Praying Together and Staying Together: Couple Prayer and Trust

Nathaniel M. Lambert, Frank D. Fincham, Dana C. LaVallee, and Cicely W. Brantley Florida State University

Three studies examine the relationship between prayer, unity, and trust. Study 1 (N � 29) showed that praying for one’s partner predicted objective ratings of trust. Study 2 (N � 210) found a significant relationship between prayer with a partner and relation- ship trust. This relationship was mediated by couple unity. Study 3 (N � 80) investi- gated the relationship documented in a 4-week, experimental study. Participants either prayed with and for their partner twice a week for 4 weeks, or were assigned to a positive interaction condition, in which they discussed positive news stories for the same time span. Prayer condition participants reported significantly more unity and trust for their partner than those in the positive interaction control group. Relational unity was again found to mediate the relationship between prayer and trust. These three studies are discussed in the context of an emerging literature on the relational impli- cations of prayer.

Keywords: couple prayer, trust, unity, religion, spirituality

Does praying with someone make you trust them more?

Recently, the spiritual practice of prayer has received attention in several studies that high- light its prosocial benefits in the context of close relationships. These studies have shown that prayer increases gratitude (Lambert, Fincham, Braithwaite, Graham, & Beach, 2010), forgive- ness (Lambert, Fincham, Stillman, Graham, & Beach, 2010), relationship satisfaction (Fin- cham, Beach, Lambert, Stillman, & Braith- waite, 2008), and decreases infidelity (Fincham, Lambert, & Beach, 2010). Such findings have laid a foundation for many other questions and theories as to why and how prayer works as it does to elicit positive outcomes in close relationships.

Prior research, however, is limited to individ- ual prayer for a partner. The current studies advance this line of research by examining the effects of praying with and for a partner on trust levels reported in close relationships. We hy- pothesize that regular joint prayer in relation-

ships will increase levels of trust, and that in- creased relational unity or emotional “oneness” will mediate this relationship between prayer and trust.

Trust in Relationships

Interpersonal trust is a key component to any healthy relationship (Eckstein & Cohen, 1998). Indeed, trust is often mentioned (in conjunction with love and commitment) as a cornerstone of an ideal relationship (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1983). Larzelere and Huston (1980) found that trust predicted love and self-disclosure. Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon, and Litzinger (2009) found that trust mediated the relationship be- tween forgiveness and marital satisfaction.

Operational definitions of interpersonal trust tend to emphasize the extent to which trusting requires an inherent risk and reward. This risk exists because of the possibility that trust will be placed in an unsuitable partner and that disap- pointment, pain, or disillusionment will occur. We define trust as the belief that a relationship partner will behave in a reliable, predictable manner.

Joint Religious Activities and Relationship Outcomes

Although no studies have been conducted that establish a link between prayer and trust,

This article was published Online First June 6, 2011. Nathaniel M. Lambert, Frank D. Fincham, Dana C. La-

Vallee, and Cicely W. Brantley, Family Institute, Florida State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Nathaniel M. Lambert, Family Institute, Sandels Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306. E-mail: [email protected]

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2011 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1–9 1941-1022/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023060

1

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

some research indicates that participating in other joint religious activities facilitates positive relationship outcomes. For example, the cou- ples participating in a qualitative study by Dol- lahite and Lambert (2007) suggested that their joint religious activities were integral to their fidelity toward one another and trust is likely to be an important aspect of fidelity.

In another qualitative study, couples reported that even though there were challenges associ- ated with some of their religious activities, they felt that their marriage had an increased sense of meaning as a result of shared religious activities (Marks, 2005). Mahoney et al. (1999) found that joint religious activities and perceived sa- cred qualities of marriage were positively asso- ciated with improved marital functioning and perceived benefits of marriage.

More specifically, attending church to- gether is a commonly studied joint religious activity. Larson and Goltz (1989) found that attending church together increased a cou- ple’s level of personal and structural commit- ment to the marriage, and Bahr and Chadwick (1985) found a significantly positive correla- tion between church attendance and marital satisfaction. Homogeny on any dimension of religiosity (e.g., affiliation, attendance, be- liefs) promoted similarities between spouses that were conducive to a more stable and satisfying relationship (Lehrer & Chiswick, 1993; Lichter & Carmalt, 2009).

