TheLARRY Impact of Religious Homogeneity on the Rate of 338 C. MULLINS ET AL. Divorce in the United States*

Larry C. Mullins, Auburn University Montgomery Kimberly P. Brackett, Auburn University Montgomery Donald W. Bogie, Auburn University Montgomery Daniel Pruett, Auburn University Montgomery

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.

Introduction There has been considerable interest in the relationship between religion and marriage in the social science literature. Scores of articles have appeared over the last several decades that have examined various facets of this theme and related topics (e.g., D’Antonio and Aldous 1983; Thomas 1988; Wittberg 1999). As we enter the 21st century, debates still rage about the survival of the traditional American family and the form that it will likely take. Because the United States has one of the highest divorce rates of any industrialized country in the world, social scientists have continued their search to more fully understand the factors that influence marital failure and success. More than 40 years ago, family sociologists Burgess, Locke, and Thomas (1963:294) defined the “adjusted,” and therefore “successful,” marriage as: . . . a union where the attitudes and acts of husband and wife are in agreement on the chief issues of marriage, such as handling finances and dealing with in-laws; where they have come to an adjustment upon interests, objectives, and values; where they are in harmony on demonstrations of affection and the sharing of confidences; and where they have few or no complaints about their marriage.

Clearly, there are many factors that help to explain why and under what circumstances marriages vary in levels of satisfaction and success. While Burgess, Locke, and Thomas emphasize the dynamics of the interpersonal relationship Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 74, No. 3, August 2004, 338–354 © 2004 Alpha Kappa Delta

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 339

between marriage partners, the larger social context within which the marriage unfolds represents another important dimension of marital adjustment. Numerous studies, for example, have examined the relationship between various religious factors and such constructs as marital happiness, adjustment, contentment, and success (e.g., Heaton 1984; Ortega, Whitt, and Williams 1988; Schumm, Bollman, and Jurich 1982; Wilson and Filsinger 1986). More recently, in a different context, the relationship between religious denominational affiliation and domestic violence has been explored (Ellison, Bartkowski, and Anderson 1999). In this study, we hope to extend the understanding of why couples divorce by examining a contextual variable that has been largely overlooked in the literature: religious homogeneity. We operationally define this concept as “the extent to which community residents as a whole formally identify with a particular religious denomination.” Ellison, Burr, and McCall (1997) note that religious homogeneity increases the likelihood of social interaction with persons of similar religious beliefs and the development of social bonds among these persons. In effect, religious homogeneity enhances social integration among people within a defined geographic area and helps to shape the beliefs and behaviors of those involved. Booth, Johnson, White, and Edwards (1985) state that since the 19th century theorists, most notably Durkheim, have examined the interrelationship between beliefs about the supernatural and social support mechanisms (Turner 1991; Wilson 1982). In general, there is a substantial body of research that attempts to explain how social action is influenced by religious beliefs and sentiments. (See Sherkat and Ellison [1999] for a current review.) Particularly relevant to the current topic is recent research by Ellison, Burr, and McCall (1997), which established an inverse relationship between religious homogeneity and suicide rates, over and above the influence of other covariates of suicide and alternative measures of church participation. Over the past several decades, there has been the lingering question as to whether religion serves as a socially integrative force in a postindustrial society (Chaves and Gorski 2001; D’Antonio and Aldous 1983; Thomas 1988). The emphasis has been on whether modernization has weakened the role of religion and religious institutions in the exercise of social control (D’Antonio 1983; Hargrove 1983), resulting in increased secularization (Chaves 1994). Other arguments (Chaves and Gorski 2001) consider whether religious pluralism enhances or undermines religious vitality. The general conclusion is that religion remains an important mechanism of social control for persons who are heavily engaged in its practice. It has yet to be determined, however, whether religion operates as a means of social control because of the group sanctions imposed by other believers or as a socializing agent that accompanies religious activity (Thomas and Cornwall 1990).

