Sex Guilt or Sanctification? The Indirect Role of Religiosity on Sexual Satisfaction

9201*5(7<60&62=.9:2;@9201*5(7<60&62=.9:2;@

(&$,174*9:9,12=.(&$,174*9:9,12=.

*,<4;@"<+42,*;276:



$.?<24;79$*6,;2B,*;276%1.6-29.,;#74.7/#.42027:2;@76$.?<24;79$*6,;2B,*;276%1.6-29.,;#74.7/#.42027:2;@76

$.?<*4$*;2:/*,;276$.?<*4$*;2:/*,;276

*;1*6.761*9-;

&62=.9:2;@7/%7976;7

.*6<:+@

9201*5(7<60&62=.9:2;@"97=7

-.*6)+<:+@+@<.-<

92*6'2447<01+@

9201*5(7<60&62=.9:2;@"97=7

7447>;12:*6-*--2;276*4>793:*;1;;8::,174*9:*9,12=.+@<.-</*,8<+

"*9;7/;1.!;1.9$7,2*4*6-.1*=279*4$,2.6,.:75576:

!92026*4"<+42,*;2762;*;276!92026*4"<+42,*;2762;*;276

.761*9-; <:+@'2447<01+@$.?0<24;79:*6,;2B,*;276%1.26-29.,;

974.7/9.42027:2;@76:.?<*4:*;2:/*,;276":@,17470@7/#.420276*6-$8292;<*42;@

(&$,174*9:9,12=.2;*;276(&$,174*9:9,12=.2;*;276

.761*9-; *;1*6<:+@.*6*6-'2447<01+@92*6$.?<24;79$*6,;2B,*;276%1.6-29.,;

#74.7/#.42027:2;@76$.?<*4$*;2:/*,;276

*,<4;@"<+42,*;276:



1;;8::,174*9:*9,12=.+@<.-</*,8<+

%12:"..9#.=2.>.-9;2,4.2:+97<01;;7@7</79/9..*6-78.6*,,.::+@(&$,174*9:9,12=.;1*:+..6

*,,.8;.-/7926,4<:27626*,<4;@"<+42,*;276:+@*6*<;1792A.-*-5262:;9*;797/(&$,174*9:9,12=.79579.

26/795*;27684.*:.,76;*,;.44.6)*5*;*60.47+@<.-<

Sex Guilt or Sanctification? The Indirect Role of Religiosity on

Sexual Satisfaction

Nathan D. Leonhardt

University of Toronto

Dean M. Busby and Brian J. Willoughby

Brigham Young University

With a Mechanical Turk sample of 1,614 sexually active individuals (62.6% women, 85% heterosexual,

mean age of 34.47 years) who had been in a committed sexual relationship for at least two years, we used

structural equation modeling to better understand how global religiosity may indirectly influence sexual

satisfaction. Because religiosity has been linked to the way people make sense of sexuality, we assessed

positive (sexual sanctification) and negative (sexual guilt) meaning making variables as mediators

between religiosity and sexual satisfaction. Consistent with prior research, greater sanctification of

sexuality was directly tied to greater sexual satisfaction, whereas greater sexual guilt was directly tied to

less sexual satisfaction. Greater general religiosity was indirectly related to greater sexual satisfaction for

men and women through greater sexual sanctification. Contrary to expectations, no significant pathways

emerged between greater religiosity and less sexual satisfaction via sexual guilt, possibly due to reliance

on a one item indicator for the latter variable. Also, in structural equation models, when sanctification of

sexuality was taken into account, greater religiosity was directly tied to less sexual satisfaction for

women, but not for men. This suggests that sanctification of sexuality represents a facet of religiousness

that facilitates women’s and men’s sexual satisfaction, whereas other religious beliefs may inhibit

women’s sexual satisfaction.

Keywords: religiosity, sexual sanctification, sexual guilt, sexual satisfaction

Religion brings potential for joy, pain, healing, hurt, esteem,

shame, love, and hate (Dollahite, Marks, & Dalton, 2018). These

paradoxical dualities (i.e., opposites or contrasts) have been well

documented in general psychology of religion and spirituality

(Pargament, 1997) and specifically in couple relationships (Ma-

honey, 2010; Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank,

2001). Notably, different facets of religiosity have been linked to

relationships of gender inequality (e.g., Bartkowski, 2001; Sigalow

& Fox, 2014) and spousal abuse (e.g., Simonic, Mandelj, &

Novsak, 2013; Stotland, 2000), while also being connected to

relationships with high satisfaction (e.g., Fincham, Beach, Lam-

bert, Stillman, & Braithwaite, 2008; Olson, Marshall, Goddard, &

Schramm, 2015) and commitment (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2014;

Lambert & Dollahite, 2008). Sexuality is one aspect of a couple’s

relationship where some researchers have suggested the impor-

tance of considering dualities (Christopher & Sprecher, 2000;

Hernandez, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2014; Murray-Swank, Parga-

ment, & Mahoney, 2005), as scholars have found positive (Hardy

& Willoughby, 2017; Murray-Swank et al., 2005) and negative

associations (Davidson, Moore, & Ullstrup, 2004) as well as the

absence of an association (Ashdown, Hackathorn, & Clark, 2011;

Young, Denny, Luquis, & Young, 1998) between indicators of

religiosity and sexual satisfaction.

A dualistic perspective (a long-held approach recently high-

lighted in a synthesis; Dollahite et al., 2018) may clarify incon-

sistent findings between global religiosity (i.e., overall religious

devotion) and sexual satisfaction, as a number of mechanisms may

explain how religiosity could both negatively and positively influ-

ence sexual satisfaction. Recently, scholars have suggested that the

inconsistent link may be due to neglecting explanatory variables

between religiosity and sexual satisfaction. Rather than having a

direct link, religiosity may indirectly influence sexual satisfaction

by informing sexual meaning or attitudes (e.g., Hackathorn, Ash-

down, & Rife, 2016; Hardy & Willoughby, 2017). Consistent with

the suggestion of religious dualities, religiosity has been linked to

both positive and negative sexual meaning constructs. On the

negative, religiosity has been linked to overall heightened sexual

concerns and discomfort (Cowden & Bradshaw, 2007), particu-

larly to sexual guilt (i.e., a negative affective component, com-

prised of self-imposed punishment for either violating or expecting

to violate “proper” sexual conduct; Hackathorn et al., 2016; Woo,

Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2011). In turn, sexual guilt has been linked to

lower sexual satisfaction (Hackathorn et al., 2016; Higgins, Trus-

sell, Moore, & Davidson, 2010). Conversely, religiosity has also

been linked to a positive valuation of sexuality (Hardy & Wil-

loughby, 2017; Hernandez, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2011;

Hernandez-Kane & Mahoney, 2018), specifically to sexual sanc-

tification (i.e., believing sexuality to have divine character and

This article was published Online First January 7, 2019.

Nathan D. Leonhardt, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto;

Dean M. Busby and Brian J. Willoughby, School of Family Life, Brigham

Young University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathan

D. Leonhardt, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 3359

Mississauga Road, Toronto, ON L5L1C6, Canada. E-mail: nathan

[email protected]

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

1941-1022/20/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000245

213

significance; Hernandez et al., 2011). Sexual sanctification in turn

has been positively linked to sexual satisfaction (Hernandez et al.,

2011; Hernandez-Kane & Mahoney, 2018). We suggest that by

simultaneously considering how religiosity may indirectly influ-

ence sexual satisfaction through both a negative valuation (sexual

guilt) and a positive valuation (sexual sanctification), we can begin

to better understand previous conflicting findings.

