Praying Together and Staying Together: Couple Prayer and Trust
Nathaniel M. Lambert, Frank D. Fincham, Dana C. LaVallee, and Cicely W. BrantleyFlorida 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 eitherprayed with and for their partner twice a week for 4 weeks, or were assigned to apositive interaction condition, in which they discussed positive news stories for thesame time span. Prayer condition participants reported significantly more unity andtrust for their partner than those in the positive interaction control group. Relationalunity was again found to mediate the relationship between prayer and trust. These threestudies 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 trustthem more?
Recently, the spiritual practice of prayer hasreceived attention in several studies that high-light its prosocial benefits in the context of closerelationships. These studies have shown thatprayer 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 havelaid a foundation for many other questionsand theories as to why and how prayer worksas it does to elicit positive outcomes in closerelationships.
Prior research, however, is limited to individ-ual prayer for a partner. The current studiesadvance this line of research by examining theeffects of praying with and for a partner on trustlevels 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 prayerand trust.
Trust in Relationships
Interpersonal trust is a key component to anyhealthy relationship (Eckstein & Cohen, 1998).Indeed, trust is often mentioned (in conjunctionwith love and commitment) as a cornerstone ofan ideal relationship (Hendrick & Hendrick,1983). Larzelere and Huston (1980) found thattrust 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 trusttend to emphasize the extent to which trustingrequires an inherent risk and reward. This riskexists because of the possibility that trust will beplaced in an unsuitable partner and that disap-pointment, pain, or disillusionment will occur.We define trust as the belief that a relationshippartner will behave in a reliable, predictablemanner.
Joint Religious Activities and RelationshipOutcomes
Although no studies have been conductedthat 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, FloridaState University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Nathaniel M. Lambert, Family Institute, SandelsBuilding, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306.E-mail: [email protected]
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2011 American Psychological Association2012, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1–9 1941-1022/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023060
1
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
some research indicates that participating inother joint religious activities facilitates positiverelationship outcomes. For example, the cou-ples participating in a qualitative study by Dol-lahite and Lambert (2007) suggested that theirjoint religious activities were integral to theirfidelity toward one another and trust is likely tobe an important aspect of fidelity.
In another qualitative study, couples reportedthat even though there were challenges associ-ated with some of their religious activities, theyfelt that their marriage had an increased sense ofmeaning as a result of shared religious activities(Marks, 2005). Mahoney et al. (1999) foundthat joint religious activities and perceived sa-cred qualities of marriage were positively asso-ciated with improved marital functioning andperceived benefits of marriage.
More specifically, attending church to-gether is a commonly studied joint religiousactivity. Larson and Goltz (1989) found thatattending 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 maritalsatisfaction. Homogeny on any dimension ofreligiosity (e.g., affiliation, attendance, be-liefs) promoted similarities between spousesthat were conducive to a more stable andsatisfying relationship (Lehrer & Chiswick,1993; Lichter & Carmalt, 2009).
Conversely, differences in levels of engage-ment in religious participation have been foundto cause problems in relationships. Call andHeaton (1997) reported that the risk of maritaldissolution is nearly three times greater whenthe 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 wereassociated with increased marital dissolution(Curtis & Ellison, 2002).
Thus, there is reason to suspect that jointreligious 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 onrelationship 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 prayerpromotes a sense of couple unity and that thisunity might be a key to understanding theprayer–trust relationship. For our purposes, wedefine 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. Oneof the basic premises of Symbolic InteractionTheory (Blumer, 1962) is that people assignmeaning to the people, things, and situations intheir lives. From this perspective, interactionwith others is based on these meanings, andrelationships are the product of the use of sym-bols that have shared meaning for the individ-uals involved. We propose that engaging injoint religious activities such as prayer will re-mind couples of the symbolic meaning of theirshared values, which should enhance theirunity. As couples refocus on their shared long-and short-term goals, the level of unity and trustexperienced 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 restoringunity following a conflict. In a study examiningthe phenomenological experience of prayer dur-ing marital conflict, Butler, Stout, and Gardner(2002) found that prayer encouraged spouses toshift their focus from their own individual needsto the needs of the relationship and to behaviorsbeneficial to their partner. Couples in a qualita-tive study (Lambert & Dollahite, 2006) reportedthat praying during a conflict helped renew har-mony in their relationship. In addition, theyreported that their religious participation helpedgive them a shared sacred vision and purpose.This shared vision is an important component incouple unity. Similarly, Rosen-Grandon, My-ers, and Hattie (2004) found shared values to bea key predictor of relationship happiness. Wetherefore predict that engaging in a joint activityperceived as sacred (such as prayer), shouldincrease the unity experienced by relationshippartners and this will, in turn, facilitate trust.