340

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

The influence of religion as an integrative force emphasizes the sharedbelief system and common values that surround the ultimate questions of life. The essential theoretical question for this research centers on this issue: Does the extent of shared religious affiliation within a community serve as a positive, moderating, and/or integrative influence on marriage? If so, then it would be expected that the rate of currently divorced people will be lower where there is greater identification with fewer religious organizations, even after controlling for other factors known to be associated with divorce. Ellison, Burr, and McCall (1997) asked a similar question regarding the effects of religious homogeneity on metropolitan suicide rates. After considering established covariates of suicide, their analysis revealed that greater levels of religious homogeneity were associated with lower suicide rates. Religious Factors Associated with Divorce What is the direct impact of religious involvement on the rate of the currently divorced? Research indicates that interfaith marriages are more likely to end in divorce than intrafaith ones (Heaton and Pratt 1990) and that participation in religious communities subordinates personal desires while enhancing collective goals, thus promoting stability (Larson and Goltz 1989). Both partners regularly attending religious services and claiming a same or similar religious affiliation are key elements in decreasing the likelihood of divorce (Call and Heaton 1997). Studies of religious homogamy suggest that having a partner with the same or doctrinally similar religious beliefs increases marital stability. These findings are consistent with Durkheim’s (1965) view of religion as an integrative force in social life. Lehrer and Chiswick (1993) concluded that while stability was similar across homogeneous unions regardless of denomination, interfaith marriages had much higher probabilities of dissolution by the fifth year of the marriage. When one of the partners converted to the other’s religion, the stability was similar to that of the naturally homogeneous couples, thus lending strong support for the homogeneity argument of the current study. Similarly, marital happiness is higher among couples who share religious doctrines and rituals. The larger the disparity between the practices of the couple’s religious affiliations the greater the likelihood of marital unhappiness (Ortega, Whitt, and Williams 1988). Therefore, a concentrated pool of eligibles is more likely to result in an intrafaith marriage, which, in turn is less likely to end in divorce. Researchers have shown that persons claiming no religious affiliation have the highest divorce rates of any group, the rate of divorce is lower for Jews than Roman Catholics, and the rate for Catholics is lower than that for Protestants (Brodbar-Nemzer 1986; Glenn and Supancic 1984), though more recent studies do not find the same effects for Catholicism (Lehrer and Chiswick 1993). Among Protestants, the rate is highest among those generally considered to be the

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 341

more conservative denominations. As early as the 1970s, fundamentalists were reported as having higher divorce rates than other groups (Coombs and Zumeta 1970). The reasons for this pattern are theoretically intriguing, but beyond the scope of the current examination. Nonetheless, it appears to be well established that the degree of formal religious involvement of individuals impacts the likelihood of being divorced. Booth, Johnson, Branaman, and Sica (1995) examined several studies regarding the interface between religion and marital quality. In their discussion, they summarized conclusions from these studies, several of which are germane to the current research. Marital quality, for example, as Booth and colleagues note, is influenced by religious involvement, but not conversely (Stacey 1990). That is, involvement in religious activities can help to produce stable marriages, but marital quality does not necessarily lead to religious involvement. Seemingly contradictory to this point is the position advanced by Aldous (1983), D’Antonio (1983), and Glock, Runger, and Babbie (1967). These authors suggest that marital difficulties may actually lead to an increase in religious involvement, that is, persons experiencing marital distress may exhibit a rise in religious participation as a way of resolving marital difficulty. Booth and others (1995) also extrapolate from Durkheim’s theories of religion (1965) and suicide (1951) in the formulation of at least a partial explanation of the impact of religion on marriage. Durkheim’s theory of religion, which emphasizes functions for society rather than the individual, and his theory of suicide, which addresses the impact of marriage on suicide rates, can, by extension, provide a basis for “discussions of the way in which religion decreases suicide and how they may apply to the thinking about the impact on marriage” (Booth et al. 1995:662). In other words, while religion does not provide a normative basis for influencing marriage, it does encourage an “intense collective life” (Durkheim 1951:150) that helps to shield the individual from anomie, or the relative confusion of values in modern society vis-à-vis institutions such as marriage. While Durkheim viewed both religion and marriage as independent integrative forces that reduce the destructive tendencies of individuals, for example, suicide, it is also quite possible that religion acts as a positive integrative force as opposed to negative social control (Aldous 1983; D’Antonio 1983; Hargrove 1983). Thus, where religious systems are strong, consequences also are suggested for the social actions of individuals. Social institutions impose constraining influences on individual behaviors (Blau, Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984; Blum 1985) and typically act in concert relative to the “message” they send to their individual constituents (Ellison, Burr, and McCall 1997). Part of the traditional message that religious groups have sent to their parishioners and the community at large is the importance of a lasting marriage, only to be broken by death or other extreme occurrences.