In this study, using a sample of 1,614 adults in committed sexual

relationships, we explored the extent that religiosity indirectly

influences sexual satisfaction through sexual guilt and sexual

sanctification. By including both negative and positive valuations

of sexuality, we hoped to provide an initial inquiry into the

dualities between religiosity and sexual satisfaction with a large

scale, quantitative analysis.

Sexual Guilt

With some religious assertions of sexuality throughout history

being connected to original sin, a barrier to be overcome, an open

sore that must be scratched, and a natural depravity of the human

body (Boulder, 1998; Schnarch, 1991), it seems plausible that

some religious individuals could have discomfort and conflict

surrounding sexuality. Freud (1927/1961) was among the earliest

in the social sciences to note a precarious relationship between

religiosity and sexuality, commenting on how pessimistic and

inhibitory emphasis in religion has been used to regulate sexual

conduct, an idea that now has empirical validation (e.g., Buss,

2002). This negatively imbued, highly regulated outlook on sex-

uality appears to be one reason that religiosity has been consis-

tently connected to an overall uneasiness surrounding sexuality,

particularly sexual guilt (e.g., Emmers-Sommer, Allen, Schoen-

bauer, & Burrell, 2018; Murray, Ciarrocchi, & Murray-Swank,

2007; Woo, Morshedian, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2012). Logically,

viewing sexuality as something inherently dirty, debased, or a

necessary evil for procreation could result in feelings of moral

disapprobation when participating in a sexual act. Little research

has directly analyzed the negative connection between sexual guilt

and sexual satisfaction (for exceptions, see Hackathorn et al.,

2016; Higgins et al., 2010). However, many other studies indi-

rectly suggest a negative connection, as a recent meta-analysis

found that sexual guilt was linked to lower sexual activity, less sex

information accuracy, and less positive attitudes toward sex

(Emmers-Sommer et al., 2018).

Religiosity appears to be connected to sexual guilt for unmarried

individuals (Hackathorn et al., 2016), as most religious teachings

are particularly restrictive of sexual behavior outside of a hetero-

sexual marriage (Delamater, 1981; Miracle, Miracle, & Baumeis-

ter, 2003). However, few research findings exist on religiosity and

sexual guilt for couples within a committed or married relation-

ship. Those that do exist present a somewhat inconsistent picture.

Considering that many religions fully sanction sexuality within a

marital relationship (Hernandez et al., 2014), some have suggested

that sexual guilt may be unlikely to exist for religious individuals

who channel their sexuality into a God sanctioned marriage (Dol-

lahite, Marks, & Goodman, 2004). However, some studies have

shown that sexual guilt continues to pervade religious, married

individuals (Peterson, 1964), as some scholars have suggested that

religiosity can bring a more permanent sense of anxiety, guilt, and

tension surrounding sexuality (Runkel, 1998). This is perhaps due

to some religious teachings condemning any sexual activity only

for pleasure, rather than for procreation (Abbott, Harris, & Mollen,

2016; Cowden & Bradshaw, 2007). Therefore, research suggests

that religiosity could negatively influence sexual satisfaction by

imbuing the sexual relationship with sexual guilt, though the role

of marital status remains a matter of inquiry for this connection.

Sexual Sanctification

Although some scholars have begun to question whether West-

ern culture’s religious roots have led to an exclusively negative

view of sexuality, others suggest religiosity has the potential to

also imbue sexuality with positive meaning (Hernandez et al.,

2014). Some Western religious teachings have sanctioned sexual-

ity not only for its procreative potential to be cocreators with God,

but also for bonding, pleasure, and enhancing a committed cou-

ple’s union with each other and God (Hernandez et al., 2014;

Lauer, 1985; Turner, Fox, & Kiser, 2007).

Sanctification could be one specific positive meaning making

process that could help religious individuals have a better sexual

relationship. The concept of sanctification has received ample

theoretical and empirical consideration for the sanctification of

marriage (e.g., Ellison, Henderson, Glenn, & Harkrider, 2011;

Kusner, Mahoney, Pargament, & Demaris, 2014) or a romantic

relationship (Fincham, Lambert, & Beach, 2010), parenting (e.g.,

Brelsford, 2013; Weyand, O’Laughlin, & Bennett, 2013), and even

the body (e.g., Homan & Boyatzis, 2009; Jacobson, Hall, &

Anderson, 2013). More specifically, sexual sanctification (Hernan-

dez et al., 2011; Hernandez-Kane & Mahoney, 2018; Murray-

Swank et al., 2005) explores how religious individuals may believe

in a spiritual dimension of sexuality, and how that perspective may

heighten affect during and after the sexual experience. It involves

a “setting apart” of sexuality from the ordinary, denoting a con-

secration to God. Regardless of debates concerning perception or

reality about the sacred, reporting sanctification is real in its

consequences; evidence suggests that reporting something to be

sacred influences the way someone treats the aspect of life that has

been “set apart” (for a more extensive review of studying the

sacred, see Pargament, Oman, Pomerleau, & Mahoney, 2017).

On a more specific empirical note, sexual sanctification has

been linked to higher sexual satisfaction, sexual intimacy, marital

satisfaction, and spiritual intimacy (Hernandez et al., 2011). Ad-

ditionally, greater sanctification of marital sexuality early in mar-

riage has predicted more frequent sexual intercourse, sexual sat-

isfaction, and marital satisfaction one year later (Hernandez-Kane

& Mahoney, 2018). Therefore, research suggests that religiosity

could positively influence sexual satisfaction by imbuing the sex-

ual relationship with a sanctified, divine sense of meaning.

Gender Considerations

An additional, understudied consideration is whether there

might be any differences in how religiosity influences sexual

meaning making and sexual satisfaction for women in comparison

to men. Some have asserted that Christian theology (a theology

belonging to a high percentage of our participants) emphasizes the

“dangers” of female sexuality, without giving the same attention to

male sexuality (Farley, 1976; Nicolson, 1993). Additionally, am-

ple research has shown differences between men and women in the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

214

LEONHARDT, BUSBY, AND WILLOUGHBY

domain of sexuality (e.g., Leonhardt & Willoughby, 2017; Mc-

Clelland, 2010; Petersen & Hyde, 2010) and religiosity (e.g.,

Ahrold & Meston, 2010; Luquis, Brelsford, & Rojas-Guyler,

2012). On average, men tend to be more permissive than women

in their sexual attitudes (Petersen & Hyde, 2010) and women tend

to be more religious than men (e.g., Ahrold & Meston, 2010;

Luquis et al., 2012). More specific to our study, women are

significantly more likely than men to experience sexual guilt and

anxiety (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2018; Oliver & Hyde, 1993;

Petersen & Hyde, 2010). These differences in sexual attitudes

(particularly sexual guilt; Emmers-Sommer et al., 2018; Oliver &

Hyde, 1993), and religiosity (Ahrold & Meston, 2010; Luquis et

al., 2012), justify conducting separate analyses for men and

women.

