Understanding the Relationship between Religiosity and Marital Commitment to Marital Stability: An Investigation on Indonesian Female Journalists
Faculty of Psychology, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Banten 15412, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2021, 12(4), 242; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040242
Submission received: 31 December 2020
/
Revised: 20 March 2021
/
Accepted: 24 March 2021
/
Published: 29 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research with the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS))
Abstract
:The complete understanding of marital stability is hindered by limitations of theory and method, especially investigation on female journalists. The purpose of the current study was to test the effect of religiosity and marital commitment on the marital stability, by assessing Indonesian female journalists. This research used a quantitative approach with multiple regression analysis methods. The sample of this study involved 200 married female journalists residing in Jakarta and were taken using non-probability sampling techniques, specifically purposive sampling. The measurements used in this study were adaptations of the (1) Marital Stability Scale; (2) Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS-15); and (3) Inventory of Marital Commitments. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the validity of each scale. The results of the F-test showed a p-value = 0.000 (significant), and a total variance explained (R2 value) of 0.224. This finding indicated that religiosity and marital commitment have a significant effect on marital stability (sig < 0.05). The direction of the coefficient regression of the religiosity variable and marital commitment is positive, indicating that the higher the religiosity and marital commitment, the higher the marital stability.
1. Introduction
Prior to the 21st century, changes in the modern era revolutionized the social roles of both males and females. According to Livingston and Judge (2008), historically, the realms of work and household have been gendered, whereby men dominate in workplaces and women dominate in nurturing the lives of families and fulfilling household’s chores. However, nowadays many women take parts in the male role, namely working and earning a living for the family. The data from the BPS (Indonesian Central Statistic Agency) (2019) in Indonesia for the last four years show the number of working women in Jakarta has increased from year by year, resulting in common encounters with working wives. This shows the increasing contribution of wives in workplaces in Jakarta who are actively working for the family from year to year. According to Duffy and Atwater (2007), work may result in conflict between husband and wife, consequently reducing harmony and stability of the marriage.
One of the difficulties for a female journalist is to divide her efforts in the workplace and at home. According to Mallat and Melki (2016) in their qualitative interview, female journalists tend to see marriage and motherhood as obstacles for their career. There are many obstacles experienced by female journalists who are married, triggering conflicts between roles, both at work and in household life. According to a pilot study conducted by researchers, 63.6% of female journalists felt burdened by their work and 54.5% of female journalists felt that being a journalist adds to the stress of life. Other data also state that 59.1% of female journalists find it difficult to manage their time working as a journalist and being a wife at home. This difficulties may increase the risk of divorce (Becker et al. 1977; Cooke and Gash 2010). The consequences of separation and divorce can be severe. Research indicates that individuals who are separated from their spouses or divorced experience greater rates of psychopathology, physical illness, suicide, homicide, violence, and mortality from disease (Carrere et al. 2000). In light of this risk, identifying the factors that help marriages survive has important implications. Furthermore, understanding the factors that influence marital stability will help build a theory of marital stability. This was the objective of the present study.
1.1. Marital Stability
Marital stability is operationalized as a set of behaviors shown by individuals when interacting with their partners that influence the sustainability of marital relationship. Buehlman and Gottman (in Carrere et al. 2000) defines marital stability as the frequency of fondness/affection, we-ness, expansiveness, negativity, disappointment-disillusionment, chaos, and volatility. Meanwhile, marital instability is the tendency for a couple to go their separate ways, even though divorce may not be the final decision (Booth et al. 1983). According to Nye et al. (1973), the terms marital stability and marital instability are two opposite sides of the same coin. In other words, the terms marital stability and marital instability actually measure the same thing. Nye et al. (1973) added that the things that increase stability will conversely reduce instability and vice versa.
Suleyiman and Zewdu (2018) argued that there are no plans for divorce in a stable marriage. In contrast, marital instability is the tendency to divorce one’s spouse determined by the presence of thoughts or actions leading to separation in marriage. Therefore, a stable marriage is where the partners enjoy a healthy relationship; one where the partner is a source of emotional support, friendship, sexual satisfaction, and financial support for one another. Moreover, Suleyiman and Zewdu (2018) explained that several studies examine the effects of socio-demographic variables on marital stability. These studies report that gender (Jose and Alfons 2007), number of years in marriage (Carstensen et al. 1996), educational status (Johnson and Booth 1990), and age (Delkhamoush 2009) have a statistically significant average effect on marital stability between spouses.
1.2. Work-household Spill-over Effects
Cherlin (in Cooke and Gash 2010) argued that wives with independent income are less motivated to solve problems in a marriage. This perspective resulted in what became known as the independence hypothesis, in which the work of a wife is thought to increase the risk of divorce (Becker et al. 1977). This greatly affects the marital stability in the household life of married couples. Wives with independent finance will feel less obliged to solve problems in their household due to the beliefs that they will still live well even without their husbands.
Cooke and Gash (2010) also found the effects of wives’ employment on marital stability vary across the countries. In West Germany with its high-quality part-time employment, couples where the wife works part time are significantly more stable. In the more liberal British and US labor markets, neither wives’ part- nor full-time employment significantly alters divorce risk. In the United States, however, mothers working part time have significantly lower divorce risk. West German and British husbands’ unemployment proves more detrimental to marital stability than wives’ employment. These results highlight the importance of the socioeconomic context in structuring the optimal employment participation of both partners.
1.3. Marital Commitment
Marriage is certainly associated with commitment. According to Adams and Jones (1997), marital commitment is one of the important variables in understanding marital stability. Marital commitment is a variable that has a big role in explaining marital stability (Gunter 2004). Marital commitment refers to a decision to maintain the current marriage relationship (Surra et al. 1999). According to Johnson et al. (1999), marital commitment cannot be seen as a single unit, but rather consists of three different types of commitment experiences: Personal commitment, structural commitment, and moral commitment. He argues that each type of commitment performs according to its own function, thus commitment cannot be reviewed as a whole.
According to Swensen and Trahaug (1985), a high level of commitment to a person is associated with a smaller number of marriage problems. This creates more conducive conditions for marriage survivability. Therefore, commitment is said to be the main reason for the predictor of marital stability (Lauer and Lauer 1986). There is also research on marital commitment and marital stability in individuals with high religiosity.
1.4. Religiosity
Another factor that might affect marital stability is religiosity. Indonesia is well known as the biggest Muslim population in the world. For Muslims, religiosity is usually a guidance in problem solving when facing difficult situations and stressful situations. Regarding marital life, when individuals are able to manage themselves in stressful marital situations, their marriages tend to become more stable than individuals who do not have the ability to manage themselves in stressful situations (Ellison 1991). Moreover, Latifa and Amelia (2018) have found that commitment to Islamic values significantly predicts marital stability.
