Self-report H Self-report Couple Couple W Self-report H Self-report Couple Couple Marital Marital Spiritual Spiritual Spiritual Spiritual Love Love Collaboration Collaboration Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Intimacy Intimacy W Self-report Couple Spiritual 1 .33** .24** .26*** .26** .07 .33** .22** .57** .18* Intimacy H Self-report Couple Spiritual 1 .05 .17* .05 .13 .18* .37** .39** .54** Intimacy W Self-report Couple 1 .27*** .47*** .13 .34*** .09 .18* .06 Collaboration

H Self-report Couple 1 .17* .19* .08 .32*** .24** .20** Collaboration

W Self-report Marital 1 .25** .61** .22** .27** .07 Satisfaction

H Self-report Marital 1 .25** .55** .10 .23** Satisfaction

W Self-report Love 1 .34** .22** .13

H Self-report Love 1 .20** .37**

W Self-report Spiritual 1 .25** Satisfaction

H Self-report Spiritual 1 Satisfaction Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01 (2-tailed). All correlations represent a sample of N = 170. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients. SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 117

Table 9

Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Observed Couple Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Collaboration of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable – Observed Couple Positive Self Disclosure

Predictors by Wife Report Predictors by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .009 .009 .009 .009 Months Married .01 .01 .00 .00 Average Income -.01 .01 .00 .01 Wife Age .03 .03 .02 .02 Wife Education .08 .08 .07 .08 Husband Age .02 .03 .03 .06 Husband Education .00 .01 .01 -.01

Block B .021† .021† Global .12 .12 Religiousness

Block C .021† .021† .010 .028* .029* .020† Spiritual Intimacy .14† .15† .11 .17* .18* .15†

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 118

Table 9, continued

Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Observed Couple Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Collaboration of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable – Observed Couple Positive Support

Predictors by Wife Report Predictors by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .036 .036 .036 .036 Months Married .03 .03 .01 .01 Average Income -.01 -.01 .00 .01 Wife Age .00 .00 .00 .00 Wife Education .02 .02 .01 .01 Husband Age .02 .04 .05 .05 Husband Education .13 .13 .14 .14

Block B .004 .002 Global Religiousness .00 .01

Block C .038** .029* .025* .035* .027* .025* Spiritual Intimacy .20** .18* .18* .19* .17* .17*

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 119

Table 9, continued

Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Observed Couple Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Collaboration

______

Criterion Variable – Observed Couple Negativity toward Partner

Predictors by Wife Report Predictors by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .041 .041 .041 .041 Months Married -.08 -.08 -.07 -.07 Average Income .01 .02 .00 .00 Wife Age .05 .05 .06 .06 Wife Education .05 .05 .06 .06 Husband Age -.15 -.15 -.17 -.16 Husband Education -.09 -.09 -.10 -.10

Block B .000 .000 Global Religiousness .05 .04

Block D .028* .022* .024* .030* .026* .027* Spiritual Intimacy -.17* -.15* -.17* -.17* -.17* -.17*

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 120

Table 9, continued

Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Observed Couple Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Collaboration of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable – Observed Couple Affection/Warmth

Predictors by Wife Report Predictors by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 ΔR2 Β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .019 .019 .019 .019 Months Married -.02 -.02 -.04 -04 Average Income -.01 .00 .00 .01 Wife Age .01 .01 .00 .00 Wife Education -.01 -.01 -.03 -.02 Husband Age -.05 -.04 -.03 -.01 Husband Education .09 .09 .10 .09

Block B .007 .014 Global Religiousness .02 .09

Block C .045** .034* .027* .037* .027* .020† Spiritual Intimacy .21** .19* .18* .19* .17* .15†

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 121

Table 10

Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Self-report Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Collaboration of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable – Marital Satisfaction

Predictors and Criterion by Wife Report Predictors and Criterion by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .035 .035 .035 .033 .033 .033 Months Married .02 .01 .03 -.07 -.07 -.05 Average Income .07 .09 .10 .00 -.01 .00 Wife Age -.14 -.15 -.23 -.09 -.08 -.10 Wife Education -.12 -.12 -.10 .02 .02 .02 Husband Age .15 .16 .13 .08 .06 .06 Husband Education .04 .05 -.05 .15 .16 .13