Current Study

In line with a dualistic perspective, religiosity seems to have the

potential to lead to either sexual guilt or sexual sanctification. By

evaluating religiosity’s indirect pathways to sexual satisfaction

through both sexual guilt and sexual sanctification, with a national

sample of 1,614 adults in long-term, committed relationships, we

hoped to provide a first empirical look at religiosity’s potential for

duality in the sexual relationship. To help ensure our sample

consisted of committed individuals, we required participants to be

in a sexual relationship at least two years, as this is approximately

the period when partners become more securely attached to each

other and some of the early, obsessive romantic love often starts to

wane (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Although commitment in a

relationship likely plays an important role for some couples in

whether someone feels sexual guilt or sexual sanctification, it is

important to note that most religious teachings are particularly

restrictive of sexual behavior outside of a heterosexual marriage

(DeLamater, 1981; Miracle et al., 2003). This could make marital

status an important control throughout our analyses. On the basis

of previous research highlighted in our review, we proposed the

following hypotheses and research questions (RQs):

H1: Sexual guilt will be negatively associated with sexual

satisfaction, whereas sexual sanctification will be positively

associated with sexual satisfaction.

H2: Religiosity will be positively associated with both sexual

guilt and sexual sanctification.

H3: Religiosity will have an indirect effect on sexual satis-

faction through sexual guilt and sexual sanctification.

RQ1: What are the similarities or differences for men and

women?

RQ2: What role does marital status play in these associations?

Method

Sample and Procedure

The sample of the present study consisted of 1,614 sexually

active individuals (606 men; 1,008 women) sampled from the

Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) website (http://www.mturk

.com), who had been in a committed, romantic relationship for at

least two years and were residents of the United States. MTurk is

a website dedicated to online labor and is used to employ “work-

ers” from around the world to complete specific tasks. The study

was approved by the institutional review board. Regarding the

current project, a job was posted inviting participants to complete

a short survey on sexuality in a relationship. Participants were

instructed that they needed to be English speaking, and those who

were interested were directed to a separate website (Qualtrics) to

complete an online assessment. Before beginning the online sur-

vey, participants were asked to indicate informed consent and were

informed about their rights as a research participant. Upon com-

pletion of the survey, participants were thanked for their time and

given compensation of $0.50. Scholars have noted that samples

from MTurk are very similar to other diverse behavioral research

samples, and several scholars have replicated previous research

results on MTurk to provide evidence for the validity of the sample

(Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010; Suri & Watts, 2011). Full

demographic descriptive statistics are listed in Table 1.

Measures

Religiosity. Four items were used to assess global religiosity:

“Spirituality is an important part of my life” (1 ⫽ never,5⫽ very

often), “How often do you pray (commune with a higher power)?”

(1 ⫽ never,5⫽ very often), “How important is your religious faith

to you” (1 ⫽ not important,5⫽ very important), and “How often

do you attend religious services?” (1 ⫽ never,5⫽ weekly). The

Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable for both men (.92) and women

(.90).

Sexual guilt. Each individual answered the following ques-

tion, “I experience guilt or anxiety when it comes to my sex life.”

Responses ranged on a five-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly

disagree,5⫽ strongly agree). The item came from the Sexual

History and Adjustment Questionnaire (Lewis & Janda, 1988).

Sexual sanctification. An adaptation of Hernandez et al.

(2011) sanctification of sexuality measure, specifically the 10-item

Sacred Qualities subscale, was utilized to assess sexual sanctifi-

cation in the relationship (e.g., “Our sexual relationship is holy,”

“The sexual bond I have with my partner is sacred to me”). The

only adaptation was using language inclusive of committed rela-

tionships broadly rather than referring explicitly to marriage (a

similar approach to Fincham et al., 2010). Responses ranged on a

seven-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree,7⫽ strongly

agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was .95 for both men and women.

Sexual satisfaction. The Global Measure of Sexual Satisfac-

tion (GMSEX; Lawrance & Byers, 1995) was created to assess

overall sexual satisfaction. The GMSEX has consistently been

Because our measure of global religiosity consisted of both subjective

valuation of religiosity as well as a report of behavior, we conducted

several supplementary analyses to be more confident in our findings. Our

SEM using religiosity without the behavior item was consistent with our

reported results. There were also no major changes to results if the

subjective valuation scale and behavior item were evaluated as separate

variables in the final SEM. The overall story was consistent of religiosity

connected to sexual satisfaction primarily through sexual sanctification.

Because of (a) the high factor loadings of each item onto global religiosity

and because (b) the difference of intrinsic versus extrinsic religiosity was

not a key component of our research question, we decided the most

appropriate course of action was model the four items as indicators of

global religiosity in the analyses. Full results are available on request.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

215

GUILT OR SANCTIFICATION

shown to have some of the strongest psychometric validity among

sexual satisfaction measures (Mark, Herbenick, Fortenberry, Sand-

ers, & Reece, 2014). The GMSEX has a root question of “In

general, how would you describe your sexual relationship with

your partner?” The participants then respond to five separate items,

each on a seven-point scale, in reporting their overall sexual

satisfaction: (1) good–bad, (2) pleasant–unpleasant, (3) positive–

negative, (4) satisfying–unsatisfying, and (5) valuable–worthless.

Our sample had high reliability for men (␣⫽.95) and women

(␣⫽.96).

Control variables. Age, relationship length, and number of

children were each assessed with open ended questions. Race,

sexual orientation, and marital status were dichotomized so that all

participants were coded as either White (1) or non-White (0),

heterosexual (1) or nonheterosexual (0), and married (1) or non-

married (0). Education was assessed on a seven-point scale (1 ⫽

less than high school,7⫽ doctorate; e.g., PhD, JD, MD), and

income was assessed on a 12-point scale (1 ⫽ none,12⫽

$300,000 or above). Marital status was a particularly important

control, as some scholars have suggested that sexual guilt from

religion may be unique to unmarried individuals (Hackathorn et

al., 2016).

Data Analysis Plan

We first conducted preliminary analyses to gain greater insight

into our variables of interest and explore whether we were justified

in splitting our analyses by gender. We conducted a multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) by gender (see Table 2), bivari-

ate correlations (see Table 3), and measurement invariance tests.

After determining it was appropriate to split the sample by gender

(see further details in results section), we estimated a series of

structural equation models (SEM) each increasing in complexity.

For the MANOVA by gender and bivariate correlations, the items

for constructs were averaged together to create a mean score for

scales of interest. For both the measurement models and subse-

quent SEM models, all individual items of scales were modeled

onto latent variables for their corresponding constructs.

We first estimated measurement models to increase confidence in

the validity of these latent variables. This is an appropriate prelimi-

nary step detailed by Kline (2016) to help ensure that each item

adequately loads onto the appropriate corresponding latent construct

while all latent variables are taken into account simultaneously. This

increases confidence that each latent construct is a good fit for the data

before modeling additional observed variables and regression path-

ways that complicate the model. We then created SEM models for

men and women to estimate the direct effect of religiosity on sexual

satisfaction with all controls inserted. Age, race, education, income,

relationship length, sexual orientation, number of children, and mar-

ital status were used as controls in these models. Finally, we inserted

sexual sanctification, and sexual guilt as variables between religiosity

and sexual satisfaction and conducted 5,000 bootstraps to obtain

results for indirect effects (see Figure 1 for the hypothesized model).

All analyses were conducted in MPlus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén,

1998 –2012).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Gender MANOVA. Gender differences were explored for all

the variables. A MANOVA revealed an overall significant gender

difference: Wilks ␭⫽.866, F(26, 3204) ⫽ 9.16, p ⬍ .001, partial

eta-square ⫽ .07. Levene’s test suggested that homogeneity of vari-

ance was violated for income (p ⬍ .001), sexual orientation (p ⬍

.001), and sexual guilt (p ⬍ .001). Accordingly, group comparisons

between men and women for variables where Levene’s test was

significant should be interpreted with caution. Table 2 shows means,

standard deviations, and F values for each variable.