A study by Brown et al. (2008) found that there was a relationship between religiosity and marital stability in white Americans and black Americans. By using the theory of religiosity, it increases the ability to solve problems in difficult situations and stressful situations (Ellison 1991), such as when individuals are able to manage themselves in stressful situations, their marriages tend to be more stable than individuals with no ability to manage themselves in stressful situations.
Chinits and Brown (2001) mention that a high level of religiosity will reduce the level of conflict in marriage; in that regard, marital stability will also increase. Research conducted by Lambert and Dollahite (2006), shows that individual religiosity strengthens the desire to maintain a permanent relationship (in other words, affects marital commitment), which in turn helps couples in dealing with occurring conflicts. Sullivan (2001) found that with a high level of religiosity, the level of commitment will increase and marital instability will decrease (increased marital stability). Latifa and Amelia (2018) also found that commitment to religiosity (assessed via religious participation and religious belief), especially for Muslims, significantly predicts marital stability (R2 = 0.487). Involvement in religious activity can encourage individuals to survive and struggle successfully in difficult situations throughout their marriage life, resulting in a low desire to divorce.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher is interested in examining the influence of religiosity and marital commitment on marital stability in Indonesian female journalists. We questioned whether or not religiosity and marital commitment predict marital stability in Indonesian female journalists. The hypothesis assumes that higher religiosity and higher marital commitment may predict behaviors shown by an individual in the couple interactions and, in consequence, influence the longevity of marital relationship (defined as ‘marital stability’).
2. Method
2.1. Participants and Sampling Procedures
Participants of this research are 200 female journalists from Indonesia, who were recruited using non-random sampling procedures. Participants were identified through news agencies and journalist communities and registered as formal journalists from news agencies or television companies or online news agencies. The description of demography is listed below:
Based on Table 1, the participants’ average age is 25 years old, with a mean duration of marriage of around 7 years.
2.2. Measurement and Data Analysis
Researchers used the marital stability scale according to Buehlman, Gottman, and Katz interview guidance (this guidance then developed in a scale using Indonesian language by Latifa 2015), the religiosity scale adapted from Huber and Huber (2012), and the marital commitment adapted from Johnson et al. (1999). The validity construct of the variables: Religiosity, marital commitment, and marital stability were analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). We use MPlus 8.4 (Muthen&Muthen Los Angeles, CA, USA) software in analyzing the CFA and SPSS v 25 (IBM: New York, NY, USA) for test of hypothesis.
- a.
- Marital stability construct
The measurement of the marital stability scale developed by Latifa (2015) was used based on Buehlman et al.’s (1992) interview guidance, namely the frequency of fondness/affection, we-ness, expansiveness, negativity, disappointment-disillusionment, chaos, and volatility. The scale is a Likert scale with a range of four points, namely: 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Often, and 4 = Always. Latifa (2015) found that the marital stability construct is a one-factor model.
In the test of the construct validity of marital stability, using CFA analysis, the model fit criteria are the chi-square value > 0.05, p-value < 0.01, RMSEA < 0.05, CFI and TLI > 0.90.
- b.
- Religiosity construct
In this study, the religiosity scale was measured with the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS-15) (Huber and Huber 2012), which is based on a multidimensional and interreligious model of religiosity (Huber 2003). The CRS-15 has 15 items and consists of 5 dimensions, namely intellect, ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious experience, which are adapted to the Indonesian language. The translation procedure uses first-round back translation.
The response of this scale uses a Likert scale with a range of four points (the Indonesian adaptation scale usually hinders the center score, thus we use a four-point scale rather than a five-point scale). The modification of responses are for item numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 (response modification: 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Often, and 4 = Always), item number 2 and 7 (response modification: into 1 = Absolutely disbelief, 2 = Do not believe, 3 = Believe, and 4 = Strongly believes), item number 6 (response modification: 1 = Very disinterested, 2 = Not interested, 3 = Interested, and 4 = Very interested), item number 8, 9, and 13 (response modification: 1 = Very unimportant, 2 = Not important, 3 = Urgent, and 4 = Very important), and item number 12 (response modification: 1 = Very impossible, 2 = Impossible, 3 = Maybe, and 4 = Very likely).
In the test of the construct validity of religiosity, we use a multiple-factor model of analysis. Using CFA analysis, the model fit criteria are the chi-square value > 0.05, p-value < 0.01, RMSEA < 0.05, CFI and TLI > 0.90.
- c.
- Marital commitment construct
Marital commitment measured by the Marital Commitment Inventory questionnaire by Johnson et al. (1999). This Marital Commitment Inventory is to measure the personal commitment, moral commitment, and structural commitment that an individual has in his current marriage. The filling of this scale uses a Likert scale with a range of four points, namely: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree. The scale translation procedure uses first-round back translation.
In the test of the construct validity of marital commitment, we use a multiple-factor model of analysis. Using CFA analysis, the model fit criteria are the chi-square value > 0.05, p-value < 0.01, RMSEA < 0.05, CFI and TLI > 0.90.
3. Results
3.1. Scale Validation
3.1.1. Marital Stability Scale Validation Result
In the test of the construct validity of marital stability, using CFA analysis, the model did not fit with the chi-square value = 922.642, df = 377, p-value < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.085, so the model was modified until a fit model was obtained (RMSEA < 0.05). As seen in Table 2, after 4-times syntax modification, the chi-square value = 495.292, df = 337, p-value < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.048, CFI and TLI > 0.90, meaning that the model fit.
The following is the factor loading coefficient for marital stability items:
From Table 3, all 29 items from marital stability scale have a positive estimate (EST/SE: >1.96) and p-value < 0.05 and a positive loading factor coefficient, which means it is significant, so all items in the construct of marital stability meet the fit model criteria (RMSEA < 0.05 after modification) and can be included in the next analysis.
3.1.2. Religiosity Scale Validation Result
In the test of the construct validity of religiosity, we used a multiple-factor model of analysis. We tested the construct validation using CFA analysis. From the results of the CFA validity test using three models (first order, second order, and five correlated factors), it can be seen in Table 4 that the value of each index fit where the three models did not fit because the p-value < 0.01 and the RSMEA value > 0.05. However, from Table 4, it can be seen that the five-correlated-factor model has a better index than the other two models, namely the lowest RMSEA index (0.070), CFI (0.976), and TLI (0.968).
The next step is to make modifications to the five-correlated-factor model, where measurement errors on several items are freed to correlate with each other so that after five-times syntax modification, the following results (Table 5) are obtained.