Unity and Trust
There are reasons to suspect a relationshipbetween unity and trust. Rempel, Holmes, and
2 LAMBERT, FINCHAM, LAVALLEE, AND BRANTLEY
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
Zanna (1985) point out that trust can be fortifiedby positive past experience of a relationshippartner’s trustworthiness. Thus, it may be that ifa couple has convergent values, goals, and be-liefs, they may perceive their partner’s behavioras being more predictable. It follows that thisgreater predictability could make a partner seemmore trustworthy. For this reason, a couple withthese shared characteristics may be more in-clined to trust. Furthermore, Rempel et al. sug-gest that the most important contributor to trustin close relationships is the confidence that arelationship partner will continue to behave in aloving, caring manner in the future, regardlessof the challenges that may come. This aspect oftrust could be strengthened by the unifying in-fluence of positive, trust building experiences.We suspect that unity and trust could be relatedinsomuch as couples with high unity share moreopportunities 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 relationshipbetween couple prayer, trust, and unity. Wehypothesized that joint prayer would facilitatetrust and that this relationship would be medi-ated by couple unity. In Study 1, participantsreported their naturally occurring level of prayerwith their partner and then engaged in a 5-mininteraction. Their trust for each other was ratedby coders that were blind to study hypotheses.We predicted that self-reported prayer wouldpredict objective ratings of trust. In Study 2, weexamined unity as a plausible mechanism ac-counting for the relationship between prayingfor a partner and trust, using self-report of allthese measures. We hypothesized that unitywould mediate the relationship.
Because the correlational nature of Studies 1and 2 preclude inferences about direction ofeffects, Study 3 examined these relationshipsusing an experimental design. Couples wereassigned to pray with and for each other or toshare some things they had been learning witheach other twice a week for 4 weeks. We againhypothesized that unity would mediate betweenprayer and trust.
Study 1
The objective of Study 1 was to determinewhether praying with one’s partner was relatedto objective ratings of couple trust. We hypoth-esized that praying with one’s partner wouldpredict objective ratings of trust.
Method
Participants. The study included 29 un-dergraduates (14 women) who received extracredit for their participation. Participants re-ported on their relationship with their romanticpartner.
Measures and procedure. Participantscompleted one scale item indicating how oftenthey prayed with their partner (“My partner andI pray together”), with scores ranging from“never” to “very frequently,” in addition to sev-eral other measures unrelated to the currentstudy. Participants then engaged in a 5-min in-teraction with their partner during which theytook turns answering several questions abouttheir relationship (e.g., “Tell about where youfirst met your partner and what your first im-pressions were,” “Describe the future of yourrelationship,” “Describe something your partnerdid that annoyed or irritated you and how youresponded”). Five trained coders, blind to thehypothesis of the study, watched the video dataand rated participants on “How much does thisperson 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 partnerwas positively related to the objective trustratings, � � .48, t(27) � 2.67, p � .01. Theseresults indicate that praying with a partnerpositively corresponds to how objective cod-ers rated the level of trust participants dis-played during their interaction. This indicatesthat the relationship between praying for apartner and trust is not because of demandcharacteristics or socially desirable respond-ing reflected in self-reports. Studies 2 and 3built upon this finding by examining our pro-posed mechanism, unity.
3COUPLE PRAYER AND TRUST
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
Study 2
Documenting an association between jointprayer and trust raises the question of why suchan association exists. The objective of Study 2was to address this issue and to determinewhether couple unity mediated this relationship.We define unity as “feeling at one with a rela-tionship partner or sensing a common sharedpurpose.” 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 mediatethe prayer–trust relationship.