In addition to our primary analyses where we controlled for marital

status, we conducted supplementary analyses to assess whether all findings

were consistent across unmarried and married individuals. For this partic-

ular sample there were no differences in findings for our constructs of

interest for those that were married as opposed to those who were unmar-

ried (results available on request).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables

Variable M or % SD Range

Age 34.47 9.36 18–80

Relationship length 98.81 89.29 24–660

Gender

Men 37.4%

Women 62.6%

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual 85.0%

Sexual minority 15.0%

Race

White 77.9%

Asian 4.7%

African 6.5%

Latino 6.2%

Mixed/biracial 3.6%

Native American .6%

Other .6%

Relationship status

Married 55.6%

Cohabiting 27.1%

Dating, never married 13.4%

Other 3.9%

Education

High school or less 10.0%

Some college 41.7%

4-year degree 33.4%

Advanced 14.8%

Income

None 6.5%

Under $20,000 18.2%

$20,000–39,999 25.7%

$40,000–59,999 22.6%

$60,000–79,999 13.2%

$80,000⫹ 13.6%

Religious affiliation

Christian 48.7%

Atheist 9.1%

Agnostic 13.2%

No affiliation 19.5%

Other 9.5%

Number of children

0 44.6%

1 19.8%

2 21.0%

3⫹ 14.6%

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

216

LEONHARDT, BUSBY, AND WILLOUGHBY

Bivariate associations. We then assessed the bivariate asso-

ciations between the variables of interest for each gender. For

parsimony, we do not report here all the significant correlations

(see Table 3 for full results), but we note some of the most

important findings. As expected, religiosity was associated with

higher sexual sanctification (men: r ⫽ .50, p ⬍ .001; women: r ⫽

.34, p ⬍ .001). However, religiosity was not related to sexual guilt

(men: r ⫽ .03, p ⫽ .45; women: r ⫽ .04, p ⫽ .18), or sexual

satisfaction (men: r ⫽ .07, p ⫽ .08; women: r ⫽⫺.01, p ⫽ .79).

However, sexual sanctification was positively associated with sex-

ual satisfaction (men: r ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .001; women: r ⫽ .45, p ⬍

.001) and sexual guilt was negatively associated with sexual sat-

isfaction (men: r ⫽⫺.39, p ⬍ .001; women: r ⫽⫺.35, p ⬍ .001).

Also of interest, sexual guilt and sexual sanctification only had a

small (men: r ⫽⫺.11, p ⬍ .01) to moderate (women: r ⫽⫺.20,

p ⬍ .001) negative correlation.

Measurement invariance. We found that the sexual sanctifi-

cation measure failed to meet the assumption for strong invariance:

␹

difference(10) ⫽ 44.896, p ⬍ .001, suggesting that the con

struct does not meet the necessary conditions for direct comparison

between men and women (Dyer, 2015; Little, 2013). Considering

the (a) violation of Levene’s test for sexual guilt, (b) lack of

measurement invariance for sexual sanctification, and (c) previous

empirical and conceptual work suggesting differences between

men and women in the domain of sexuality (Emmers-Sommer et

al., 2018; Leonhardt & Willoughby, 2017; McClelland, 2010;

Petersen & Hyde, 2010), we decided that it would be more appro-

priate to estimate separate models for each gender rather than

making direct comparisons through a multigroup model.

Structural Equation Models

Measurement models. Both final measurement models fit the

data adequately (men: ␹

[143] ⫽ 580.44, CFI ⫽ .96, p ⬍ .001,

RMSEA ⫽ .07, SRMR ⫽ .06; women: ␹

[138] ⫽ 841.30, p ⬍

.001, CFI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .07, SRMR ⫽ .06). All factor

loadings were above .47 for both men and women.

Nonindirect effects structural equation models. The models

had good fit (men: ␹

[82] ⫽ 194.25, p ⬍ .01 CFI ⫽ .98,

RMSEA ⫽ .05, SRMR ⫽ .03; women: ␹

[82] ⫽ 254.87, p ⬍ .001,

CFI ⫽ .98, RMSEA ⫽ .05, SRMR ⫽ .02). For men, religiosity

was positively associated with sexual satisfaction (␤⫽.13, p ⬍

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Gender Differences of Control, Independent, and Dependent Variables

Variable

Men Women

Response rangeM SD M SD F

Age 36.17 10.91 33.47 10.34 18–80 24.69

ⴱⴱⴱ

White .79 .41 .78 .42 0–1 .21

Education 4.40 1.38 4.06 1.25 1–7 25.74

ⴱⴱⴱ

Income 4.33 2.02 3.42 1.60 1–12 100.47

ⴱⴱⴱ

Relationship length (months) 102.31 89.45 96.86 89.48 24–660 1.4

Number of children 1.06 1.29 1.23 1.89 1–7 3.94

ⴱ

Heterosexual .90 .31 .83 .38 0–1 14.22

ⴱⴱⴱ

Married .57 .50 .55 .50 0–1 .51

Religiosity 2.72 1.30 2.84 1.25 1–5 3.45

Sexual guilt 1.95 1.19 2.19 1.34 1–5 12.63

ⴱⴱⴱ

Sexual sanctification 4.01 1.67 4.01 1.67 1–7 .01

Sexual satisfaction 5.68 1.40 5.76 1.40 1–7 1.23

ⴱ

p ⬍ .05.

ⴱⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .001.

Table 3

Bivariate Correlations Between Control Variables, Independent Variables, and Outcome Variables