From Table 5, we can see that after obtaining the RSMEA index value of 0.049 (<0.05), the CFI index of 0.989 (>0.090), and the TLI index of 0.984 (>0.090), it can be stated that the five-correlated-factor model is acceptable, meaning that the five dimensions of religiosity are independent but correlated with each other.
From the test results in Table 6 above, it shows that each factor has a strong and positive correlation with other factors. After finding a fit model, we then checked the estimation of each item to determine whether the item was valid or not. This test was done by looking at the z value for each coefficient, as shown in Table 7 below.
Based on Table 7, it can be seen that item number 12 was significant, but the item had a negative estimate (EST/SE: <1.96). Meanwhile the other 14 items had a positive estimate (EST/SE: >1.96), p-value < 0.05, and a positive loading factor coefficient, which means it was significant. The possibility of a negative score of item number 12 is probably because the statement of the item is less representative of the ‘Ideology’ dimension, especially for Muslims.
3.1.3. Marital Commitment Scale Validation Result
In the test of the construct validity of religiosity, we used a multiple-factor model of analysis. We tested the construct validation using CFA. From the results of the CFA validity test using three models (first order, second order, and three correlated factors), it can be seen from Table 8 that the value of each index fit where the three models did not fit because the p-value < 0.01 and the RSMEA value > 0.05. However, the 3-correlated-factor model had a better index than the other two models, namely the lowest RMSEA index (0.101), CFI (0.828), and TLI (0.819).
The next step was to make modifications to the three-correlated-factor model, where measurement errors on several items are freed to correlate with each other so that after 133-times syntax modification, the following results were obtained (Table 9):
After obtaining the RSMEA index value of 0.050 (<0.05), the CFI index of 0.964 (>0.090), and the TLI index of 0.955 (>0.090), it can be stated that the three-correlated-factor model is acceptable, meaning that the three dimensions of marital commitment are independent but correlated with each other.
From the test results in Table 10 above, it shows that each factor had a strong and positive correlation with other factors. After finding a fit model, we then checked the estimation of each item to determine whether the item was valid or not. This test was done by looking at the z value for each coefficient, as shown in Table 11 below.
Based on Table 11, it can be seen that there is one item that was not significant, namely item 26 with EST/SE < 1.96 and p-value > 0.05. This item was then eliminated and then the 41 other items had a positive estimate (EST/SE: >1.96) and p-value < 0.05 and a positive loading factor coefficient, which means they were significant. After eliminating item number 26, all items in the construct of marital commitment met the model criteria (RMSEA < 0.05 after modification) and could be included in the next analysis (test of hypothesis).
3.2. Test of Hypothesis
The hypothesis test was carried out to determine the effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable with multiple regression analysis techniques. First the researcher looked at the R Square magnitude to find out what percentage (%) the proportion of the variance of the dependent variable was explained by the independent variable, which can be seen in Table 12 as follows.
Based on Table 12, it can be seen that the R-Square is 0.224 or 22.4%. This means that the influence of variables of religiosity and marital commitment on marital stability explained 22.4%, while the remaining is influenced by other variables that cannot be explained this study.
In the second step, the researcher analyzed the effect of all independent variables religiosity and marital commitment) on the dependent variable (marital stability). The results of the F test can be seen in Table 13.
Based on the results of the F test in Table 13, it can be seen that the p value (sig.) is 0.000 or p = 0.0000 with a p value < 0.05. Thus, there is a significant effect of the independent variables on marital stability.
Table 14 explains that all independent variables had a significant effect on marital stability (sig. < 0.05). The direction of the coefficient regression of variable religiosity and marital commitment is positive, indicating that the higher the religiosity and marital commitment, the higher the marital stability.
Based on Table 15, it can be seen that the results of the F test (hypothesis test) was 50.248 with sig. 0.000 (sig. < 0.05), so the null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant effect between the variables religiosity and marital commitment to marital stability, is rejected. This means that there is a significant correlation between the religiosity variable and marital commitment on marital stability.
From Table 16, the regression coefficient value can be seen in the standardized coefficient column (betha). For marital commitment, the regression coefficient value is 0.431 and the significance is 0.000 (sig. < 0.05). This means that there is a significant effect of marital commitment to marital stability. The standardized coefficient (betha) is positive, meaning that the higher the marital commitment of female journalists, the higher their marital stability. The same thing applies to religiosity, whereby the regression coefficient is 0.147 with a significance of 0.022 (sig. > 0.05); this means that the null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant effect between the religiosity variable on marital stability, is rejected. The value of standardized coefficient (betha), which is positive, means that the higher the religiosity of female journalists, the higher the marital stability.
4. Discussion
Based on the results of the data analysis described in the results section, there is a significant effect of religiosity and marital commitment on marital stability. The results of the F test, which tested all independent variables on the dependent variable, showed a value of p = 0.000 (significant), and a total variance explained (R2 value) of 0.224 or 22.4%, meaning that 22.4% of the high or low marital stability is influenced by the independent variable in this study.
Table 16 explains that all independent variables have a significant effect on marital stability (sig. < 0.05). The religiosity variable and marital commitment have positive regression coefficients, indicating that the higher the religiosity and marital commitment, the higher the marital stability.
This study can be complementary to the studies by Brown et al. (2008), Chinits and Brown (2001), and Sullivan (2001), about the relationship between religiosity and marital stability. The theory of religiosity, defined by Huber and Huber (2012), describes religiosity as the thoughts and beliefs a person has in viewing the world, known as a personal construct system. The five dimensions, namely intellectual, ideology, public practice, private practice, and religious experience, may increase marital stability. Marital stability is a set of behaviors shown by an individual as the couple interacts and in consequence influence the longevity of marital relationship. When this set of behaviors is religious behavior, individuals (female journalists) will perceive the marriage as more stable.
As Muslims constituted the majority of the participants in this research (95%), Islamic religiosity values might contribute to marital stability. For Muslims, religiosity is usually a guidance in problem solving when facing difficult situations and stressful situations. When individuals are able to manage themselves in stressful situations, their marriages tend to become more stable than individuals who do not have the ability to manage themselves in stressful situations (Ellison 1991). Moreover, Latifa and Amelia (2018) found that commitment to Islamic values significantly predicts marital stability. Commitment to Islamic values are assessed via religious participation and religious beliefs. Involvement in religious activity can encourage individuals (‘shared-belief’ experience) to survive and struggle successfully in difficult situations throughout their marital life resulting in low desire to divorce. Participants who possess religious believe and implement the religious values in various activities had experienced relatively high increased functions of the family and stability of marriage. The commitment to the religious values does have an important role in shaping attitudes in marriage. The values are prioritized to avoid divorce when confronted by the difficult conditions in the household life.
