The Impact of Religious Homogeneity on the Rate of Divorce in the United States

Abstract

This study extends the understanding of the relationship between religious homogeneity, that is, the extent to which formal religious groups are concentrated at the county level, and the rate of persons currently divorced in those counties. Linking the research question to Durkheimian precepts of religion as an integrative force in social life, the essential question is, "At the county level, does the rate of currently divorced vary inversely with more concentrated affiliation with formal religious organizations?" We investigate this relationship using data from the 1990 U.S. Census and from the Glenmary Research Center that encompasses 621 counties in the U.S., that is, a 20 percent random sample of counties from each state. As hypothesized, the divorced rate is inversely related to religious homogeneity, even after controlling for a series of factors that have been shown to be correlated with divorce in other studies.

The Impact of Concentrations of Religious Denominational Affiliations on the Rate of Currently Divorced in Counties in the United States

“…But although previous research indicates that this relationship holds when concentration indices are analyzed for all religious groups combined (Mullins et al, 2004), the current findings strongly suggest a different pattern when major religious categories are analyzed independently. The most obvious exception in the present case is the Jewish category.…”

“…Earlier research by the authors (Mullins et al, 2004) indicated that the higher the concentration score for all religious bodies combined, at the county level of analysis, the lower the rate of the currently divorced. Specifically, after controlling for the same covariates as those used in this study, the strength of the relationship between religious concentration and rate of divorce in the 2004 study was β = -.119.…”

A Conceptual Review of Family Resilience Factors

“…Additionally, membership in a church is often an avenue to gain supportive networks for family members (Mahoney et al, 2001;Marks, 2004;McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988;Tanyi, 2006;Walsh, 1998). Data from a random sampling of 621 U.S. counties revealed that religious couples had lower divorce rates that couples without a religious faith (Mullins, Brackett, Bogie, & Pruett, 2004). Rew, Wong, and Sternglanz (2004) reported that children, regardless of ethnicity, who frequently prayed experienced higher levels of social connectedness and positive health behaviors than children who did not regularly pray.…”

In Concert and Alone: Divorce and Congregational Experience

“…We know too that participation in faith communities can provide coping mechanisms and has the potential to promote health and well‐being (Ellison 1991; Koenig, McCullough, and Larson 2001; Sherkat and Ellison 1999). Sociologists have also suggested that marital stability and harmony are related to religious participation and level of integration within a community (Ellison, Bartkowski, and Anderson 1999; Mullins et al 2004). Marital benefits result from therapeutic and counseling relationships, religious ideology and practice, network formation and social capital, and identification with community.…”

“…Most studies addressing religion and divorce are based on quantitative analyses of large samples and are concerned with causal relationships. For example, scholars have explored the susceptibility of interfaith marriages to divorce, assessed divorce rates in denominations, correlated divorce with religious membership, analyzed the effects of religiosity and social networks on lifelong marriage, and measured differences in programming for divorced and single members (e.g., Amato et al 2007; Chiswick and Lehrer 1991; Mullins et al 2004; Stolzenberg, Blair‐Loy, and Waite 1995; Wilcox, Chaves, and Franz 2004). These are important questions, but their dominance in the literature hinders the development of a more comprehensive conversation that takes seriously questions about religious meaning and process as life partnerships end.…”