Variable 123456789101112

1. Age — .11

ⴱⴱⴱ

.06 .20

ⴱⴱⴱ

.58

ⴱⴱⴱ

.27

ⴱⴱⴱ

.14

ⴱⴱⴱ

.22

ⴱⴱⴱ

.22

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.09

ⴱⴱ

⫺.02 ⫺.14

ⴱⴱⴱ

2. White .15

ⴱⴱⴱ

— .04 .04 .11

ⴱⴱⴱ

.03 — — ⫺.09

ⴱⴱ

.00 ⫺.05 .03

3. Education .18

ⴱⴱⴱ

.05 — .24

ⴱⴱⴱ

.01 ⫺.09

ⴱ

.03 .07

ⴱ

.00 .02 ⫺.11

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.04

4. Income .23

ⴱⴱⴱ

.05 .38

ⴱⴱⴱ

— .13

ⴱⴱⴱ

.02 .06 .15

ⴱⴱⴱ

.07

ⴱ

.04 .05 .01

5. Relationship length .59

ⴱⴱⴱ

.13

ⴱⴱ

.15

ⴱⴱⴱ

.22

ⴱⴱⴱ

— .22

ⴱⴱⴱ

.11

ⴱⴱⴱ

.43

ⴱⴱⴱ

.17

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.02 ⫺.01 ⫺.08

ⴱⴱ

6. Number of children .40

ⴱⴱⴱ

.07 .05 .21

ⴱⴱⴱ

.43

ⴱⴱⴱ

— .11

ⴱⴱⴱ

.17

ⴱⴱⴱ

.21

ⴱⴱ

.03 .05 ⫺.06

7. Heterosexual .09

ⴱ

— .04 .11

ⴱⴱ

.14

ⴱⴱⴱ

.09

ⴱ

— .25

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.05 .06

ⴱ

⫺.03

8. Married .37

ⴱⴱⴱ

— .23

ⴱⴱⴱ

.33

ⴱⴱⴱ

.50

ⴱⴱⴱ

.41

ⴱⴱⴱ

— — .15

ⴱⴱⴱ

.06 .00 ⫺.05

9. Religiosity .22

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.13

ⴱⴱ

.13

ⴱⴱ

.15

ⴱⴱⴱ

.19

ⴱⴱⴱ

.28

ⴱⴱⴱ

.12

ⴱⴱ

.21

ⴱⴱⴱ

— .04 .34

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.01

10. Sexual guilt .05 .01 .04 ⫺.06 .02 .04 ⫺.09

ⴱ

.01 .03 — ⫺.20

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.35

ⴱⴱⴱ

11. Sexual sanctification .06 ⫺.12

ⴱⴱ

.01 .05 .05 .14

ⴱⴱⴱ

.12

ⴱⴱ

.09

ⴱ

.49

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.11

ⴱⴱ

— .45

ⴱⴱⴱ

12. Sexual satisfaction ⫺.16

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.10

ⴱ

⫺.05 ⫺.02 ⫺.14

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.11

ⴱⴱ

.04 ⫺.14

ⴱⴱ

.07 ⫺.39

ⴱⴱⴱ

.37

ⴱⴱⴱ

—

Note. Men’s correlations are below the diagonal. Women’s correlations are above the diagonal. Correlations between two dichotomous variables are

precluded.

ⴱ

p ⬍ .05.

ⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .01.

ⴱⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .001.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

217

GUILT OR SANCTIFICATION

.01). Of the control variables, age was negatively associated with

sexual satisfaction (␤⫽⫺12, p ⫽ .02). For women, religiosity

was not associated with sexual satisfaction (␤⫽.05, p ⫽ .20). Of

the control variables, age (␤⫽⫺14, p ⬍ .01), was negatively

associated with sexual satisfaction. The models predicted a small

amount of the variance of sexual satisfaction for both men (R

⫽

.06) and women (R

⫽ .03).

Indirect effects model for men. The model had adequate fit

(␹

[287] ⫽ 814.45, p ⬍ .001 CFI ⫽ .96, RMSEA ⫽ .06, SRMR ⫽

.05), and predicted small variance for sexual guilt (R

⫽ .02), and

moderate variance for sexual sanctification (R

⫽ .31) and sexual

satisfaction (R

⫽ .29). Sexual sanctification was positively associ

ated with sexual satisfaction (␤⫽.35, p ⬍ .001), and sexual guilt was

negatively associated with sexual satisfaction (␤⫽⫺.35, p ⬍ .001).

Model 1a in Table 4 lists all other direct effects.

Religiosity had a significant total effect on sexual satisfaction (␤⫽

.13, p ⫽ .03, 95% CI [.06, .21]), and a significant indirect effect on

sexual satisfaction (␤⫽.18, p ⬍ .001, 95% CI [.12, .24]). Specifi-

cally, it had a positive indirect effect through sexual sanctification

(␤⫽.19, p ⬍ .001, 95% CI [.14, .25]). See Table 5 for full results of

indirect effects.

Indirect effects model for women. The model had adequate

fit, ␹

(287) ⫽ 1390.05, p ⬍ .001 CFI ⫽ .95, RMSEA ⫽ .06,

SRMR ⫽ .05, and predicted small variance for sexual guilt (R

⫽ .02)

and sexual sanctification (R

⫽ .17), and moderate variance for sexual

satisfaction (R

⫽ .29). Sexual sanctification was positively associ

ated with sexual satisfaction (␤⫽.40, p ⬍ .001), and sexual guilt was

negatively associated with sexual satisfaction (␤⫽⫺.29, p ⬍ .001).

Model 1b in Table 4 lists all other direct effects.

Interestingly, religiosity did not have a significant total effect on

sexual satisfaction (␤⫽.05, p ⫽ .19, 95% CI [–.01, .10]), but it did

have a positive indirect effect on sexual satisfaction (␤⫽.17, p ⬍

.001, 95% CI [.10, .18]). Specifically, it had a positive indirect effect

through sexual sanctification (␤⫽.16, p ⬍ .001, 95% CI [.13, .19]),

and a negative direct effect (␤⫽⫺.10, p ⬍ .01, 95% CI [–.15, ⫺.04])

independent of any mediator. See Table 5 for full results of indirect

effects.

Discussion

Consistent with previous research, our first hypothesis (H1) was

supported, as sexual guilt was negatively associated with sexual

-.105*

Sexual Guilt

Sexual

Satisfaction

Sexual

Sanctification

Religiosity

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of indirect effects. Model will control for age, race, education, income, sexual

orientation, number of children, relationship length, and marital status.

Table 4

Model of Direct Effects Predicting Sexual sanctification, Sexual guilt, and Sexual Satisfaction

Variable

Model 1a Model 1b

Men (␤) Women (␤)

Sexual

Sanctification

Sexual

Guilt

Sexual

Satisfaction

Sexual

Sanctification

Sexual

Guilt

Sexual

Satisfaction

Age ⫺.05 .06 ⫺.08 ⫺.10

ⴱ

⫺.12

ⴱⴱ

⫺.14

ⴱⴱⴱ

White ⫺.05 .00 ⫺.03 ⫺.01 .01 .06

ⴱ

Education ⫺.03 .07 ⫺.00 ⫺.12

ⴱⴱⴱ

.03 .01

Income .00 ⫺.10

ⴱ

⫺.02 .09

ⴱⴱ

⫺.05 ⫺.00

Relationship length ⫺.05 ⫺.01 ⫺.02 ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.01

Number of children .04 .03 ⫺.08 .02 ⫺.02 ⫺.04

Heterosexual .06 ⫺.09 ⫺.00 ⫺.01 ⫺.05 ⫺.03

Married .02 .01 ⫺.09

ⴱ

⫺.02 .08 .02

Religiosity .54

ⴱⴱⴱ

.03 ⫺.05 .40

ⴱⴱⴱ

.07 ⫺.10

ⴱⴱ

Sexual sanctification .35

ⴱⴱⴱ

.40

ⴱⴱⴱ

Sexual guilt ⫺.35

ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.29

ⴱⴱⴱ

.31 .02 .29 .17 .02 .29

Note. Model 1a: ␹

(287) ⫽ 814.45, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .96, RMSEA ⫽ .06, SRMR ⫽ .05; Model 1b: ␹

(287) ⫽

1390.05, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .95, RMSEA ⫽ .06, SRMR ⫽ .05.

ⴱ

p ⬍ .05.

ⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .01.

ⴱⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .001.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

218

LEONHARDT, BUSBY, AND WILLOUGHBY

satisfaction (Hackathorn et al., 2016; Higgins et al., 2010), and

sexual sanctification was positively associated with sexual satis-

faction (Hernandez et al., 2011; Hernandez-Kane & Mahoney,

2018). This follows the logic of previous research, as the uncom-

fortable, inhibiting feelings of sexual guilt are likely to be con-

nected to greater difficulty enjoying a sexual experience. Alterna-

tively, the peace, transcendence, and divine meaning making of

sexual sanctification should be connected to more satisfying sexual

experience. Perhaps the most unique insight our study offers into

these findings is the clear distinction between and unique associ-

ations of sexual guilt and sexual sanctification. The two constructs

only had a small negative correlation between each other, and

independently had a moderate association with sexual satisfaction

in the full structural model. Perhaps future work in sexuality would

benefit from the simultaneous evaluation of positive and negative

sexual attitudes and meaning making with more in-depth mea-

sures.