Conversely, differences in levels of engage- ment in religious participation have been found to cause problems in relationships. Call and Heaton (1997) reported that the risk of marital dissolution is nearly three times greater when the wife regularly attends church and the hus- band never attends. In a study examining het- erogamy in marriages, differences in core theo- logical beliefs and in religious attendance were associated with increased marital dissolution (Curtis & Ellison, 2002).

Thus, there is reason to suspect that joint religious activities have important conse- quences for relationship outcomes. However, no studies of which we are aware have exam- ined the effect of the joint activity of prayer on relationship outcomes. We propose that engag- ing in joint prayer should also be related to trust. But why might such a relationship exist?

Prayer and Unity

We believe that joining together in prayer promotes a sense of couple unity and that this unity might be a key to understanding the prayer–trust relationship. For our purposes, we define unity as a measure of the emotional “one- ness” of a couple or group. This can be ex- pressed in shared communication, values, goals, activities, beliefs, experiences, or practices. One of the basic premises of Symbolic Interaction Theory (Blumer, 1962) is that people assign meaning to the people, things, and situations in their lives. From this perspective, interaction with others is based on these meanings, and relationships are the product of the use of sym- bols that have shared meaning for the individ- uals involved. We propose that engaging in joint religious activities such as prayer will re- mind couples of the symbolic meaning of their shared values, which should enhance their unity. As couples refocus on their shared long- and short-term goals, the level of unity and trust experienced in the relationship should increase. Indeed, there is some evidence that prayer pro- moted empathy and blending of perspectives (Butler, Gardner, & Bird, 1998).

Prayer may also be instrumental in restoring unity following a conflict. In a study examining the phenomenological experience of prayer dur- ing marital conflict, Butler, Stout, and Gardner (2002) found that prayer encouraged spouses to shift their focus from their own individual needs to the needs of the relationship and to behaviors beneficial to their partner. Couples in a qualita- tive study (Lambert & Dollahite, 2006) reported that praying during a conflict helped renew har- mony in their relationship. In addition, they reported that their religious participation helped give them a shared sacred vision and purpose. This shared vision is an important component in couple unity. Similarly, Rosen-Grandon, My- ers, and Hattie (2004) found shared values to be a key predictor of relationship happiness. We therefore predict that engaging in a joint activity perceived as sacred (such as prayer), should increase the unity experienced by relationship partners and this will, in turn, facilitate trust.

Unity and Trust

There are reasons to suspect a relationship between unity and trust. Rempel, Holmes, and

2 LAMBERT, FINCHAM, LAVALLEE, AND BRANTLEY

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Zanna (1985) point out that trust can be fortified by positive past experience of a relationship partner’s trustworthiness. Thus, it may be that if a couple has convergent values, goals, and be- liefs, they may perceive their partner’s behavior as being more predictable. It follows that this greater predictability could make a partner seem more trustworthy. For this reason, a couple with these shared characteristics may be more in- clined to trust. Furthermore, Rempel et al. sug- gest that the most important contributor to trust in close relationships is the confidence that a relationship partner will continue to behave in a loving, caring manner in the future, regardless of the challenges that may come. This aspect of trust could be strengthened by the unifying in- fluence of positive, trust building experiences. We suspect that unity and trust could be related insomuch as couples with high unity share more opportunities for positive, trust-building experi- ences. This is especially true given the impor- tance of shared activities for harmony in rela- tionships (Lambert & Dollahite, 2006).

Overview of Studies

In three studies, we examined the relationship between couple prayer, trust, and unity. We hypothesized that joint prayer would facilitate trust and that this relationship would be medi- ated by couple unity. In Study 1, participants reported their naturally occurring level of prayer with their partner and then engaged in a 5-min interaction. Their trust for each other was rated by coders that were blind to study hypotheses. We predicted that self-reported prayer would predict objective ratings of trust. In Study 2, we examined unity as a plausible mechanism ac- counting for the relationship between praying for a partner and trust, using self-report of all these measures. We hypothesized that unity would mediate the relationship.

Because the correlational nature of Studies 1 and 2 preclude inferences about direction of effects, Study 3 examined these relationships using an experimental design. Couples were assigned to pray with and for each other or to share some things they had been learning with each other twice a week for 4 weeks. We again hypothesized that unity would mediate between prayer and trust.