Method
Participants. The study included 210 un-dergraduates (168 women) who received extracredit for their participation and reported abouta romantic partner or close friend. Analysisrevealed no differences between the romanticpartners and close friends on the effect of jointprayer on trust, so participants were combinedfor all analyses.
Measures.Prayer with partner. Frequency of prayer
with a romantic partner or friend was assessedwith the item “My partner and I pray to-gether,” with scores ranging from “never” to“very frequently.”
Trust. Interpersonal trust was assessedusing measures based on a scale developed byRempel et al. (1985). An example item in-cludes “He or she keeps me informed ofthings I should know about,” and “He or sheis a good source of knowledge,” with scoresranging from “strongly disagree” to “stronglyagree.” The coefficient alpha for this measurein the current sample was .97.
Unity. Given the dearth of research onunity, we created our own measure of unity withpartner, assessed with two items, “During thelast week I felt united with my partner,” and“During the last week I felt at one with mypartner,” with scores ranging from “stronglydisagree” to “strongly agree.” These items cor-related with each other at .85. They weretherefore summed to form a single index.These items were moderately correlated withcommon measures of relationship satisfaction(r � .56; Funk & Rogge, 2007), as well as
commitment (r � .64; Stanley & Markman,1992).
Results
Prayer and trust. We hypothesized thatprayer for the relationship partner would besignificantly correlated with trust for that part-ner. The results confirmed that higher prayerscores were related to higher trust scoresr(208) � .13, p � .05, controlling for gender.
Unity as a mediator. To test whetherunity mediated the association between jointprayer and trust, we used a bootstrappingmethod developed by Preacher and Hayes(2008) to test for mediation. A confidenceinterval for the size of the indirect path be-tween prayer and trust is generated and if thevalues between the upper and lower confi-dence limit do not include zero this indicatesa statistically significant mediation effect.The indirect path of unity was statisticallysignificant, as indicated by finding that the95% confidence interval (CI; bias corrected)for the indirect path through this mediator didnot include zero (95% CI � .15–.34).
Discussion
Although results were consistent with ourhypothesis, the current study is somewhat lim-ited in that the data are correlational and thus donot provide information regarding direction ofeffects. We addressed this limitation in Study 3by examining the same variables using a longi-tudinal, experimental design.
Study 3
In this experimental study, we examined theeffects of a prayer condition and a positiveinteraction condition on levels of trust amongcouples over a span of 4 weeks. This studyagain tested for couple unity as a mediatingfactor in the relationship between prayer andtrust.
Method
Participants. The study began with 116participants, but 80 undergraduates (69 women)completed all measures at both time points andwere included in the analyses. Participants re-ceived extra credit for their participation and
4 LAMBERT, FINCHAM, LAVALLEE, AND BRANTLEY
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
reported about their relationship with a closefriend.
Measures.Trust. We used the same measure of trust
from Study 1. The coefficient alpha for thismeasure in the current sample was .94 at Time 1and .96 at Time 2.
Unity. We used the same two items fromStudy 1. These items correlated with each otherat .81 in the current sample.
Seriousness of participation. Because se-riousness of participation in the study necessar-ily influences data quality, at the conclusion ofthe study subjects answered the following ques-tion: “How seriously did you complete the ac-tivity that you were assigned to do twice timesa week?” Responses ranged from “not at allseriously” to “extremely seriously.” The meanresponse was 4.56 (SD � 1.55) on a 7-pointscale. Participants’ responses ranged from 1to 7, indicating that they were comfortable ad-mitting to not taking the study seriously.
Procedure. All participants completedpretest measures then were randomly assignedto one of two conditions. Participants were theninstructed that they would need to completetheir assigned activity twice a week to reportabout their activity. At the conclusion of the4-week period, participants completed the mea-sures again.
Prayer with friend condition. This was theexperimental condition, and the 40 participantsassigned to this condition were given the fol-lowing instructions:
Over the next four weeks we would like you to praywith your friend twice a week; once during the firsthalf of the week and at least once during the secondhalf of the week. Sometime not long after you prayaloud with your friend, we ask that you go online andfollow a link that will be sent to you through an email.The link will take you to an electronic journal withwhich you will record certain aspects of your relation-ship and you will write about your experience prayingwith your friend.