342

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

Given prior examinations of the impact of religion on marriage, we suggest that religious homogeneity plays a key role in stabilizing marriages. The more concentrated a given religion is in a geographic region the more influence it likely has on all aspects of social life, including divorce. This concentration would make same-religion friendships, dating networks, support systems, and so on more likely; hence, same-faith marriages would logically follow. Likewise, advice received from the community would be consistent with the religious ideas of the concentrated group and give support to married couples. Thus, we hypothesize that the overall religious context, over and above the influence of other structural variables for which census data are available, may help to strengthen and stabilize marital relationships, among other consequences leading to a lower rate of divorce. Structural Factors Associated with Divorce In various examinations of marital disruption, a number of structural factors have been found to be associated with a greater likelihood of divorce (Pavalko and Elder 1990; South 1985). Divorce is more prevalent in areas of increasing urbanization, rising levels of industrialization, and higher participation of females in the labor force (Booth et al. 1985; Carlson 1990). Divorce rates also exhibit variations by geographic region within the United States. Thus, rates are lowest in the northeastern states and highest in the western states. Divorce is more likely among those from the lower social classes than higher classes, irrespective of whether education or income is used as the indicator of social class (Martin and Bumpass 1989; South 1985). Race and ethnicity also have emerged as strong predictors of divorce. In 1990, Latinos had the lowest divorce rate in the United States and blacks the highest, while the rate for whites was much lower than that for blacks and quite close to the Latino rate (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995). Also, rates of divorce vary inversely with age. Those who marry early show less preparedness for, and apparently less adjustment to, the marital role (Martin and Bumpass 1989). Regional differences in the propensity toward divorce have shown a stable pattern since the 19th century (Eshleman 1994). Generally, the divorce rate increases from east to west. In rank order by region, the divorce rate is lowest in the Northeast, moderate in the Midwest and South, and highest in the West. It is widely assumed that the divorce rate is directly related to the level of cultural homogeneity in the United States, that is, the greater the level of homogeneity, the lower the rate of divorce, and conversely. Traditionally, there has been a higher level of cultural homogeneity and normative agreement in the older parts of the United States than the developing areas of the West (Glenn and Shelton 1985). Higher mobility is associated with the western region of the United States, suggesting a basis for the elevated divorce rates in that part of the

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 343

country. The variation in divorce rates according to rural-urban residence also has been explored. Shelton (1987) found that large and medium-sized cities had nearly twice the frequency of divorce as nonurban, open-country areas. Again, relating these patterns to Durkheim’s social integration perspective, it follows that higher divorce rates should be observed in areas that exhibit a lower consensus on values and behavioral norms, and within areas that do not have strong systems of social control that facilitate conformity to marital expectations (Glenn and Shelton 1985; Shelton 1987). As the above factors have been linked to divorce, they will be dealt with as covariates in the analysis. Methods, Variable Definitions, and Descriptive Results In order to examine the relationship between the rate of currently divorced and religious homogeneity, information from a 20 percent random sample of counties from each of the 50 states is analyzed, that is, 621 of the 3,111 counties in the United States in 1990. While it would be preferable to utilize the entire universe of U.S. counties for the analysis, it was not logistically feasible (given the absence of a computerized database) to hand calculate the index of religious concentration (discussed below) for every county. Data on religious homogeneity were collected and reported by the Glenmary Research Center using 1990 as the base year (Bradley, Green, Jones, Lynn, and McNeil 1992). All other variables utilized in this research are from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991, 1992a, b, and 1993). County-level data comprise ideal units of analysis in that they provide a consistent geopolitical framework within which to collect social and economic data. By selecting a 20 percent sample of counties from each state, we were able to generate a sufficient number of cases to allow us to adequately address the issue at hand. In addition, a sample of this size is sufficiently representative of the wide variety of social, demographic, and economic forces that impact people across the country. Sixteen variables are included in the analysis. A complete set of data is compiled for each county. Dependent Variable: Persons Currently Divorced The measure of divorce that is used in this research is the total number of persons (male and female) currently divorced per 1,000 population aged 15 years of age and older in the United States. Divorce data were derived from the 1990 decennial census using the question on current marital status that was asked on the census short form. Key Independent Variable: Religious Homogeneity Religious homogeneity is derived from a statistical index that identifies the degree of concentration of formal religious groups within selected geopolitical