Study 1

The objective of Study 1 was to determine whether praying with one’s partner was related to objective ratings of couple trust. We hypoth- esized that praying with one’s partner would predict objective ratings of trust.

Method

Participants. The study included 29 un- dergraduates (14 women) who received extra credit for their participation. Participants re- ported on their relationship with their romantic partner.

Measures and procedure. Participants completed one scale item indicating how often they prayed with their partner (“My partner and I pray together”), with scores ranging from “never” to “very frequently,” in addition to sev- eral other measures unrelated to the current study. Participants then engaged in a 5-min in- teraction with their partner during which they took turns answering several questions about their relationship (e.g., “Tell about where you first met your partner and what your first im- pressions were,” “Describe the future of your relationship,” “Describe something your partner did that annoyed or irritated you and how you responded”). Five trained coders, blind to the hypothesis of the study, watched the video data and rated participants on “How much does this person appear to trust his or her partner?” (1 � not at all to 5 � very much; intraclass correla- tion � .81).

Results and Discussion

As expected, praying with one’s partner was positively related to the objective trust ratings, � � .48, t(27) � 2.67, p � .01. These results indicate that praying with a partner positively corresponds to how objective cod- ers rated the level of trust participants dis- played during their interaction. This indicates that the relationship between praying for a partner and trust is not because of demand characteristics or socially desirable respond- ing reflected in self-reports. Studies 2 and 3 built upon this finding by examining our pro- posed mechanism, unity.

3COUPLE PRAYER AND TRUST

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

Study 2

Documenting an association between joint prayer and trust raises the question of why such an association exists. The objective of Study 2 was to address this issue and to determine whether couple unity mediated this relationship. We define unity as “feeling at one with a rela- tionship partner or sensing a common shared purpose.” Prior research has not sufficiently ex- amined couple unity as an outcome. We hypoth- esized that praying for a partner would be re- lated to a greater feeling of unity and, in turn, higher reported trust. That is, unity will mediate the prayer–trust relationship.

Method

Participants. The study included 210 un- dergraduates (168 women) who received extra credit for their participation and reported about a romantic partner or close friend. Analysis revealed no differences between the romantic partners and close friends on the effect of joint prayer on trust, so participants were combined for all analyses.

Measures. Prayer with partner. Frequency of prayer

with a romantic partner or friend was assessed with the item “My partner and I pray to- gether,” with scores ranging from “never” to “very frequently.”

Trust. Interpersonal trust was assessed using measures based on a scale developed by Rempel et al. (1985). An example item in- cludes “He or she keeps me informed of things I should know about,” and “He or she is a good source of knowledge,” with scores ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The coefficient alpha for this measure in the current sample was .97.

Unity. Given the dearth of research on unity, we created our own measure of unity with partner, assessed with two items, “During the last week I felt united with my partner,” and “During the last week I felt at one with my partner,” with scores ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” These items cor- related with each other at .85. They were therefore summed to form a single index. These items were moderately correlated with common measures of relationship satisfaction (r � .56; Funk & Rogge, 2007), as well as

commitment (r � .64; Stanley & Markman, 1992).

Results

Prayer and trust. We hypothesized that prayer for the relationship partner would be significantly correlated with trust for that part- ner. The results confirmed that higher prayer scores were related to higher trust scores r(208) � .13, p � .05, controlling for gender.

Unity as a mediator. To test whether unity mediated the association between joint prayer and trust, we used a bootstrapping method developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to test for mediation. A confidence interval for the size of the indirect path be- tween prayer and trust is generated and if the values between the upper and lower confi- dence limit do not include zero this indicates a statistically significant mediation effect. The indirect path of unity was statistically significant, as indicated by finding that the 95% confidence interval (CI; bias corrected) for the indirect path through this mediator did not include zero (95% CI � .15–.34).

Discussion

Although results were consistent with our hypothesis, the current study is somewhat lim- ited in that the data are correlational and thus do not provide information regarding direction of effects. We addressed this limitation in Study 3 by examining the same variables using a longi- tudinal, experimental design.

Study 3

In this experimental study, we examined the effects of a prayer condition and a positive interaction condition on levels of trust among couples over a span of 4 weeks. This study again tested for couple unity as a mediating factor in the relationship between prayer and trust.