With commitment on religious teachings, the individual also has the problem-solving ability in a difficult and stressful situation: Be patient and find a way to pray and avoid negative emotions. When individuals are able to manage themselves in a situation like this, it would be more likely to result in a more stable marriage than for individuals who do not have this capability. In addition, participation in religious activities as part of a religious commitment is found as a contributor to the marital stability. Religious activities as a social resource can help improve the welfare of marriage and improve the resilience during marriage life. Socializing with people who have the noble values and norms may lead to modelling behavior that can reflect on commending behaviors to family members at home.
Involvement in religious activities may foster the teaching of religious beliefs, so that individuals and couples have positive spirit to face any problems or pressures encountered throughout actual married life, and this principle has to be maintained while believing that there must be solutions to all problems. Whenever the individual participates in religious activities along with her/his partner, it tends to be more stable than someone who just attends alone while her partner never participates in religious activities. Behavioral differences between the individual and their partner can increase the risk of disunity in the marital relationship, for if the individuals are present as a couple, the solidarity may increase and can be a refrain from the distractions of the household, resulting in individuals and couples having developed views, and applying family values together in agreement.
Research conducted by Lambert and Dollahite (2006) shows that individual religiosity gives a desire to maintain a permanent relationship (in other words, affects marital commitment), which then helps couples in dealing with occurring conflicts. Chinits and Brown (2001) also mentioned, a high level of religiosity will reduce the level of conflict in marriage, so that marital stability will also increase. Sullivan (2001) found that with high level of religiosity, the level of commitment will increase and marital instability will decrease (increased marital stability).
The second variable that significantly predict marital stability in this study is marital commitment. Marital commitment using Johnson et al.’s (1999) theory is defined as a form of the couple’s conception of the future of their relationship and their motivation to continue the relationship. A high level of commitment is associated with a number of marital problems that the person can overcome. These conditions are more conducive to the marriage longevity. Therefore, commitment is said to be the main reason for the creation of marital stability (Lauer and Lauer 1986).
5. Conclusions and Outlook
The research findings give some implications for female journalists, stating that religiosity and marital commitment are the two things that may help marital stability, whereas marital stability can contribute to psychological well-being and their career development. As Suleyiman and Zewdu (2018) stated, a stable marriage is when the partner enjoys a healthy relationship; one where the partner is a source of emotional support, friendship, sexual satisfaction, and financial support for one another.
For future research, path analysis between religiosity and marital commitment to marital stability should be taken into account. Adding another variable that might give a bigger contribution to predict marital stability in female journalists is also a recommended procedure for future research. Another possibility is explicating the same variables for other professions that vulnerably influence marital stability, such as being a nurse, celebrity, or policewoman.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.L.; Data curation, S.S.; Formal analysis, R.L., S.S. and H.Y.; Methodology, R.L.; Project administration, S.S.; Software, H.Y.; Supervision, R.L.; Validation, R.L. and H.Y.; Writing—original draft, R.L. and S.S.; Writing—review & editing, R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. There are no anticipated risks associated with the study. Information of this study is anonymous, meaning that no names or identifying data will be collected. Survey data collected will be maintained and kept for research or educational purpose only.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge support given by Stefan Huber for the constructive feedback in this paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Marital Stability Scale
| Item | Indonesian Version | English Version |
| 1 | Melakukan aktivitas berdua pasangan | Doing activities both partners |
| 2 | Menceritakan aktivitas harian saya pada pasangan | Tell my partner about my daily activities |
| 3 | Merasakan adanya identitas ‘ke-kami-an’ | Feeling a ‘we-ness’ identity |
| 4 | Responsif/peduli pada perilaku/perkataan pasangan | Responsive/caring about the behavior/words of your partner |
| 5 | Merasa membutuhkan pasangan | Feeling the need for a partner |
| 6 | Banyak pencapaian yang telah diraih bersama pasangan selama menikah | Many achievements have been achieved with the couple during marriage |
| 7 | Merasa berhasil melalui masa-masa sulit dalam pernikahan | Feeling successful through difficult times in marriage |
| 8 | Mempersepsikan pernikahan kami akan semakin kuat setelah melalui masa-masa sulit | Perceiving our marriage will be even stronger after going through difficult times |
| 9 | Saya merasa mampu melewati masa-masa sulit bersama pasangan | I feel able to go through difficult times with my partner |
| 10 | Merasa tidak bahagia bersama pasangan | Feeling unhappy with your partner |
| 11 | Tidak menyadari hal apa yang membuat diri dapat tertarik pada pasangan | Not realizing what makes you attracted to your partner |
| 12 | Relasi dengan pasangan terasa renggang | Relationships with partners feel tenuous |
| 13 | Merasa pasangan adalah orang yang menyusahkan | Feeling a partner is a troublesome person |
| 14 | Menyerah atas situasi hubungan dengan pasangan | Give up on the situation with your partner |
| 15 | Merasa ingin bercerai saja | Just feel like divorcing |
| 16 | Pernikahan ini sudah tidak dapat diperbaiki lagi | This marriage is beyond repair |
| 17 | Merasa tidak percaya pada pasangan | Feeling distrustful of your partner |
| 18 | Merasa terlalu banyak masalah-masalah pernikahan yang terjadi | Feeling that there are too many marriage problems that occur |
| 19 | Merasa bahwa pasangan tidak dapat memahami diri saya sepenuhnya | Feeling that my partner cannot fully understand me |
| 20 | Merasa tidak dapat berkomunikasi secara intim dengan pasangan | Feeling unable to communicate intimately with your partner |
| 21 | Komunikasi terasa hambar dan seperlunya | Communication feels bland and necessary |
| 22 | Pasangan dirasa tidak mampu membuat prioritas keluarga | Couples feel unable to make family priorities |
| 23 | Berpikir untuk mengganti posisi pasangan dengan orang lain | Thinking of changing your partner’s position with someone else |
| 24 | Merasa pasangan tak mau mengubah dirinya untuk kebaikan | Feeling the partner does not want to change himself for good |
| 25 | Kepada pasangan saya pernah mengutarakan ingin bercerai | I once told my partner that I wanted a divorce |
| 26 | Pergi meninggalkan pasangan saat kami sedang bertengkar | Leave the couple when we are fighting |
| 27 | Sempat mengutarakan pada teman/keluarga saya tentang kemungkinan terjadi cerai antara saya dan pasangan | Had told my friends/family about the possibility of a divorce between me and my partner |
| 28 | Pisah ranjang dengan pasangan saat sedang bertengkar | Separate the bed with your partner when you are fighting |
| 29 | Sempat menghitung-hitung dan membedakan harta saya dan pasangan, untuk menjaga-jaga jika terjadi perceraian | Had to calculate and differentiate between me and my partner’s assets, in case of divorce |
Appendix A.2. Religiosity Scale