Our second hypothesis (H2), that religiosity would be positively

associated with both sexual guilt and sexual sanctification, was

partially supported. Although religiosity was consistently associ-

ated with sexual sanctification for both men and women in both the

bivariate correlations and the structural equation model, the same

did not hold true for sexual guilt. Religiosity was not related to

sexual guilt for either gender in the bivariate correlations or

structural equation models. Holistically, these findings are encour-

aging for religious individuals, as they suggest the possibility of

religiosity instilling a positive message about sexuality (e.g., Her-

nandez et al., 2014; Lauer, 1985).

Despite no association between religiosity and sexual guilt in

this particular study, this does not suggest that researchers should

stop searching for better understanding of the connection between

religiosity and sexual guilt. It is worth noting that the link between

religiosity and sexual guilt seems more likely to exist in unmarried

college samples (Hackathorn et al., 2016). Considering we con-

trolled for relationship status and length, and they both had such

little predictive power in our final structural equation model,

perhaps the association between religiosity and sexual guilt is only

found when sexuality is occurring in a casual or uncommitted

relationship. In general, future research should consider potential

moderators between religiosity and sexual meaning making con-

structs, as there could be several factors that increase or decrease

the likelihood of religiosity shaping someone’s views of sexual

guilt or sexual sanctification.

Our third hypothesis (H3), that religiosity would have an indi-

rect effect on sexual satisfaction through sexual guilt and sexual

sanctification was partially supported, with some interesting gen-

dered nuances. The results for men were in line with our hypoth-

esis. In the model without sexual sanctification or sexual guilt,

men’s religiosity had a small, positive association with sexual

satisfaction. However, when both sexual guilt and sexual sancti-

fication were added to the model, the direct effect disappeared.

Interestingly, there was no indirect effect through sexual guilt,

suggesting that the association between religiosity and sexual

satisfaction only exists insofar as religiosity leads to sexual sanc-

tification. We interpret this result with caution, as multiple waves

of longitudinal data are needed to truly understand indirect effects.

However, for men, it appears that religiosity is only positively

related to sexual satisfaction insofar that men utilize their religious

experience to develop a sanctified view of sexuality. These results

support previous suggestions by scholars about the importance of

considering potential explanatory variables between religiosity and

sexual satisfaction to help clarify the associations (Hackathorn et

al., 2016; Hardy & Willoughby, 2017).

The results for women were more nuanced and perhaps provide

some of the clearest evidence for dualities pointed out in previous

research (Dollahite et al., 2018; Mahoney, 2010; Mahoney et al.,

2001). Interestingly, no association was found between religiosity

and sexual satisfaction in the model without sexual guilt or sexual

sanctification, but the indirect effects explored after adding sexual

guilt and sexual sanctification provide a complicated picture. Re-

ligiosity had a small, positive, indirect effect on sexual satisfaction

through sexual sanctification. Yet, with all these variables ac-

counted for simultaneously, religiosity also had a small negative

direct effect on sexual satisfaction, resulting in no association for

the total effect. This finding is somewhat similar to a previous

study showing that greater initial frequency of prayer significantly

predicted less sexual satisfaction longitudinally when simultane-

ously accounting for sanctification (Hernandez-Kane et al., 2018).

Overall, the association between religiosity and sexual satisfaction

for women is dualistic and complex. Although the negative asso-

ciation between religiosity and sexual satisfaction was not ac-

counted for with the sexual guilt item, religiosity seemed to be

connected to a conflicting influence on women’s sexual satisfac-

tion when controlling for sexual sanctification. The negative direct

effect from religiosity to sexual satisfaction after accounting for

sexual sanctification suggests there may be religious factors we

were unable to account for that negatively influence women’s

sexual satisfaction (Farley, 1976; Nicolson, 1993; Woo et al.,

2012).

Table 5

Model of Total, Indirect, and Direct Effects Predicting Sexual Sanctification, Sexual Guilt, and Sexual Satisfaction

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects

Model 1a Model 1b

Men Women

␤ SE CI ␤ SE CI

Religiosity¡Sexual Satisfaction (direct effect) ⫺.05 .05 [⫺.14, .04] ⫺.10

ⴱⴱ

.04 [⫺.15, ⫺.04]

Religiosity¡Sexual Sanctification¡Sexual Satisfaction .19

ⴱⴱⴱ

.03 [.14, .25] .16

ⴱⴱⴱ

.02 [.13, .19]

Religiosity¡Sexual Guilt¡Sexual Satisfaction ⫺.01 .02 [⫺.04, 02] ⫺.02 .01 [⫺.04, .00]

Religiosity¡Sexual Satisfaction (total indirect) .18

ⴱⴱⴱ

.04 [.12, 24] .14

ⴱⴱⴱ

.02 [.10, .18]

Religiosity¡Sexual Satisfaction (total effect) .13

ⴱⴱ

.05 [.06, .21] .05 .04 [⫺.01, .10]

ⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .01.

ⴱⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .001.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

219

GUILT OR SANCTIFICATION

Future research should consider potential explanatory variables

for this negative association for women. Perhaps inhibition sur-

rounding sexuality could be a unique mediator between religiosity

and sexual satisfaction, stemming from a message de-emphasizing

sexual expression (Freud, 1927/1961), sometimes more specifi-

cally gendered toward women (Farley, 1976; Nicolson, 1993). Or

perhaps religious women receive less comprehensive sexual edu-

cation, resulting in less knowledge of sexual anatomy and func-

tioning, leading to a less fulfilling sexual relationship. The com-

plicated nature of female sexual anatomy likely makes knowledge

of sexual functioning more crucial for women than men in having

a fulfilling sexual experience. Amid these speculations, it is im-

portant to keep in mind that this negative direct effect was only

found after accounting for sexual sanctification.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although our study had several strengths, such as advancing a

theory on religious dualities (Dollahite et al., 2018; Mahoney,

2010; Mahoney et al., 2001) a large national sample, and advanced

methodology for complex hypotheses, the study did have a number

of limitations. One limitation was the use of Mechanical Turk as a

sampling frame. Although we went through a lengthy process to

ensure the responses to the questionnaire were high in quality,

researchers should attempt to replicate these findings in a more

representative sample.

A second limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the study, as

it precludes causal or directional evidence. We are confident in the

theoretical reasoning suggesting that religiosity can influence at-

titudes and meaning surrounding sexuality (e.g., Emmers-Sommer

et al., 2018; Woo et al., 2012), which in turn can influence sexual

satisfaction (e.g., Hackathorn et al., 2016; Hardy & Willoughby,

2017; Hernandez et al., 2011). However, the possibility remains

for inverse associations. Perhaps feelings of sexual guilt could

result in someone turning to religiosity as an act of recompense.

Perhaps a sanctified experience with sexuality might lead someone

to search out religiosity to make better sense of their transcen-

dence. Some time periods that might be interesting to evaluate

longitudinally include the transition from unmarried to married, or

from childlessness to parenthood, as these adjustments may bring

dramatic life changes that alter one’s views of the relationship, as

well as sexuality within the relationship.