344

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

units, that is, counties. Following the approach utilized by Ellison, Burr, and McCall (1997), data assembled by the Glenmary Research Center in 1990 were utilized (Bradley et al. 1992). These data provide an estimate of the number of church members and adherents at the county level for 133 denominational groupings in the United States. Ellison, Burr, and McCall (1997) have noted the limitations of these data, for example, the information is provided by denominational headquarters rather than individual congregations and some religious collectivities (e.g., smaller groups and African-American congregations) may be underrepresented. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of these data, the Glenmary compilation represents the most complete set of information currently available on religious affiliation and church membership in the United States. As such, it was deemed appropriate for the current analysis. Religious homogeneity is operationally defined as the extent of concentration of organized religious denominations within a county as identified from the Glenmary data. It is measured through an adaptation of the “Herfindahl Index.” First used in antitrust policy to determine monopolistic share, it was designed to measure the extent of corporate concentration within a market area (Herfindahl 1950). The index is calculated by squaring the individual shares, that is, the share of each firm competing in a market, and summing the results. In the current research, the Herfindahl Index was adopted to measure the concentration of persons within professed religious groups using U.S. counties as the basic units of analysis. The general formula for the Herfindahl Index is: Hj = ∑ S2 ij S represents the number in each denomination within a county divided by the total number of church adherents in the county, i represents the index of summation over all religious denominations in county j. H represents the probability that any two persons, selected at random, within a county will be adherents of the same organized religious group (Iannacone 1991). For example, in the simplest case assume one county has five discrete religious group affiliations, each with an equal 20 percent market share of adherents. The indexed concentration for the county is H = .202 + .202 + .202 + .202 + .202, or .20. Thus, if two persons were selected at random from that county the odds are one in five, or 20 percent, that they will be adherents of the same recognized denominational group. A second county has three discrete religious affiliations with 50 percent, 30 percent, and 20 percent market shares, respectively. The index then would be H = .502 + .302 + .202, or .38. The odds are 38 percent that two people selected at random will have the same religious affiliation. Still a third county has 25 discrete religious denominational affiliations each with the following percentages in each denominational affiliation: one with

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 345

40 percent, one with 20 percent, one with 10 percent, and 22 with 3.15 percent each. The index score is H = .402 + .202 + .102 + 22 (.03152) = .23. In this case, the odds of selecting two persons at random with the same denominational affiliations are 23 percent. The index shows the probability that two persons selected at random would share the same denominational affiliation, relative to the concentration of adherents in a fewer or greater number of religious groups. When more adherents are in fewer religious affiliations the index score is higher. Conversely, when adherents are spread over a greater number of affiliations the index score is lower. The index theoretically could range from 0.00, when there are no adherents with any affiliations, to 1.00, when all adherents have a single affiliation. Covariates In order to examine more completely the effects of religious homogeneity on divorce, the effects of other potential influences on the divorce rate must be held constant. Divorce rates have been found to be associated with higher levels of geographic mobility and, by extension, lower levels of community involvement and integration (Breault and Kposowa 1987; Glenn and Shelton 1985). Hence, percent population change from 1980 to 1990 is used as an indicator of population instability. It also has been generally established that a higher concentration of young adults contributes to a higher divorce rate (Martin and Bumpass 1989); thus we include the percentage of the population 15 to 34 years of age. Likewise, race and ethnicity have been shown to have an impact on the divorce rate (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992b). Hence, we use percentage of whites, percentage of Native Americans, percentage of Asian/Pacific Islanders, and percentage of Hispanics/Latinos as measures of race and ethnicity. The percentage of African Americans is not included because of its high correlation, r = .82, with percentage white. Previous research has shown that the relative concentration of males and females within a population impacts the divorce rate (Guttentag and Secord 1983; Trent and South 1989). Here, we use the percentage of females in the population as an indicator of gender concentration. Also, given evidence that the level of economic instability is positively associated with the divorce rate (South 1985), we include four census-based measures that are assumed to represent different dimensions of this variable: percentage of the civilian labor force employed in manufacturing, percentage unemployed, percentage urban, and the median family income. Because general area of residence apparently has an effect on the likelihood of divorce in the United States, we also include measures of region. Thus, the four major regions that have been historically utilized by the Census Bureau in reporting population data were selected for input: Northeast, South, West, and Midwest, each coded as 1 = Yes and 0 = No.

346

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

Descriptive Results Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) are shown in Table 1. An examination of the intercorrelations indicates that these variables are basically independent of each other. In only one instance does a zero-order correlation exceed .50. However, the correlation of –.69 between the south and midwest regions raises questions concerning multicollinearity. In the subsequent regression analysis, therefore, the Midwest is the “omitted” or “criterion variable.” Thus, we conclude that the multiple regression analysis utilizes a set of variables that are relatively independent of each other in their effects on the dependent variable, that is, the rate of currently divorced persons. Descriptively, the counties studied show a mean rate of 75.5 currently divorced persons per 1,000 population and a mean religious homogeneity score of .29 (as measured by the Herfindahl Index). The Index score means that the odds are 29 percent that two persons selected at random from the sampled counties will be affiliated with an organized religious denomination of the same type. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Variables Divorced rate Religious concentration % Population change % 15–34-years % White % Native American % Asian/Pac. Islander % Hispanic % Female % Unemployed % Employed manufacturing % Urban Median family income Northeast region South region West region Midwest region

¯ X

S.D.