To help participants understand the type ofprayer we had intended them to pray, we pro-vided them with an example prayer and re-quested that they generate their own prayer andreport 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 tohave a good week at work. Also, give her wisdom tomake good decisions. Help her to have peace aboutall of the things that may be bothering her today.And help me to see her every day through yourloving eyes. Amen.”
Becky: “God, Thank you for Susan. I pray that youwould give her patience as she goes to class. Helpher to understand what she learns in school andapply it so that she will do well on her test thisFriday. Please use me to be an instrument of yourlove for Susan. Amen.”
Participants were told that “These are onlyexample prayers. Feel free to use your ownwords and pray about personal situations thatyou may know about in each others’ lives.”They completed one prayer together with theirfriend in the lab to ensure that they understoodthe instructions and could do it on their own forthe duration of the study.
Positive interaction condition. To ensurethan any change in trust levels was not attrib-utable simply to joint activities with a friendthat generate positive affect or to the regular,positive exchange between friends that mightalso generate positive affect, we constructed a“positive interaction condition.” In this con-dition, participants engaged in conversationabout a positive news article from the week,and then recorded aspects of their relationshipin 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 withyour friend the positive news events of the week thathappened in the country or the world; once during thefirst half of the week and at least once during the endof the week. After you discuss this with your friend, weask that you would follow a link that will be sent to youthrough 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 aboutyour experience discussing the positive news eventswith your friend.
Participants in this condition also practiced do-ing this one time in the lab.
Results
Attrition. Thirty-six participants failed tocomplete measures at Time 2. To ensure thatattrition did not affect the results of our study,we compared Time 1 trust scores of those thatdropped out with those who remained in thestudy and found no differences between the
5COUPLE PRAYER AND TRUST
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
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 testedour hypothesis that praying for one’s friendevery day for 4 weeks would affect participants’trust of their friend even when controlling forbaseline scores of trust, and level of engage-ment in their assigned activity. Our hypothesiswas 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 reportedmeans were adjusted for the covariates ofTime 1 trust and seriousness of participation.
Effect of prayer on unity. Our secondhypothesis was also supported as participantsin the prayer with friend condition reportedhigher unity (M � 5.49, SD � 1.64) thanthose in the positive-interaction condition(M � 4.88, SD � 1.62), F(1, 76) � 4.69, p �.05, �p
2 � .06. All reported means were ad-justed for covariates of initial unity and seri-ousness of participation.
Unity as a mediator of prayer with friendand trust. To test whether unity mediated therelationship between experimental conditionand trust, we again conducted a bias-correctedbootstrapping analysis recommended byPreacher and Hayes (2008). Experimental con-dition functioned as the independent variablewith Time 2 trust as the dependent variable, andTime 2 unity as the mediator and Time 1 trust asa covariate. The confidence interval (bias cor-rected) for the indirect path through unity was�.45 to �.01 and did not include zero, indicat-ing that unity was a significant mediator ofprayer for friend and later trust.
Discussion
Consistent with our hypotheses, praying witha friend increased one’s trust of that friend.Furthermore, praying with a friend increasedunity with the friend, and this unity mediatedthe relationship between prayer and trust. Thesefindings demonstrate how joint prayer may beinstrumental for increasing trust in a relation-ship. They also suggest that unity is the mech-anism whereby this effect occurs.
General Discussion
Three studies showed a consistent pattern ofresults in that praying for and with one’s rela-tionship partner was related to enhanced trust ofthat relationship partner. Study 1 showed thatself-reported praying with one’s partner pre-dicted objective ratings of trust between roman-tic partners. Study 2 found a significant corre-lation between prayer for the partner and highertrust scores, and implicated unity as a mediatingfactor in this relationship. Study 3 used a lon-gitudinal, experimental design to test for cau-sality and the direction of this relationship. Toensure that the higher trust levels were not sim-ply an outcome of positive couple interaction, a“positive interaction” condition was included,in which participants discussed positive newsevents together. Consistent with our hypothesesprayer with and for a partner did produce aneffect on trust scores relative to control partic-ipants. In addition, prayer increased the unity inthe relationships of those who prayed and thisunity mediated the relationship between coupleprayer and trust.