Block B .022* .022* .002 .002 Global Religiousness .08 .13 .13 -.10

Block C .223*** .026* Couple Collaboration .48*** .15†

Block D .069*** .060*** .042** .009 .017 .013 .017 .012 Spiritual Intimacy .26*** .25** .23** .11 .13 .12 .14 .12

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 122

Table 10, continued

Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Self-report Criterion Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Collaboration of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable –Love

Predictors and Criterion by Wife Report Predictors and Criterion by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .049 .049 .049 .046 .046 .046 Months Married -.03 -.03 -.03 .02 .01 -.02 Average Income .03 .03 .04 -.10 -.08 -06 Wife Age -.15 -.15 -.20 .08 .08 .07 Wife Education -.12 -.11 -.10 -.05 -.04 -.01 Husband Age .24* .24* .22* -.16 -.12 -.09 Husband Education .01 .01 -.05 .08 .05 .01

Block B .009 .009 .030* .030* Global Religiousness .02 .01 .15* .09

Block C .113*** .084*** Couple Collaboration .30** .28***

Block D .108*** .102*** .093*** .054*** .134*** .088*** .078*** .061*** Spiritual Intimacy .33*** .33*** .34*** .27*** .37*** .31*** .29*** .26***

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 123

Table 10, continued

Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Spiritual Intimacy on Self-report Criterion Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Collaboration of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable – Spiritual Satisfaction

Predictors and Criterion by Wife Report Predictors and Criterion by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .138*** .138*** .138*** .114** .114** .114** Months Married .03 .03 .03 .01 .01 .02 Average Income -.08 -.08 -.08 -.05 -.05 -.05 Wife Age -.03 -.03 -.02 .30** .30** .29** Wife Education -.17* -.17* -.17 .07 .07 .08 Husband Age .07 .07 .07 -.12 -.11 -.11 Husband Education .22** .22** .22* .07 .07 .05

Block B .030* .030* .022* .022* Global Religiousness .00 .01 .03 .03

Block C .014 .015 Couple Collaboration .01 .07

Block D .321*** .236*** .205*** .191*** .286*** .248*** .227*** .217*** Spiritual Intimacy .57*** .51*** .51*** .50*** .54*** .52*** .51*** .51***

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 124

Table 11

Post- Hoc Analyses – Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Collaboration on Self-report Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Spiritual Intimacy of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable – Marital Satisfaction

Predictors and Criterion by Wife Report Predictors and Criterion by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .035 .035 .035 .033 .033 .033 Months Married .04 .03 .03 -.04 -.04 -.05 Average Income .07 .11 .10 .00 -.01 .00 Wife Age -.23* -.24 -.23 -.10 -.10 -.10 Wife Education -.11 -.11 -.10 .01 .01 .02 Husband Age .09 .12 .13 .06 .04 .06 Husband Education -.02 -.02 -.05 .14† .15† .13

Block B .022* .022* .002 .002 Global Religiousness .16 .13† -.07 -.10

Block C .042** .017† Spiritual Intimacy .11 .12

Block D .216*** .220*** .223** .190*** .034* .024* .026* .021† Couple Collaboration .47*** .50*** .50*** .48*** .19* .16* .17* .15†

Note. † p<.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

SPIRITUAL INTIMACY AND PREGNANCY 125

Table 11, continued

Post- Hoc Analyses – Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Unique Effects of Collaboration on Self-report Criterion Variables Controlling for Demographics, Global Religiousness, and Spiritual Intimacy of the Couple

______

Criterion Variable – Love

Predictors and Criterion by Wife Report Predictors and Criterion by Husband Report

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β

Block A .049 .049 .049 .046 .046 .046 Months Married -.01 -.01 -.03 -.04 -.04 -.02 .00Average Income .03 .05 .04 -.08 -.07 -06 Wife Age -.21† -.22† -.20 .11 .11 .07 Wife Education -.14 -.13 -.10 -.02 -.02 -.01 Husband Age .19† .20* .22* -.10 -.08 -.09 Husband Education .01 .00 -.05 .08 .06 .01

Block B .009 .009 .030* .030* Global Religiousness .10 .01 .11 .09

Block C .093*** .084*** Spiritual Intimacy .27*** .28***

Block D .115*** .111*** .113*** .074*** .103*** .104*** .084*** .061*** Couple Collaboration .34*** .36*** .36*** .30*** .37*** .34*** .31*** .26***

Note. † p <.10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001