75.45 .29 3.57 28.65 86.95 1.66 .76 4.12 50.90 6.91 18.57 34.83 28,094.03 .08 .41 .14 .37

18.59 .15 15.15 4.82 16.58 7.39 3.40 9.66 1.95 4.92 10.81 29.28 7,013.84 .27 .49 .34 .48

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 347

Further, the descriptive results indicate that within the selected counties there was a 3.6 percent population increase between 1980 and 1990 and that 28.7 percent of the population was between 15 and 34 years of age. Racial/ethnic percentages show that the population of these counties in 1990 was 87 percent white, 1.7 percent Native American, 0.8 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 4.1 percent Hispanic and, by subtraction, 10.5 percent African American and other races. Females comprised 51 percent of the total population for these counties. The economic stability measures indicate that 6.9 percent were unemployed, 18.6 percent were working in manufacturing occupations, 34.8 percent resided in urban areas, and that the average median income for families was $28,094. Geographically, 8 percent of the counties were located in the Northeast, 41 percent in the South, 14 percent in the West, and 37 percent in the Midwest. Results of Regression Analysis The essential issue addressed in this research is the impact of religious concentration on the rate of currently divorced, using county of residence as the main contextual variable. Examination of Block 1, Table 2, shows that the zeroorder correlation between the divorce rate and religious concentration, r = –.144 ( p < .05), is weak, but statistically significant. Only about 2 percent of the variance in the divorce rate is explained by religious concentration. Still, irrespective of Table 2 Block Regression Analysis of the Divorced Rate on Religious Concentration and Selected Variables ( N = 621) Independent variables Block 1 Religious concentration

Block 2 Religious concentration % Population change % 15–34-years % White % Native American % Asian/Pac. Islander

Slope (b)

S.E. (b)

Beta ( β )

–.018** .005 –.144 Constant = 80.89; S.E. = 1.68 (t = 48.30; p < .001) R2 = .021 (1/619df; F = 13.10; p < .001) –.017** .457** –0.342* .029 .050 .560**

.004 .050 .170 .048 .098 .217

–.136 .372 –.089 .026 .020 .102

348

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

Table 2 (continued ) Slope (b)

% Hispanic % Female % Unemployed % Employ. manuf. % Urban Median family income

–.224** .075 –.116 –2.114** .409 –.222 .572** .142 .151 .301** .065 .175 .252** .030 .397 –.004** .000 –.160 Constant = 187.88; S.E. = 24.20 (t = 7.76; p < .001) R2 = .338 (12/608df; F = 25.79; p < .001) R2 change Block 1 to Block 2 = .317 F of change = 26.41 (11/608df; p < .001)

Block 3 Religious concentration % Population change % 15–34-years % White % Native American % Asian/Pac. Islander % Hispanic % Female % Unemployed % Employ. manuf. % Urban Median family income West Northeast South

*p < .05, **p < .01.

S.E. (b)

Beta ( β )

Independent variables

–.015** .004 –.119 –.361** .047 .294 –.166 .161 –.043 .119* .048 .106 .033 .094 .013 .486* .203 .089 –.366** .072 –.190 –1.523** .388 –.160 .551** .133 .146 .360** .061 .109 .243** .027 .382 –.001** .000 –.147 20.124** 2.094 .372 1.212 2.406 .018 7.862** 1.561 .208 Constant = 137.60; S.E. = 23.08 (t = 5.96; p < .000) R2 = .433 (15/605df; F = 30.74; p < .001) R2 change Block 2 to Block 3 = .095 F of change = 33.83 (3/605df; p < .000)

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 349

any particular denominational categorization, the greater the homogeneity of the religious environment, the less the likelihood of divorce. The question remains, however, as to whether this relationship is meaningful in light of the potential impact of other variables. In Block 2, the first of two sets of covariates is entered into a regression equation along with religious concentration. With the inclusion of these 11 covariates in the analysis, the impact of religious concentration on divorce, that is, β = –.136, is only slightly reduced from the zero-order effect, that is., –.144, and remains significant at the < .05 level of probability. Thus, there is only a 5.6 percent reduction in the overall effect of religious concentration on divorce when controlling for 11 of the factors that are known to be associated with divorce. In short, the degree of religious concentration in the United States still has a statistically significant and independent effect on the rate of currently divorced vis-à-vis this set of variables. This regression analysis also shows that the divorced rate (significant at the p < .05 level) is directly related to percentage population change, percentage Asian/Pacific Islander, percentage unemployed, percentage employed in manufacturing jobs, and percentage urban. The same analysis shows that the divorced rate (again significant at the < .05 level probability) is inversely related to percentage of persons aged between 15 and 34, percentage Hispanic, percentage of females in the population, and median family income. Thus, the findings from previous studies regarding influences on divorce are generally supported in this research, including all four of the “economic instability” measures. On the other hand, there is an absence of statistically significant relationships between persons currently divorced and percent white and percent Native American. By examining the Beta coefficients, that is, the standardized partial regression coefficients, in Block 2 of Table 2, one can assess the relative impact of each of the 12 independent variables in the regression equation on the dependent variable. Percent urban (β = .397) and percent population change ( β = .372) clearly have the greatest impact on the divorce rate. When these 12 variables are rankordered, religious concentration ranks seventh relative to impact on the rate of currently divorced. Block 3 shows the regression analysis with “region” (i.e., West, Northeast, and South, with Midwest as the criterion variable) entered as additional covariates beyond those examined in Block 2. Because region has been shown to be an important contextual variable in the examination of divorce and of religious orientation, the analysis examines region as an added emphasis. To test the impact of region, a separate analysis of variance procedure was conducted in order to determine if there are significant differences among regions in the currently divorced rate. The results confirm the importance of this contextual variable. The mean divorce rate in the West (91.51) is significantly greater ( p ≤ .05) than the rates in each of the other three regions (Midwest