| Item | English Version | Indonesian Version |
| 1 | How often do you think about religious isssues? | Seberapa sering anda memikirkan isu yang berkaitan dengan agama? |
| 2 | To what extent do you believe that God or something divine exists? | Sejauh apa anda memercayai adanya Tuhan? |
| 3 | How often do you take part in religious service? | Seberapa sering anda berpartisipasi dalam kegiatan keagamaan? |
| 4 | How often do you pray? | Seberapa sering anda beribadah/berdo’a? |
| 5 | How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine intervenes in your life? | Seberapa sering anda merasa bahwa ada campur tangan Tuhan dalam kehidupan anda? |
| 6 | How interested are you in learning more about religious topics? | Seberapa tertarikah anda untuk mempelajari tentang topik—topik agama? |
| 7 | To what extend do you believe in an afterlife—e.g., immortality of the soul, resurrection of the dead or reincarnation? | Sejauh apa kamu mempercayai adanya kehidupan setelah kematian? |
| 8 | How important is to take part in religious services? | Seberapa pentingkah menurut anda berpartisipasi dalam kegiatan keagamaan? |
| 9 | How important is personal prayer for you? | Seberapa penting do’a/ibadah individu bagi anda? |
| 10 | How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine wants to communicate or to reveal something to you? | Seberapa sering anda merasa bahwa Tuhan ingin berkomunikasi atau ingin menunjukan sesuatu untuk anda? |
| 11 | How often do you keep yourself informed about religious questions through radio, television, internet, newspapers, or books? | Seberapa sering anda mencari informasi terkini yang berkaitan dengan agama melalui radio, televisi, internet, koran, atau buku? |
| 12 | In your opinion, how probable is it that a higher power really exists | Menurut pendapat anda, seberapa mungkin keberadaan makhluk yang memiliki kekuatan lebih tinggi? |
| 13 | How important is it for you to be connected to a religious community? | Seberapa pentingkah bagi anda untuk selalu berhubungan dengan komunitas keagamaan? |
| 14 | How often do you pray spontaneously when inspired by daily situations? | Seberapa sering anda melakukan ibadah/berdo’a secara spontan saat terinspirasi dari situasi sehari—hari? |
| 15 | How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine is present? | Seberapa sering anda merasakan bahwa Tuhan itu ada atau dekat? |
Appendix A.3. Marital Commitmen Scale
| Item | English Version | Indonesian Version |
| 1 | To what extent di you love [partner’s name] at this stage | Sejauh mana Anda mencintai suami anda pada saat ini? |
| 2 | How much do you need [partner’s name] at this stage? | Berapa banyak yang Anda membutuhkan suami anda pada saat ini? |
| 3 | Describe your marriage over the past 2 months | Gambarkan hubungan pernikahan Anda selama 2 bulan terakhir. |
| 4 | Using this scale, please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with your marriage over the past two months, all things considered? | Seberapa puas atau tidak puas Anda dengan pernikahan Anda selama dua bulan terakhir? |
| 5 | You would miss the sense of being a couple | Anda akan merindukan rasanya menjadi pasangan |
| 6 | Being married helps you feel good about yourself | Menikah membantu Anda merasa nyaman dengan diri sendiri |
| 7 | You really like being a [husband/wife] | Anda sangat suka menjadi seorang istri |
| 8 | You would be disappointed in yourself because you had broken a sacred vow | Anda akan kecewa pada diri sendiri karena Anda telah melanggar sumpah suci pernikahan |
| 9 | Getting divorce violates your religious beliefs | Bercerai melanggar keyakinan agama Anda |
| 10 | It’s all right to get a divorce if things are not working out. (reversed scored) | Tidak masalah untuk bercerai jika semuanya tidak berhasil |
| 11 | If a couple works hard at making their marriage succeed and still cannot get along, divorce is the best things that they can do (reversed score) | Jika pasangan bekerja keras untuk membuat pernikahan mereka berhasil dan masih tidak berhasil, perceraian adalah hal terbaik yang dapat dilakukan |
| 12 | When you agree to get marriage, you are morally bound to stay married | Ketika Anda setuju untuk menikah, Anda secara moral terikat untuk tetap menikah |
| 13 | You would feel bad about getting divorce because you promised [partner’s name] you would stay with [him/her] forever | Anda akan merasa sedih jika bercerai karena Anda berjanji pada suami Anda akan tinggal bersamanya selamanya |
| 14 | You could never leave [partner’s name] because [he/she] needs you too much | Anda tidak akan pernah bisa meninggalkan suami anda karena dia sangat membutuhkan Anda |
| 15 | It would be difficult to tell [partner’s name] that you wanted a divorce | Akan sulit untuk memberi tahu suami anda bahwa Anda ingin bercerai |
| 16 | You could never leave [partner’s name] because you would feel guilty about letting [him/her] down | Anda tidak akan pernah bisa meninggalkan suami anda karena Anda akan merasa bersalah telah mengecewakannya |
| 17 | Whenever you promise to do something, you should see it through | Setiap kali Anda berjanji untuk melakukan sesuatu, Anda harus menyelesaikannya |
| 18 | It’s important to stand by what you believe in | Penting untuk mendukung apa yang Anda yakini |
| 19 | You feel that you should always finish what you start | Anda merasa bahwa Anda harus selalu menyelesaikan apa yang Anda mulai |
| 20 | Even when things get hard, you should do the things you have promised to do | Bahkan ketika keadaan menjadi sulit, Anda harus melakukan hal-hal yang telah Anda janjikan untuk lakukan |
| 21 | If you and [partner’s name] were to break up, you would miss important income, insurance, or other property | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kehilangan penghasilan penting, asuransi, atau properti lainnya |
| 22 | You would miss just having somebody around | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kehilangan seseorang yang anda miliki di sekitar anda |
| 23 | You would miss living in your house | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan merindukan tinggal di rumah Anda |
| 24 | You would miss the help you get around the house from having a partner | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kehilangan bantuan yang Anda dapatkan di rumah ketika memiliki pasangan |
| 25 | You would miss being able to see your [child/children] regularly | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kehilangan kesempatan untuk melihat anak-anak Anda secara teratur |
| 26 | You would not have to work around the house so much (reversed scored) | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda tidak perlu terlalu banyak bekerja di rumah |
| 27 | You would be upset because you would lose your place or standing in the community | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kecewa karena Anda akan kehilangan tempat atau posisi Anda di komunitas |
| 28 | You would be upset because your family would be uncomfortable with your breaking up | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kecewa karena keluarga Anda akan merasa tidak nyaman dengan perpisahan Anda |
| 29 | You would be upset because your in-laws would be uncomfortable with your breaking up | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kecewa karena mertua Anda akan merasa tidak nyaman dengan perpisahan Anda |
| 30 | You would be upset because you would lose some respect from friends | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kecewa karena Anda akan kehilangan rasa hormat dari teman |
| 31 | It would be difficult to face your friends and family after you broke up | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Akan sulit untuk menghadapi teman dan keluarga Anda setelah Anda berpisah |
| 32 | You would lose some of your [child/children’s] love | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kehilangan sebagian dari cinta anak-anak Anda |
| 33 | It would be hard to work out who would get what property | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Akan sulit untuk membagikan harta yang telah dikumpulkan |