Limitations also existed with measurement. Sexual sanctifica-

tion was assessed with only a nontheistic Sacred Qualities of

Sexuality subscale, rather than as part of the whole sanctification

measure that includes the Manifestation of God subscale (Hernan-

dez et al., 2011). Furthermore, the subscale was revised to be more

inclusive of nonmarried individuals, making it difficult to assess

the extent these results are directly comparable to other studies

(e.g., Hernandez et al., 2011; Hernandez-Kane & Mahoney, 2018)

on sexual sanctification, specifically in marital relationships. How-

ever, this approach has been utilized before by broadening a

marital sanctification measure to a relationship sanctification mea-

sure (Fincham et al., 2010). Perhaps additional studies can further

explore how some of these subscales might play out differently in

marriage versus other committed relationships. It is interesting to

note that many committed couples, who are not married, view their

sexual unions through a sacred lens, despite organized religions

teaching that sacred sex should be reserved for marriage (Hernan-

dez et al., 2014). Perhaps a better understanding of how sanctifi-

cation plays out differently across married individuals and highly

committed unmarried individuals could be nuanced by the mean-

ing individuals attach to marriage itself (Willoughby & James,

2017).

Sexual guilt was assessed with one item, leaving us unable to

fully account for the reliability and validity of the construct (De-

Vellis, 1991). An additional concern with the item is that it asked

about whether someone experienced sexual guilt or anxiety. This

ambiguity in measurement is certainly a limitation, as guilt and

anxiety are not necessarily the same thing. Future researchers

should use a full scale for the construct to ensure the validity of

these results. It would be beneficial for scholars to further inves-

tigate this matter with a more sophisticated measurement of sexual

guilt (perhaps the Moser Sex-Guilt Scale; Janda & Bazemore,

2011) separate from sexual anxiety to tease out these nuances with

greater depth and clarity. Overall, these measurement limitations,

particularly the one item for sexual guilt, preclude clear conclu-

sions, and mark a beginning point for investigating the dualities of

religiosity.

Other interesting future directions might be to assess how this

positive and negative meaning making surrounding sexuality

might exist simultaneously. For example, someone may experi-

ence a unique conflict if she or he received mixed messages about

the positive and negative nature of sexuality from religious leaders

(e.g., sexuality is a necessary evil for the good of procreation).

More fully exploring the influence of both positive and negative

effects may help to fully understand the recent theoretical asser-

tions on religious dualities (Dollahite et al., 2018; Hernandez et al.,

2014; Mahoney, 2010). It would also be beneficial to assess other

dimensions of sexuality, such as sexual frequency and sexual

intimacy. Although this study included sexual orientation as a

control, it could be interesting to delve more deeply into sexual

orientation differences on this topic, as some religions prohibit

nonheterosexual sexual relations (Hernandez et al., 2014). It would

also be beneficial to more fully consider the multifaceted nature of

religiosity, evaluating beliefs, practices, and communities, as well

as assessing whether any differences are found amid different

religious affiliations (e.g., Dollahite et al., 2004; Hardy & Wil-

loughby, 2017).

Conclusion

We have highlighted the complication and duality between

religiosity and sexuality. Although the study provides some en-

couraging results for religious individuals by showing religiosity’s

potential to positively influence sexual satisfaction through sexual

sanctification (particularly for men), the encouraging finding is

blunted with the inconsistent positive and negative connection

between religiosity and sexual satisfaction for women. Researchers

and clinicians should be wary of religiosity’s potential for harm in

the sexual domain. Religious teachings can include a negative,

sometimes even intensely negative messages about sexuality (e.g.,

Boulder, 1998; Schnarch, 1991) that can be guilt inducing (e.g.,

Emmers-Sommer et al., 2018; Hackathorn et al., 2016) and in

extreme cases even crippling to a sexual relationship (Ley, 2017).

However, all should be equally aware of religion’s potential for

good in the sexual domain, as a sanctified sexual experience can be

a conduit for transcendence, bliss, peace, and even healing for

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

220

LEONHARDT, BUSBY, AND WILLOUGHBY

committed couples (Hernandez et al., 2011; Kleinplatz et al.,

2009).

References

Abbott, D. M., Harris, J. E., & Mollen, D. (2016). The impact of religious

commitment on women’s sexual self-esteem. Sexuality & Culture, 20,

1063–1082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9374-x

Ahrold, T. K., & Meston, C. M. (2010). Ethnic differences in sexual

attitudes of U.S. college students: Gender, acculturation, and religiosity

factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 190–202. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1007/s10508-008-9406-1

Ashdown, B. K., Hackathorn, J., & Clark, E. M. (2011). In and out of the

bedroom: Sexual satisfaction in the marital relationship. Journal of

Integrated Social Sciences, 2, 40–57.

Bartkowski, J. (2001). Remaking the godly marriage. New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press.

Boulder, M. (Trans). (1998). Confessions: St. Augustine. New York, NY:

Vintage Books.

Brelsford, G. M. (2013). Sanctification and spiritual disclosure in parent-

child relationships: Implications for family relationship quality. Journal

of Family Psychology, 27, 639 – 649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a00

33424

Buss, D. M. (2002). Sex, marriage, and religion: What adaptive problems

do religious phenomena solve? Psychological Inquiry, 13, 201–203.

Christopher, F. S., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Sexuality in marriage, dating,

and other relationships: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 62, 999 –1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000

.00999.x

Cowden, C. R., & Bradshaw, S. D. (2007). Religiosity and sexual concerns.

International Journal of Sexual Health, 19, 15–24. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1300/J514v19n01_03

Davidson, J. K., Moore, N. B., & Ullstrup, K. M. (2004). Religiosity and

sexual responsibility: Relationships of choice. American Journal of

Health Behavior, 28, 335–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.28.4.5

Delamater, J. (1981). The social control of sexuality. Annual Review of

Sociology, 7, 263–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.07.080181

.001403

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.

Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Dalton, H. (2018). How religion helps

and harms families: A conceptual model of a system of dualities at the

nexus of faith and family life. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10,

219 –241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12242

Dollahite, D. C., Marks, L. D., & Goodman, M. (2004). Families and

religious beliefs, practices, and communities: Linkages in a diverse and

dynamic cultural context. In M. J. Coleman & L. H. Ganong (Eds.), The

handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past contemplating

the future (pp. 411– 431). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/

10.4135/9781412976022.n24

Dyer, W. J. (2015). The vital role of measurement equivalence in family

research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 7, 415– 431. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1111/jftr.12115

Ellison, C. G., Henderson, A. K., Glenn, N. D., & Harkrider, K. E. (2011).

Sanctification, stress, and marital quality. Family Relations, 60, 404–

420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00658.x

Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Allen, M., Schoenbauer, K. V., & Burrell, N.

(2018). Implications of sex guilt: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family

Review, 54, 417– 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2017

.1359815

Farley, M. A. (1976). Sources of sexual inequality in the history of

Christian thought. The Journal of Religion, 56, 162–176. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1086/486481

Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2014). I say a little prayer for you:

Praying for partner increases commitment in romantic relationships.

Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 587–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

a0034999

Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R. H., Lambert, N., Stillman, T., & Braithwaite,

S. (2008). Spiritual behaviors and relationship satisfaction: A critical

analysis of the role of prayer. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,

27, 362–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.4.362

Fincham, F. D., Lambert, N. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Faith and

unfaithfulness: Can praying for your partner reduce infidelity? Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 649– 659. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/a0019628

Freud, S. (1961). The future of an illusion. New York, NY: Norton.