This research sheds new light on the relation-ship between unity and trust in close relation-ships. In addition to identifying unity as a mech-anism responsible for this relationship, it maybe that prayer also enhances trust insofar as itreduces other behaviors that damage trust. Forexample, recently, Fincham, Lambert, andBeach (2010) found that prayer decreased levelsof infidelity. According to Whisman, Dixon,and Johnson (1997), infidelity in couple rela-tionships is one of the “most damaging prob-lems” experienced by those seeking couple ther-apy. One crucial stage in healing a relationshipdamaged in this way is the rebuilding of trust(Olson, Russell, Higgins-Kessler, Miller, 2002).Thus, perhaps prayer may lead to higher levelsof trust over the long-term of the relationshipbecause prayer was shown to reduce infidelity(Fincham et al., 2010). Furthermore, Lambert,Fincham, Marks, and Stillman (2010) foundthat prayer was related to less problematicdrinking behavior. Again, insofar as such prob-lematic drinking behavior decreases trust di-rectly, or leads to relationship damaging behav-iors that influence trust indirectly, prayer mayincrease trust by reducing such behavior.
At the level of theory, Symbolic InteractionTheory (Blumer, 1962) may explain the results
6 LAMBERT, FINCHAM, LAVALLEE, AND BRANTLEY
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
of our studies insomuch as the symbolic mean-ing of praying together may highlight sharedvalues and contribute to the unity partners ex-perience in their relationship. The symbolicmeaning attributed to jointly petitioning ahigher being on behalf of shared couple goalscould explain, at least in part, the consistentpattern of findings across our studies.
Goal Theory (Fincham & Beach, 1999) isanother framework that could be useful in ex-plaining the relationship between prayer andtrust in that prayer may play a role in the shiftfrom a focus on short term to long term goalsand investments. Fincham and Beach (1999)suggested that conflict can be seen as the resultof a shift from constructive, prorelationshipgoals to more individualistic, emergent goalsthat promote adversarial interactions. They fur-ther suggest that distressed couples do not nec-essarily lack problem-solving skills, but ratherhave difficulty reverting to shared goals duringconflictual interactions because of their focus onemergent goals (e.g., getting their way).Inso-much as prayer can be used to chronically primeshared goals, couples should be able to restruc-ture their interactions to reach their more con-structive relational goals. As couples refocus ontheir shared goals through prayer, the value anddepth of meaning that the relationship holds forthem should be more salient. Accordingly, thelevel of unity and trust experienced in the rela-tionship should increase.
Limitations and Future Directions
These studies provided valuable insights intothe functioning of prayer between close partnersbut are subject to several limitations. First, ourfindings are based on a population of relativelyyoung, educated, and racially homogenous par-ticipants. For these reasons, more researchshould be done with samples that vary in age,relationship status, and ethnicity. Furthermore,the samples were predominantly women, sug-gesting that the effect may be driven by women.Future studies should recruit a higher number ofmen.
Second, it is also worth mentioning that theremay be cultural factors at play in this samplethat make it a generally more religious one. Assuggested by Lambert, Fincham, Stillman, Gra-ham, and Beach (2010), those living in thesoutheastern United States may have a cultural
bias toward prayer and religiosity, in general.However, this may actually be a strength of thestudies because it makes differences betweenthose in the prayer and control conditions moredifficult to detect as many control participantsmay have been engaging in couple prayer nat-urally. This implies that our findings of in-creased trust are especially salient.
Although 90% of Americans pray at least onoccasion (McCullough & Larson, 1999), it isimportant to note that these findings were gen-erated with a sample of participants who notedthat they were comfortable with prayer. Thefindings may not apply or even be relevant forthose who are uncomfortable with prayer. It istherefore important to limit the practical impli-cations of our findings to contexts where theyare culturally appropriate and acceptable. Also,it is entirely possible for prayer to be used in anegative way in a couple’s relationship. If acouple has an unhealthy power balance (Garner,Butler, & Seedall, 2008) or is unable to main-tain a nonjudgmental attitude, potential harmmight be done to trust in the relationshipthrough prayer. Specifically, some individualsmight use joint prayer as a platform for criticismor as a tool for manipulating their partners.