| 34 | It would be hard for you to find a new place to live | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Akan sulit bagi Anda untuk menemukan tempat tinggal yang baru |
| 35 | Having to move your things would be burden | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Harus memindahkan barang-barang Anda akan menjadi beban |
| 36 | Dealing with legal system would be difficult | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Berurusan dengan system hukum akan sulit |
| 37 | It would be hard to work out who would get the kid(s) | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Akan sulit untuk mengetahui siapa yang akan mendapatkan hak asuh anak |
| 38 | It would be awfully difficult to do the things necessary to get a divorce | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Akan sangat sulit untuk melakukan hal -hal yang diperlukan untuk bercerai |
| 39 | You would lose all the time you had to put into the marriage | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kehilangan semua waktu Anda pada pernikahan ini |
| 40 | You would feel like all the effort you had put into keeping the two of you together had been wasted | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan merasa seperti semua upaya yang telah Anda lakukan untuk menjaga Anda dan suami bersama-sama telah sia-sia |
| 41 | You would lose money you’d put into the marriage | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan kehilangan uang yang Anda keluarkan dalam pernikahan anda |
| 42 | You would feel like you’d wasted the best years of your life | Jika Anda dan suami berpisah, Anda akan merasa seperti Anda telah menghabiskan tahun-tahun terbaik dalam hidup Anda |
References
- Adams, Jeffrey M., and Warren H. Jones. 1997. The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 1177–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, Gary S., Elisabeth M. Landes, and Robert T. Michael. 1977. An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy 85: 1141–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, Alan, David R. Johnson, and John N. Edwards. 1983. Measuring marital instability. Journal of Marriage and Family 45: 387–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BPS (Indonesian Central Statistic Agency). 2019. Available online: https://www.bps.go.id/statictable/2012/04/19/1605/persentase-rumah-tangga-menurut-daerah-tempat-tinggal-kelompok-umur-jenis-kelamin-kepala-rumah-tangga-dan-status-pernikahan-2009-2018.html (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Brown, Edna, Terry L. Orbuch, and Jose A. Bauermeister. 2008. Religiousity and marital stability among black american and white american couples. Journal of Family Relations 57: 186–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buehlman, Kim T., John M. Gottman, and Lynn Fainsilber Katz. 1992. How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology 5: 295–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrere, Sybil, Kim T. Buehlman, John M. Gottman, James A. Coan, and Lionel Ruckstuhl. 2000. Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Americn Psychological Association. Journal of Family Psychology 14: 42–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carstensen, Laura L., Jeremy Graff, Robert W. Levenson, and John M. Gottman. 1996. Affect in intimate relationships: The developmental course of marriage. In Hand Book of Emotion, Adult Development and Aging. Edited by Magai C. and Mc Fadden S. H. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 227–47. [Google Scholar]
- Chinits, Joshua G., and Robert A. Brown. 2001. Religious homogamy, marital conflict, and stability in same-faithh and interfaith jewish marriages. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40: 723–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, Lynn Prince, and Vanessa Gash. 2010. Wives’ part-time employment and marital stability in great britain, west germany and the united states. Sociology 44: 1091–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delkhamoush, M. T. 2009. Hierarchy of marriage values among the Iranian youth. Journal of Family Research 5: 207–30. [Google Scholar]
- Duffy, Karen Grover, and Eastwood Atwater. 2007. Psychology for Living: Adjusment, Growth, and Behavior Today, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Ellison, C. 1991. Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 32: 80–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunter, Jason S. 2004. An Examination of the Dimensions of Commitment and Satisfaction across Years Married. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Huber, Stefan. 2003. Zentralität und Inhalt: Ein Neues multidimensionales Messmodell der Religiosität [Centrality and Content: A New Multidimensional Measurement Model of Religiosity]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. [Google Scholar]
- Huber, Stefan, and Odilo W. Huber. 2012. The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions 30: 710–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, David R., and Alan Booth. 1990. Rural economic decline and marital quality: A panel of farm marriage. Family Relations 39: 159–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, Michael P., John P. Caughlin, and Ted L. Huston. 1999. The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and Family 61: 160–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jose, Orathinkal, and Vansteenwegen Alfons. 2007. Do demographics affect marital satisfaction? Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 33: 73–85. [Google Scholar]
- Lambert, Nathaniel M., and David C. Dollahite. 2006. How religiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, and overcome marital conflict. Family Relations 55: 439–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latifa, Rena. 2015. Model Stabilitas Pernikahan Dewasa Awal Berdasarkan Atribusi Kognisi, Regulasi Emosi Dan Gaya Konflik. Disertation, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung, Unpublished. [Google Scholar]
- Latifa, Rena, and Febyorita Amelia. 2018. How commitment to Islamic values maintain marital stability. Hamdard Islamicus 41: 107–32. [Google Scholar]
- Lauer, Robert H., and Jeanette C. Lauer. 1986. Factors in long-term marriage. Journal of Family Issues 7: 382–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livingston, Beth A, and Timothy A. Judge. 2008. Emotional responses to work-family conflict: An examination of gender role orientation among working men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 207–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallat, Sarah E., and Jad P. Melki. 2016. Block Her Entry, Keep Her Down and Push Her Out. Journalism Studies 17: 57–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nye, F. Ivan, Lynn White, and James S. Frideres. 1973. A preliminary theory of marital stability: Two models. International Journal of Sociology of the Family 3: 102–22. [Google Scholar]
- Suleyiman, Muna, and Atinkut Zewdu. 2018. Determinant Factors for Couple Communication and Marital Stability among Adults in Assela Town, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Global Journal of HUMAN-SOCIAL SCIENCE: H Interdisciplinary 18: 31–42. [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan, Kieran. T. 2001. Understanding the relationship between religiosity and marriage: An investigation of the immediate and longitudinal effects of religiosity on newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology 15: 610–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Surra, Catherine. A., Debra K. Hughes, and Susan E. Jacquet. 1999. The Development of Commitment to Marriage. In Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability. Edited by Jeffrey M. Adams and Warren H. Jones. New York: Springer Science. [Google Scholar]
- Swensen, Clifford H., and Geir Trahaug. 1985. Commitment and the long-term marriage relationship. Journal of Marriage and Family 47: 939–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Participant demography.