(Original work published 1927)

Hackathorn, J. M., Ashdown, B. K., & Rife, S. C. (2016). The sacred bed:

Sex guilt mediates religiosity and satisfaction for unmarried people.

Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 20, 153–172.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9315-0

Hardy, S. A., & Willoughby, B. J. (2017). Religiosity and chastity among

single young adults and married adults. Psychology of Religion and

Spirituality, 9, 285–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000112

Hernandez, K. M., Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2011). Sanctification

of sexuality: Implications for newlyweds’ marital and sexual quality.

Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 775–780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

a0025103

Hernandez, K. M., Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2014). Sexuality and

religion. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of

psychology and sexuality: Vol. 2: Contextual approaches (pp. 425– 447).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/14194-013

Hernandez-Kane, K. M., & Mahoney, A. (2018). Sex through a sacred lens:

Longitudinal effects of sanctification of marital sexuality. Journal of

Family Psychology, 32, 425– 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

fam0000392

Higgins, J. A., Trussell, J., Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2010).

Virginity lost, satisfaction gained? Physiological and psychological sex-

ual satisfaction at heterosexual debut. Journal of Sex Research, 47,

384 –394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224491003774792

Homan, K. J., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2009). Body image in older adults: Links

with religion and gender. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 230 –238.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9069-8

Jacobson, H. L., Hall, M. E. L., & Anderson, T. L. (2013). Theology and

the body: Sanctification and bodily experiences. Psychology of Religion

and Spirituality, 5, 41–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028042

Janda, L. H., & Bazemore, S. D. (2011). The Revised Mosher Sex-Guilt

Scale: Its psychometric properties and a proposed ten-item version.

Journal of Sex Research, 48, 392–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

00224499.2010.482216

Kleinplatz, P. J., Ménard, A. D., Paquet, M. P., Paradis, N., Campbell, M.,

Zuccarino, D., & Mehak, L. (2009). The components of optimal sexu-

ality: A portrait of “great sex”. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexu-

ality, 18(1/2), 1–13.

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-

eling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kusner, K. G., Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., & DeMaris, A. (2014).

Sanctification of marriage and spiritual intimacy predicting observed

marital interactions across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Fam-

ily Psychology, 28, 604 – 614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036989

Lambert, N. M., & Dollahite, D. C. (2008). The threefold cord: Marital

commitment in religious couples. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 592–

614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07308395

Lauer, E. F. (1985). The holiness of marriage: Some new perspectives from

recent sacramental theology. Studies in Formative Spirituality, 6, 215–

226.

Lawrance, K., & Byers, E. S. (1995). Sexual satisfaction in long-term

heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

221

GUILT OR SANCTIFICATION

satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 2, 267–285. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00092.x

Leonhardt, N. D., & Willoughby, B. J. (2017). Pornography, provocative

sexual media, and their differing associations with multiple aspects of

sexual satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Ad-

vance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407517739162

Lewis, R. J., & Janda, L. H. (1988). The relationship between adult sexual

adjustment and childhood experiences regarding exposure to nudity,

sleeping in the parental bed, and parental attitudes toward sexuality.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 349 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

BF01541812

Ley, D. J. (2017, August). Overcoming religious sexual shame. Psychology

Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-

who-stray/201708/overcoming-religious-sexual-shame

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York,

NY: Guilford Press.

Luquis, R. R., Brelsford, G. M., & Rojas-Guyler, L. (2012). Religiosity,

spirituality, sexual attitudes, and sexual behaviors among college stu-

dents. Journal of Religion and Health, 51, 601–614. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1007/s10943-011-9527-z

Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families 1999 to 2009: A relational

spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 805–

827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00732.x

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001).

Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review

and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parent-

ing. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 559 –596. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/0893-3200.15.4.559

Mark, K. P. K., Herbenick, D., Fortenberry, J. D., Sanders, S., & Reece, M.

(2014). A psychometric comparison of three scales and a single-item

measure to assess sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, 51,

159 –169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.816261

McClelland, S. I. (2010). Intimate justice: A critical analysis of sexual

satisfaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 663–680.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00293.x

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood, 2nd ed.:

Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Miracle, T. S., Miracle, A. W., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Human

sexuality: Meeting your basic needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Murray, K. M., Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Murray-Swank, N. A. (2007). Spiri-

tuality, religiosity, shame and guilt as predictors of sexual attitudes and

experiences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 35, 222–234. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/009164710703500305

Murray-Swank, N. A., Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2005). At the

crossroads of sexuality and spirituality: The sanctification of sex by

college students. The International Journal for the Psychology of Reli-

gion, 15, 199–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1503_2

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). MPlus user’s guide (7th

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Nicolson, P. (1993). Deconstructing sexology: Understanding the patholo-

gisation of female sexuality. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psy-

chology, 11, 191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02646839308403218

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29

Olson, J. R., Marshall, J. P., Goddard, H. W., & Schramm, D. G. (2015).

Shared religious beliefs, prayer, and forgiveness as predictors of marital

satisfaction. Family Relations, 64, 519 –533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

fare.12129

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments

on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5,

411–

419.

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

research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I., Oman, D., Pomerleau, J., & Mahoney, A. (2017). Some

contributions of a psychological approach to the study of the sacred.

Religion, 47, 718 –744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2017

.1333205

Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on

gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136,

21–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017504

Peterson, J. A. (1964). Education for marriage (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Scribner.

Runkel, G. (1998). Sexual morality of Christianity. Journal of Sex &

Marital Therapy, 24, 103–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926239

808404924

Schnarch, D. M. (1991). Constructing the sexual crucible: An integration

of sexual and marital therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton Company.

Sigalow, E., & Fox, N. S. (2014). Perpetuating stereotypes: A study of

gender, family, and religious life in Jewish children’s books. Journal for

the Scientific Study of Religion, 53, 416 – 431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

jssr.12112

Simonic, B., Mandelj, T. R., & Novsak, R. (2013). Religious-related abuse

in the family. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 339 –349. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9508-y

Stotland, N. L. (2000). Tug-of-war: Domestic abuse and the misuse of

religion. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 696 –702. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.5.696

Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Cooperation and contagion in web-based,

networked public goods experiments. PLoS ONE, 8356(3), e16836.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016836

Turner, T. E., Fox, N. J., & Kiser, J. D. (2007). Uniting spirituality and

sexual counseling: Semitic traditions. The Family Journal, 15, 294 –297.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480707301615

Weyand, C., O’Laughlin, L., & Bennett, P. (2013). Dimensions of reli-

giousness that influence parenting. Psychology of Religion and Spiritu-

ality, 5, 182–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030627

Willoughby, B. J., & James, S. L. (2017). The marriage paradox: Why

emerging adults love marriage yet push it aside. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190296650

.001.0001

Woo, J. S. T., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2011). The role of sex guilt

in the relationship between culture and women’s sexual desire. Archives

of Sexual Behavior, 40, 385–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-

9609-0

Woo, J. S. T., Morshedian, N., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2012). Sex

guilt mediates the relationship between religiosity and sexual desire in

East Asian and Euro-Canadian college-aged women. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 41, 1485–1495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9918-6

Young, M., Denny, G., Luquis, R. R., & Young, T. (1998). Correlates of

sexual satisfaction in marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexu-

ality, 7, 115–127.

Received February 21, 2018

Revision received October 23, 2018

Accepted November 8, 2018 䡲

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

222

LEONHARDT, BUSBY, AND WILLOUGHBY