350

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

rate = 68.91, Northeast rate = 71.25, and South rate = 76.85). The mean divorce rate in the Midwest is significantly less than rates in the West and South, but not significantly different from the Northeast. The rate in the Northeast is significantly lower than the West’s rate, but not that different from the other two. The South’s rate is significantly less than the West’s rate, but significantly greater than the rate for the Midwest. Thus, as expected the divorce rate varies among regions. Again, as in Block 2, the overall effect of religious concentration on the divorced rate, after controlling for all covariates including region, is somewhat reduced from what it was in the analysis presented in Block 2, that is, from β = –.136 to β = –.119—a 12.5 percent reduction. The independent effect of religious concentration on the divorced rate, however, remains statistically significant. Examination of the regression results in Block 3 indicates that when divorce is regressed on these social, economic, and geographic factors, three variables do not show a statistically significant effect, that is, percent aged between 15 and 34 years, percent Native American, and residence in the Northeast. Percent urban shows the largest effect on the divorced rate ( β = .382), followed by residence in the West (β = .327), and percent change in population ( β = .294). Rates of currently divorced are significantly higher in the West and the South, but not in the Northeast. The low zero-order correlation between divorce and the Northeast is indicative of the low divorce rate in that region. The addition of region to the equation in Block 3 increases the explained variance from 33.8 to 43.3 percent. This indicates a real increase in explained variance of 9.5 percent and a relative increase of 28.1 percent. Overall, however, the basic result of the research is clear: the rate of currently divorced in U.S. counties is typically lower where religious concentration is greater. Summary and Conclusions Although “religious concentration” as a macrosociological variable has been largely ignored in the social science literature, it was found to impact at least one critical area of study in this research, that is, the likelihood of being divorced. While a multitude of studies have documented the influence of such factors as unemployment, urban residence, income, and the employment of females on levels of divorce, the impact of larger, contextual variables (other than region of residence) has remained relatively unknown. Extending Durkheim’s classic theory of religion and its integrative effects on society to the matrix of behaviors that occur within the marital setting, we were able to show that an area’s religious concentration exerts a significant independent effect on the likelihood of marital success. While this variable does not emerge as one of the strongest predictors of divorce in our analysis of covariates, its independent effect remains after the systematic introduction of other variables into a series of regression equations. Just as Durkheim hypothesized that religion serves as an integrative force within society, it also appears to act as an integrative (or stabilizing) influence

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 351

on the institution of marriage. Where people live in relatively homogeneous religious settings (and are presumably more tightly bound together), divorce is lower (and vice versa). More than “religious involvement”—a frequently studied topic in the divorce literature—is apparently involved. In addition to frequency of church attendance (and similar measures of religious involvement) directly impacting divorce rates, the larger community provides another important dimension wherein marital relationships unfold. And, as this research has indicated, one of the community/societal factors that appears to act most directly as a mediating force on the prospects for divorce is religious concentration. Under what conditions does religious homogeneity serve as a positive mediating factor? It may, for example, be indicative of closer community agreement on a more generalized set of normative and moral directives. Where the expectation to remain married is strong and negative sanctions are more apt to be employed for the violation of normative expectations, marriages may be less likely to terminate in divorce—irrespective of frequency of church attendance and other “personal choice” variables. As Blau and others have suggested (Blau, Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984), the social structure or “context” in which people live often constrains individual choices. Religion as a part of that context, reinforced by other community institutions and “voices,” apparently exerts an influence independent of that of other structural and social-psychological factors. Where religious differences are not as extreme, it may also mean that people who are marrying across religious lines are characterized by more agreement on values and normative issues—hence, lower divorce rates. Marriages tend to last longer and be characterized by higher levels of marital happiness in areas populated by a smaller number of similar faiths and higher church participation rates (Call and Heaton 1997). Indeed, a long line of research has documented the positive influence of homogamy on mate selection and marriage relationships vis-à-vis the incidence of divorce (Eshleman 1994:241–60). Religious homogamy, regardless of the dimension—affiliation, attendance, or beliefs—suggests similarities between spouses that may translate to more stable and lasting marriages (Call and Heaton 1997). Perhaps Durkheim summed it up best in another area of his work that has not been heretofore addressed: the transition of society from solidarity based upon the “mechanical” to solidarity stemming from increased differentiation and specialization, that is, “organic” (Durkheim 1964). It may be argued that the increasing divorce rate in American society in part reflects this transition, as do a multitude of other social behaviors and institutions (including religion itself ). Thus, homogeneity of religious affiliation is more indicative of mechanical solidarity and its shared beliefs and collective influences, while lack of agreement on religious outlook is more reflective of the organic (and the highly individualistic behaviors that are associated with that orientation). Hence, an absence of generalized agreement on societal values and norms rather than lack of religious