Method

Participants. The study began with 116 participants, but 80 undergraduates (69 women) completed all measures at both time points and were included in the analyses. Participants re- ceived extra credit for their participation and

4 LAMBERT, FINCHAM, LAVALLEE, AND BRANTLEY

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

reported about their relationship with a close friend.

Measures. Trust. We used the same measure of trust

from Study 1. The coefficient alpha for this measure in the current sample was .94 at Time 1 and .96 at Time 2.

Unity. We used the same two items from Study 1. These items correlated with each other at .81 in the current sample.

Seriousness of participation. Because se- riousness of participation in the study necessar- ily influences data quality, at the conclusion of the study subjects answered the following ques- tion: “How seriously did you complete the ac- tivity that you were assigned to do twice times a week?” Responses ranged from “not at all seriously” to “extremely seriously.” The mean response was 4.56 (SD � 1.55) on a 7-point scale. Participants’ responses ranged from 1 to 7, indicating that they were comfortable ad- mitting to not taking the study seriously.

Procedure. All participants completed pretest measures then were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Participants were then instructed that they would need to complete their assigned activity twice a week to report about their activity. At the conclusion of the 4-week period, participants completed the mea- sures again.

Prayer with friend condition. This was the experimental condition, and the 40 participants assigned to this condition were given the fol- lowing instructions:

Over the next four weeks we would like you to pray with your friend twice a week; once during the first half of the week and at least once during the second half of the week. Sometime not long after you pray aloud with your friend, we ask that you go online and follow a link that will be sent to you through an email. The link will take you to an electronic journal with which you will record certain aspects of your relation- ship and you will write about your experience praying with your friend.

To help participants understand the type of prayer we had intended them to pray, we pro- vided them with an example prayer and re- quested that they generate their own prayer and report what they prayed about during each on- line session.

Below is the example prayer that was pro- vided to participants:

Susan: “God, I pray that you would help Becky to have a good week at work. Also, give her wisdom to make good decisions. Help her to have peace about all of the things that may be bothering her today. And help me to see her every day through your loving eyes. Amen.”

Becky: “God, Thank you for Susan. I pray that you would give her patience as she goes to class. Help her to understand what she learns in school and apply it so that she will do well on her test this Friday. Please use me to be an instrument of your love for Susan. Amen.”

Participants were told that “These are only example prayers. Feel free to use your own words and pray about personal situations that you may know about in each others’ lives.” They completed one prayer together with their friend in the lab to ensure that they understood the instructions and could do it on their own for the duration of the study.

Positive interaction condition. To ensure than any change in trust levels was not attrib- utable simply to joint activities with a friend that generate positive affect or to the regular, positive exchange between friends that might also generate positive affect, we constructed a “positive interaction condition.” In this con- dition, participants engaged in conversation about a positive news article from the week, and then recorded aspects of their relationship in the online journal. The 40 participants as- signed to this condition were given the fol- lowing instructions:

During this study you will be asked to discuss with your friend the positive news events of the week that happened in the country or the world; once during the first half of the week and at least once during the end of the week. After you discuss this with your friend, we ask that you would follow a link that will be sent to you through an email. The link will take you to an elec- tronic journal with which you will record certain as- pects of your relationship and you will write about your experience discussing the positive news events with your friend.

Participants in this condition also practiced do- ing this one time in the lab.

Results

Attrition. Thirty-six participants failed to complete measures at Time 2. To ensure that attrition did not affect the results of our study, we compared Time 1 trust scores of those that dropped out with those who remained in the study and found no differences between the

5COUPLE PRAYER AND TRUST

T hi

s do

cu m

en t i

s co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

tio n

or o

ne o

f i ts

a lli

ed p

ub lis

he rs

. T

hi s

ar tic

le is

in te

nd ed

s ol

el y

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

groups on the dependent variable of trust, F(1,113) � 2.64, p � .05, or on unity, F(1,113) � 2.04, p � .05.

Effect of prayer on trust. We first tested our hypothesis that praying for one’s friend every day for 4 weeks would affect participants’ trust of their friend even when controlling for baseline scores of trust, and level of engage- ment in their assigned activity. Our hypothesis was supported as participants in the prayer con- dition reported higher trust (M � 5.70, SD � 1.05) than those in the positive– interaction condition (M � 5.34, SD � 1.04), F(1, 76) � 4.88, p � .05, �p

2 � .06. All reported means were adjusted