Implications for Practitioners
As discussed, trust is an important relation-ship outcome (e.g., Rempel et al., 1985). Forreligious clientele, prayer may be effectivelyused to build or repair trust in couple therapy.Beach et al. (2008) propose several instances inwhich prayer could be used in couple therapy.For example, rather than simply taking a “timeout,” (a practice often used in couple therapy inwhich couples segregate themselves for a periodof time to cool off during an argument), couplescould interrupt negative patterns by prayingwith and for each other. Consistent with the callfor more research on spiritually oriented inter-ventions (Aten & Worthington, 2009), Beach etal., (2010) incorporated prayer into the mostwidely investigated marital distress preventionprogram (PREP; Stanley, Blumberg, & Mark-man, 1999) and showed that it enhanced out-come for wives, relative to standard PREP, in alarge sample of African American couples.Prayer enhanced PREP included instructing theparticipants to pray for each other at the firstsigns of conflict.
7COUPLE PRAYER AND TRUST
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
In addition to potentially interrupting neg-ative behavioral sequences that emerge inconflict, the results of the current study sug-gest that in cases in which trust has beenviolated (e.g., infidelity), couple prayer couldbe one potentially helpful element in helpingrestore trust and unity to the relationship.Other related research shows that suchprayers could also effectively reduce futureinstances of infidelity (Fincham, Lambert, &Beach, 2010). Thus, prayer, with certain pop-ulations where it is appropriate, may play arole in couple interventions.
Finally, we offer the following important ca-veat. The demonstration that joint prayer canincrease trust in relationships does not, ipsofacto, mean that it should invariably be used todo so. There are likely many routes to increas-ing trust in relationships and some may turn outto be far more powerful than joint prayer. None-theless, joint prayer will remain as one arrow inthe quiver of the well rounded practitioner thatmay be used when circumstances are appropri-ate (e.g., in working with a highly religiouscouple that eschews secular interventions).
Conclusion
Our three studies add to an emerging litera-ture on the function of prayer in close relation-ships. We found that naturally occurring jointprayer was related to greater trust and that par-ticipants who engaged in a four week coupleprayer intervention increased their levels oftrust. We also found that couple unity mediatedthis relationship. These studies provide valuableinsights on prayer in the context of relationshipsand lay a foundation for future research andintervention regarding the connection betweenspiritual practices and relationships.
References
Aten, J. D., & Worthington, E. L. (2009). Next stepsfor clinicians in religious and spiritual therapy: Anendpiece. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Ses-sion, 65, 224 –229.
Bahr, H., & Chadwick, B. (1985). Religion and fam-ily in middletown, USA. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 47, 407– 414.
Beach, S. R. H., Fincham, F. D., Hurt, T., McNair,L. M., & Stanley, S. M. (2008). Prayer and maritalintervention: A conceptual framework. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 27, 641– 669.
Beach, S. R. H., Hurt, T. R., Fincham, F. D., Frank-lin, K. J., McNair, L. M., & Stanley, S. M. (2010).Enhancing the cultural sensitivity of marital en-richment through spirituality: Efficacy data forprayer focused PREP (PFP). Manuscript submit-ted for publication.
Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction.In A. M. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and socialprocess: An interactionist approach (pp. 179 –192). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Butler, M. H., Gardner, B. C., & Bird, M. H. (1998).Not just a time-out: Change dynamics of prayer forreligious couples in conflict situations. FamilyProcess, 37, 451– 475.
Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A., & Gardner, B. C. (2002).Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual: Clinical im-plications of religious couples’ report of relation-ship softening, healing perspective, and changeresponsibility. The American Journal of FamilyTherapy, 30, 19 –37.
Call, V. R., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religious influ-ence on marital stability. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion, 36, 382–399.
Curtis, K. T., & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religiousheterogamy and marital conflict: Findings from theNational Survey of Families and Households.Journal of Family Issues, 23, 551–576.
Dollahite, D. C., & Lambert, N. M. (2007). Forsakingall others: How religious involvement promotesmarital fidelity in Christian, Jewish, and Muslimcouples. Review of Religious Research, 48, 290 –307.