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (in years) | 19 | 43 | 25.72 | 3.37 |
| Duration of marriage | 1 | 30 | 7.40 | 6.82 |
Table 2.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) result of Marital Stability Scale.
| Fit Index | Before Modification | After Modification | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHI-SQUARE | 922.642; df = 377; p-value < 0.01 | 495.292; df = 337; p-value < 0.01 | Modify = 40 times |
| RMSEA | 0.085 | 0.048 | |
| CFI | 0.939 | 0.982 | |
| TLI | 0.934 | 0.979 |
Table 3.
Loading factors for marital stability.
| Item (See Appendix A.1) | Estimate | Standard Error (SE) | Estimate/Standard Error (EST/SE) | Two-Tailed p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.494 | 0.051 | 9.670 | 0.000 |
| 2 | 0.634 | 0.049 | 13.032 | 0.000 |
| 3 | 0.469 | 0.059 | 7.954 | 0.000 |
| 4 | 0.559 | 0.057 | 9.761 | 0.000 |
| 5 | 0.649 | 0.056 | 11.492 | 0.000 |
| 6 | 0.602 | 0.05 | 12.111 | 0.000 |
| 7 | 0.391 | 0.064 | 6.152 | 0.000 |
| 8 | 0.476 | 0.057 | 8.377 | 0.000 |
| 9 | 0.581 | 0.052 | 11.144 | 0.000 |
| 10 | 0.805 | 0.03 | 27.016 | 0.000 |
| 11 | 0.175 | 0.071 | 2.477 | 0.013 |
| 12 | 0.704 | 0.036 | 19.753 | 0.000 |
| 13 | 0.755 | 0.038 | 19.961 | 0.000 |
| 14 | 0.858 | 0.034 | 25.282 | 0.000 |
| 15 | 0.912 | 0.026 | 35.434 | 0.000 |
| 16 | 0.977 | 0.025 | 39.343 | 0.000 |
| 17 | 0.701 | 0.041 | 16.928 | 0.000 |
| 18 | 0.828 | 0.032 | 25.914 | 0.000 |
| 19 | 0.725 | 0.041 | 17.746 | 0.000 |
| 20 | 0.751 | 0.037 | 20.108 | 0.000 |
| 21 | 0.706 | 0.037 | 18.883 | 0.000 |
| 22 | 0.778 | 0.035 | 21.934 | 0.000 |
| 23 | 0.839 | 0.049 | 17.193 | 0.000 |
| 24 | 0.824 | 0.031 | 26.546 | 0.000 |
| 25 | 0.81 | 0.044 | 18.312 | 0.000 |
| 26 | 0.516 | 0.059 | 8.786 | 0.000 |
| 27 | 0.763 | 0.048 | 15.893 | 0.000 |
| 28 | 0.721 | 0.048 | 15.046 | 0.000 |
| 29 | 0.545 | 0.071 | 7.708 | 0.000 |
Table 4.
CFA validity test for Religiosity.
| INDEX FIT | 1st ORDER | 2nd ORDER | 5 CORRELATED FACTORS |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHI-SQUARE | 389.989; df = 90; p-value < 0.01 | 620.886; df = 86; p-value < 0.01 | 159.308; df = 80; p-value < 0.01 |
| RMSEA | 0.129 | 0.176 | 0.070 |
| CFI | 0.908 | 0.836 | 0.976 |
| TLI | 0.892 | 0.799 | 0.968 |
Table 5.
CFA result of Religiosity.
| INDEX FIT | 5-CORRELATED FACTORS | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| CHI-SQUARE | 111.572; df = 75; p-value = 0.0039 | Model Not fit |
| RMSEA | 0.049 | Model fit |
| CFI | 0 989 | Model fit |
| TLI | 0.984 | Model fit |
Table 6.
Correlation between factors of Religiosity.
| Intellectual | Ideology | Public Practice | Private Practice | Religious Experience | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTELLECTUAL | - | - | - | - | - |
| IDEOLOGY | 0.732 | - | - | - | - |
| PUBLIC PRACTICE | 0.769 | 0.599 | - | - | - |
| PRIVATE PRACTICE | 0.717 | 0.880 | 0.440 | - | - |
| RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE | 0.778 | 0.807 | 0.432 | 0.922 | - |
Table 7.
Loading factors for Religiosity.
| Item (See Appendix A.2) | Estimate | Standard Error (SE) | Estimate/Standard Error (EST/SE) | Two-Tailed p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTELLECTUAL | 1 | 0.244 | 0.073 | 3.349 | 0.001 |
| 6 | 0.847 | 0.047 | 18.126 | 0.000 | |
| 11 | 0.758 | 0.046 | 16.375 | 0.000 | |
| IDEOLOGY | 2 | 0.916 | 0.064 | 14.237 | 0.000 |
| 7 | 0.642 | 0.066 | 9.741 | 0.000 | |
| 12 | −0.166 | 0.07 | −2.360 | 0.018 | |
| PUBLIC PRACTICE | 3 | 0.605 | 0.036 | 16.630 | 0.000 |
| 8 | 0.915 | 0.036 | 25.434 | 0.000 | |
| 13 | 0.907 | 0.032 | 28.646 | 0.000 | |
| PRIVATE PRACTICE | 4 | 0.804 | 0.044 | 18.381 | 0.000 |
| 9 | 0.868 | 0.042 | 20.898 | 0.000 | |
| 14 | 0.802 | 0.035 | 23.039 | 0.000 | |
| RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE | 5 | 0.844 | 0.036 | 23.373 | 0.000 |
| 10 | 0.885 | 0.024 | 36.239 | 0.000 | |
| 15 | 0.893 | 0.029 | 30.337 | 0.000 |
Table 8.
CFA result for Marital Commitment.
| INDEX FIT | 1st ORDER | 2nd ORDER | 3 CORRELATED FACTORS |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHI-SQUARE | 3926.533; df = 819; p-value < 0.00 | 2550.062; df = 817; p-value < 0.00 | 2473.410; df = 816; p-value < 0.00 |
| RMSEA | 0.138 | 0.103 | 0.101 |
| CFI | 0.678 | 0.821 | 0.828 |
| TLI | 0.662 | 0.811 | 0.819 |
Table 9.