352

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

cohesion per se may be the real exacerbating force in today’s elevated divorce rates when they are viewed from the societal level. What are the implications of this research? Divorce is clearly a multifaceted phenomenon that reflects a variety of psychological, social psychological, and sociological influences. Focusing on any one variable, or even a collection of variables, is unlikely to generate a complete “solution.” Perpetuating a common set of religious beliefs in an effort to reduce the divorce rate is clearly not desirable or workable, nor is the attempt to reduce (or even stall) the overall transition of society from the mechanical to the organic. The practical application of these findings may lie in the degree of “cultural homogeneity” between two individuals and the society as a whole, which Burgess, Locke, and Thomas (1963) suggested many years ago as one of several factors that significantly impacts marital adjustment and divorce. While this research does not minimize the importance of individual, socialpsychological variables on marital relationships, it points to a broader set of contextual variables that may serve to influence or “constrain” this dimension of social behavior. Although individual and smaller-scale structural factors have been analyzed extensively in the literature, our knowledge of the influence of communitybased normative systems on divorce is much more rudimentary. A challenge of future research is to create multilevel models wherein both individually-based variables and contextual variables are analyzed in the same framework. Only then will we develop a more complete understanding of the dynamics of marital stability.

ENDNOTES

*Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Baltimore, Maryland. April 3–6, 2002.

REFERENCES

Aldous, Joan. 1983. “Problematic Elements in the Relationship Between Churches and Families.” Pp. 67–80 in Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society, edited by W. D’Antonio and J. Aldous. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Blau, Peter M., Carolyn Beeker, and Kevin M. Fitzpatrick. 1984. “Intersecting Social Affiliations and Intermarriage.” Social Forces 62:585–605. Blum, Terry C. 1985. “Structural Constraints on Interpersonal Relations: A Test of Blau’s Macrosociological Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 91:511–21. Booth, Alan, David Johnson, Lynn White, and John Edwards. 1985. “Women, Outside Employment, and Marital Stability.” American Journal of Sociology 90:567–83.

THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY 353 Booth, Alan, David Johnson, Ann Branaman, and Alan Sica. 1995. “Belief and Behavior: Does Religion Matter in Today’s Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:661–73. Bradley, Martin, Norman Green Jr., Dale Jones, Mac Lynn, and Lou McNeil. 1992. Churches and Church Memberships in the United States 1990: An Enumeration by Region. State and County Based on Data Reported for 133 Church Groupings. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary Research Center. Breault, Kevin D. and Augustine J. Kposawa. 1987. “Explaining Divorce in the United States: A Study of 3,111 Counties, 1980.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 49:549–58. Brodbar-Nemzer, Jay Y. 1986. “Divorce and Group Commitment: The Case of the Jews.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 48:329–40. Burgess, Ernest W., Harvey J. Locke, and Mary M. Thomas. 1963. The Family: From Institution to Companionship. 3rd ed. New York: American Book. Call, Vaughn and Tim B. Heaton. 1997. “Religious Influence on Marital Stability.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36:382–93. Carlson, Christopher. 1990. Perspectives on the Family: History, Class, and Feminism. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Chaves, Mark. 1994. “Secularization as Declining Religious Authority.” Social Forces 72:749–74. Chaves, Mark and Philip S. Gorski. 2001. “Religious Pluralism and Religious Participation.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:261–81. Coombs, Lolagene C. and Zena Zumeta. 1970. “Correlates of Marital Dissolution in a Prospective Fertility Study: A Research Note.” Social Problems 18:92–102. D’Antonio, William 1983. “Family Life, Religion, and Societal Values and Structures.” Pp. 81–108 in Families and Religion: Conflict and Change in Modern Society, edited by W. D’Antonio and J. Aldous. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. D’Antonio, William and Joan Aldous (eds.). 1983. Families and Religions: Conflict and Change in Modern Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Durkheim, Emile. [1915] 1965. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press. ———. [1893] 1964. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press. ———. [1897] 1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Free Press. Ellison, Christopher G., Jeffrey Burr, and Patricia McCall. 1997. “Religious Homogeneity and Metropolitan Suicide Rates.” Social Forces 76:273–99. Ellison, Christopher G., John P. Bartkowski, and Kristin L. Anderson. 1999. “Are There Religious Variations in Domestic Violence?” Journal of Family Issues 20:87–113. Eshleman, J. Ross. 1994. The Family: An Introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Glenn, Norval and Michael Supancic. 1984. “The Social and Demographic Correlates of Divorce and Separation in the United States: An Update and Reconsideration.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:563–75. Glenn, Norval and Beth Ann Shelton. 1985. “Regional Differences in Divorce in the United States.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:641–52. Glock, Charles, Beth Runger, and Earl Babbie. 1967. To Comfort and Challenge: Dilemma of the Contemporary Church. Berkeley: University of California Press. Guttentag, Marcia and Paul Secord. 1983. Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hargrove, Barbara. 1983. “The Church, the Family, and the Modernization Process.” Pp. 21–48 in Families and Religion: Conflict and Change in Modern Society, edited by W. D’Antonio and J. Aldous. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Heaton, Tim B. 1984. “Religious Homogamy and Marital Satisfaction Reconsidered.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:729–33. Heaton, Tim B. and Edith L. Pratt. 1990. “The Effects of Religious Homogamy on Marital Satisfaction and Stability.” Journal of Family Issues 11:191–208.

354

LARRY C. MULLINS ET AL.

Herfindahl, Orris. 1950. “Concentration in the Steel Industry.” Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, New York. Iannocone, Lawrence R. 1991. “The Consequences of Religious Market Structure: Adam Smith and the Economics of Religion.” Rationality and Society 3:156–77. Larson, L. L. and J. W. Goltz. 1989. “Religious Participation and Marital Commitment.” Review of Religion Research 30:387–400. Lehrer, Evelyn L. and Carmel U. Chiswick. 1993. “Religion as a Determinant of Marital Stability.” Demography 30:385–404. Martin, Teresa Castro and Larry L. Bumpass. 1989. “Recent Trends in Marital Disruption.” Demography 26:37–51. Ortega, Suzanne T., Hugh P. Whitt, and J. Allen Williams Jr. 1988. “Religious Homogamy and Marital Happiness.” Journal of Family Issues 9:224–39. Pavalko, Edward K. and Glenn Elder Jr. 1990. “World War II and Divorce: A Life Course Perspective.” American Journal of Sociology 5:1213–34. Schumm, Walker R., Stephan R. Bollman, and Anthony P. Jurich. 1982. “The ‘Marital Conventionalization’ Argument: Implications for the Study of Religiosity and Marital Satisfaction.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 10:236–241. Shelton, Beth Anne. 1987. “Variations in Divorce Rates by Community Size: A Test of the Social Integration Explanation.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 49:827–32. Sherkat, Darren E. and Christopher G. Ellison. 1999. “Recent Developments and Current Controversies in the Sociology of Religion.” Annual Review of Sociology 25:363–95. South, Scott J. 1985. “Economic Conditions and the Divorce Rate.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:31–41. Stacey, Judith. 1990. Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late Twentieth Century America. New York: Basic Books. Thomas, Darwin L. 1988. The Religion and Family Connection: Social Science Perspectives. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University. Thomas, Darwin L. and Marie Cornwall. 1990. “Religion and Family in the 1980s: Discovery and Development.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:983–92. Trent, Katherine and Scott South. 1989. “Structural Determinants of the Divorce Rate: A CrossSectional Analysis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:391–404. Turner, Bryan. 1991. Religion and Social Theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1995. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 115th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ———. 1993. 1990 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics, CP-2 Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ———. 1992a. 1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, C-7 Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ———. 1992b. “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No.468 (December), p. ix. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. ———. 1991. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing Unit Counts, CPH-2 Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wilson, Bryan. 1982. Religion in Sociological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Margaret R. and Erik E. Filsinger. 1986. “Religiosity and Marital Adjustment: Multidimensional Interrelationships.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 48:147–51. Wittberg, Patricia. 1999. “Families and Religions.” Pp. 503–23 in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, edited by M. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, and G.W. Peterson. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press.