Eckstein, D., & Cohen, L. (1998). The Couple’srelationship satisfaction inventory (CR51): 21Points to help enhance and build a winning rela-tionship. The Family Journal, 6, 155–158.
Fincham, F., Lambert, N., & Beach, S. (2010). Faithand unfaithfulness: Can praying for your partnerreduce infidelity? Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 99, 649 – 659.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1999). Maritalconflict: Implications for working with couples.Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47–77.
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Lambert, N., Still-man, T., & Braithwaite, S. R. (2008). Spiritualbehaviors and relationship satisfaction: A criticalanalysis of the role of prayer. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 27, 362–388.
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the rulerwith item response theory: Increasing precision ofmeasurement for relationship satisfaction with theCouples Satisfaction Index. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 21, 572–583.
Garner, B. C., Butler, M. H., & Seedall, R. B. (2008).En-gendering the couple-deity relationship: Clini-cal implications of power and progress. Contem-porary Family Therapy, 30, 152–166.
8 LAMBERT, FINCHAM, LAVALLEE, AND BRANTLEY
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
Gordon, K. C., Hughes, F. M., Tomcik, N. D., Dixon,L. J., & Litzinger, S. C. (2009). Widening spheresof impact: The role of forgiveness in marital andfamily functioning. Journal of Family Psychol-ogy, 23, 1–13.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1983). Liking, lovingand relating. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lambert, N. M., & Dollahite, D. C. (2006). Howreligiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, andovercome marital conflict. Family Relations, 55,439 – 449.
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F., Braithwaite, S. R.,Graham, S., & Beach, S. (2009). Can prayer in-crease gratitude? Psychology of Religion and Spir-ituality, 1, 39 – 49.
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F., Stillman, T., Graham,S., & Beach, S., (2010). Motivating change inrelationships: Can prayer increase forgiveness?Psychological Science, 21, 126 –132.
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., Marks, L. D., &Stillman, T. F. (2010). Invocations and intoxica-tion: Does prayer decrease alcohol consumption?Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 209–219.
Larson, L. E., & Goltz, J. W. (1989). Religiousparticipation and marital commitment. Review ofReligious Research, 30, 387– 400.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadictrust scale: Toward understanding interpersonaltrust in close relationships. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 42, 595– 604.
Lehrer, E. L., & Chiswick, U. C. (1993). Religion asa determinant of marital stability. Demogra-phy, 30, 385– 403.
Lichter, D. T., & Carmalt, J. H. (2009). Religion andmarital quality among low-income couples. SocialScience Research, 38, 168 –187.
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 prox-
imal and distal religious constructs in marital func-tioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321–338.
Marks, L. (2005). How does religion influence mar-riage? Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Muslimperspectives. Marriage and Family Review, 38,85–111.
McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (1999).Prayer. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-ical Association.
Olson, M. M., Russell, C. S., Higgins-Kessler, M., &Miller, R. B. (2002). Emotional processes follow-ing disclosure of an extramarital affair. Journal ofMarital & Family Therapy, 28, 423– 434.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes A. F. (2008). Asymptoticand resampling strategies for assessing and com-paring indirect effects in multiple mediator mod-els. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 – 891.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985).Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 49, 102.
Rosen-Grandon, J. R., Myers, J. E., & Hattie. J. A.(2004). The relationship between marital charac-teristics, marital interaction process, and maritalsatisfaction. Journal of Counseling and Develop-ment, 82, 58 – 68.
Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J.(1999). Helping couples fight for their marriages:The PREP approach. In R. Berger & M. Hannah(Eds.), Handbook of preventive approaches in cou-ple therapy. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., & Johnson, B.(1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple prob-lems and treatment issues in couple therapy. Jour-nal of Family Psychology, 11, 361–366.
Received October 15, 2010Revision received December 20, 2010
Accepted January 4, 2011 �
9COUPLE PRAYER AND TRUST
Thi
s do
cum
ent i
s co
pyri
ghte
d by
the
Am
eric
an P
sych
olog
ical
Ass
ocia
tion
or o
ne o
f its
alli
ed p
ublis
hers
. T
his
artic
le is
inte
nded
sol
ely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.