Modifications of factor model of Marital Commitment.
| INDEX FIT | 3-CORRELATED FACTORS | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| CHI-SQUARE | 1033.412; df = 685; p-value = 0.0039 | Model Not fit |
| RMSEA | 0.050 | Model fit |
| CFI | 0.964 | Model fit |
| TLI | 0.955 | Model fit |
Table 10.
Correlation between factors of Marital Commitment.
| PERSONAL | MORAL | STRUCTURAL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PERSONAL | - | - | - |
| MORAL | 0.889 | - | - |
| STRUCTURAL | 0.410 | 0.570 | - |
Table 11.
Loading factors for Marital Commitment.
| Item (See Appendix A.3) | Estimate | Standard Error (SE) | Estimate/Standard Error (EST/SE) | Two-Tailed p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PERSONAL | 1 | 0.772 | 0.043 | 17.867 | 0 |
| 2 | 0.664 | 0.054 | 12.311 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0.785 | 0.042 | 18.787 | 0 | |
| 4 | 0.660 | 0.050 | 13.103 | 0 | |
| 5 | 0.671 | 0.047 | 14.433 | 0 | |
| 6 | 0.542 | 0.063 | 8.639 | 0 | |
| 7 | 0.781 | 0.041 | 19.001 | 0 | |
| MORAL | 8 | 0.599 | 0.050 | 12.091 | 0 |
| 9 | 0.670 | 0.050 | 13.289 | 0 | |
| 10 | 0.563 | 0.053 | 10.635 | 0 | |
| 11 | 0.579 | 0.058 | 10.051 | 0 | |
| 12 | 0.631 | 0.050 | 12.610 | 0 | |
| 13 | 0.755 | 0.043 | 17.511 | 0 | |
| 14 | 0.752 | 0.038 | 19.711 | 0 | |
| 15 | 0.353 | 0.060 | 5.871 | 0 | |
| 16 | 0.764 | 0.040 | 18.968 | 0 | |
| 17 | 0.601 | 0.053 | 11.248 | 0 | |
| 18 | 0.497 | 0.054 | 9.150 | 0 | |
| 19 | 0.513 | 0.061 | 8.409 | 0 | |
| 20 | 0.506 | 0.057 | 8.929 | 0 | |
| STRUCTURAL | 21 | 0.271 | 0.064 | 4.240 | 0 |
| 22 | 0.555 | 0.049 | 11.386 | 0 | |
| 23 | 0.640 | 0.043 | 14.739 | 0 | |
| 24 | 0.651 | 0.043 | 15.084 | 0 | |
| 25 | 0.605 | 0.050 | 12.170 | 0 | |
| 26 | 0.028 | 0.062 | −0.457 | 0.648 | |
| 27 | 0.377 | 0.064 | 5.896 | 0 | |
| 28 | 0.858 | 0.027 | 31.984 | 0 | |
| 29 | 0.638 | 0.046 | 13.923 | 0 | |
| 30 | 0.596 | 0.046 | 12.920 | 0 | |
| 31 | 0.695 | 0.037 | 18.872 | 0 | |
| 32 | 0.618 | 0.046 | 13.514 | 0 | |
| 33 | 0.431 | 0.051 | 8.483 | 0 | |
| 34 | 0.474 | 0.049 | 9.703 | 0 | |
| 35 | 0.783 | 0.031 | 25.519 | 0 | |
| 36 | 0.503 | 0.054 | 9.329 | 0 | |
| 37 | 0.587 | 0.047 | 12.480 | 0 | |
| 38 | 0.856 | 0.028 | 30.115 | 0 | |
| 39 | 0.946 | 0.016 | 59.079 | 0 | |
| 40 | 0.812 | 0.030 | 27.003 | 0 | |
| 41 | 0.754 | 0.033 | 22.896 | 0 | |
| 42 | 0.712 | 0.037 | 19.408 | 0 |
Table 12.
Model summary of regression analysis.
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.473 a | 0.224 | 0.216 | 4.072 |
a Predictors: (Constant), Religiosity, Commitment.
Table 13.
Analysis of variance a.
| Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regression | 940.843 | 2 | 470.421 | 28.357 | 0.000 b |
| Residual | 3268.084 | 197 | 16.589 | |||
| Total | 4208.927 | 199 | ||||
a Dependent Variable: Marital Stability. b Predictors: (Constant), Marital Commitment, Religiosity.
Table 14.
Coefficients a.
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 16.851 | 7.568 | 2.227 | 0.027 | |
| Commitment | 0.311 | 0.046 | 0.431 | 6.802 | 0.000 | |
| Religiosity | 0.348 | 0.150 | 0.147 | 2.315 | 0.022 | |
a Dependent Variable: Marital Stability.
Table 15.
ANOVA a.
| Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regression | 851.931 | 1 | 851.931 | 50.248 | 0.000 b |
| Residual | 3356.996 | 198 | 16.955 | |||
| Total | 4208.927 | 199 | ||||
| 2 | Regression | 940.843 | 2 | 470.421 | 28.357 | 0.000 c |
| Residual | 3268.084 | 197 | 16.589 | |||
| Total | 4208.927 | 199 | ||||
a Dependent Variable: Marital Stability. b Predictors: (Constant), Marital Commitment. c Predictors: (Constant), Marital Commitment, Religiosity.
Table 16.
Coefficients a.
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 33.555 | 2.308 | 14.537 | 0.000 | |
| Marital Commitment | 0.325 | 0.046 | 0.450 | 7.089 | 0.000 | |
| 2 | (Constant) | 16.851 | 7.568 | 2.227 | 0.027 | |
| Commitment | 0.311 | 0.046 | 0.431 | 6.802 | 0.000 | |
| Religiosity | 0.348 | 0.150 | 0.147 | 2.315 | 0.022 | |
a Dependent Variable: Marital Stability.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Latifa, R.; Salsabila, S.; Yulianto, H. Understanding the Relationship between Religiosity and Marital Commitment to Marital Stability: An Investigation on Indonesian Female Journalists. Religions 2021, 12, 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040242
AMA Style
Latifa R, Salsabila S, Yulianto H. Understanding the Relationship between Religiosity and Marital Commitment to Marital Stability: An Investigation on Indonesian Female Journalists. Religions. 2021; 12(4):242. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040242
Chicago/Turabian StyleLatifa, Rena, Salsabila Salsabila, and Heri Yulianto. 2021. "Understanding the Relationship between Religiosity and Marital Commitment to Marital Stability: An Investigation on Indonesian Female Journalists" Religions 12, no. 4: 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040242
APA StyleLatifa, R., Salsabila, S., & Yulianto, H. (2021). Understanding the Relationship between Religiosity and Marital Commitment to Marital Stability: An Investigation on Indonesian Female Journalists. Religions, 12(4), 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12040242
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
