Two studies tested the hypothesis that religious homogamy—assortative mating on the basis of religion—can be partly explained by inferences about religious individuals’ openness to experience, rather than attitudes toward religion per se. Results of Study 1 indicated that non-religious participants perceived non-religious targets to be higher in openness and more appealing as romantic partners, with the first effect statistically accounting for the second. Study 2, which manipulated “religious” and “open” behaviors independently, showed that openness guided dating judgments for both non-religious and religious participants, albeit in opposite directions. Thus, regardless of their own religious beliefs, individuals appear to infer the same kind of behaviors from others’ religiosity, behaviors that are seen positively by religious individuals, but negatively by non-religious individuals. These inferences, in turn, partially explain all individuals’ preferences for partners of the same religious orientation.
BarrettC. E.RoeschS. C. (2009). Evaluating the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and religious orientation. Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 28, 195–199.
2.
BotwinM. D.BussD. M.ShackelfordT. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136.
3.
BoyanA. S. (1968). Defining religion in operational and institutional terms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 116, 479–498.
4.
BussD. M. (1985). Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American Scientist, 73, 47–51.
5.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
6.
BussD. M. (1996). Social adaptation and five major factors of personality. In WigginsJ. S. (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
BussD. M.AbbottM.AngleitnerA.AsherianA.BiaggioA.Blanco-VillasenorA.…YangK. S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates a study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.
8.
BussD. M.BarnesM. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559.
9.
Central Intelligence Agency, A. (2010). The world factbook. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
10.
CoanR. W. (1974). The optimal personality: An empirical and theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
11.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
12.
EllsworthJ. S. (1948). The relationship of population density to residential propinquity as a factor in marriage selection. American Sociological Review, 13, 444–448.
13.
FioreA. T.DonathJ. S. (2005). Homophily in online dating: When do you like someone like yourself?Paper presented at the CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York.
14.
GalenL. W.SmithC. M.KnappN.WyngardenN. (2011). Perceptions of religious and non-religious targets: Exploring the effects of perceivers’ religious fundamentalism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2123–2143.
15.
GlennN. D. (1982). Interreligious marriage in the United States: Patterns and recent trends. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 555–566.
16.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
17.
HeatonT. B. (1984). Religious homogamy and marital satisfaction reconsidered. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 729–733.
18.
HitschG. J.HortaçsuA.ArielyD. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 393–427.
19.
HollingsheadA. B. (1950). Cultural factors in the selection of marriage mates. American Sociological Review, 15, 619–627.
20.
HoodR. W.Jr.HillP. C.SpilkaB. (2009). The psychology of religion (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
21.
KalmijnM. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
22.
KatzA. M.HillR. (1958). Residential propinquity and marital selection: A review of theory, method, and fact. Marriage and Family Living, 20, 27–35.
23.
LeeL.LoewensteinG.ArielyD.HongJ.YoungJ. (2008). If I’m not hot, are you hot or not? Physical-attractiveness evaluations and dating preferences as a function of one’s own attractiveness. Psychological Science, 19, 669–677.
24.
MacDonaldD. A. (2000). Spirituality: Description, measurement, and relation to the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 68, 153–197.
25.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In HoganR.JohnsonJ. A.BriggsS. R. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26.
McCraeR. R.SutinA. R. (2009). Openness to experience. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
McCutcheonA. L. (1988). Denominations and religious intermarriage: Trends among white Americans in the twentieth century. Review of Religious Research, 29, 213–227.
28.
MessickD. M.MackieD. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45–81.
29.
OrtegaS. T.WhittH. P.WilliamJ. A. (1988). Religious homogamy and marital happiness. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 224–239.
30.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
RushtonJ. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
33.
SaroglouV. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15–25.
34.
SaroglouV.Munoz-GarciaA. (2008). Individual differences in religion and spirituality: An issue of personality traits and/or values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47, 83–101.
35.
SherkatD. E. (2004). Religious intermarriage in the United States: Trends, patterns, and predictors. Social Science Research, 33, 606–625.
36.
SnowJ. (2011). The complete research suite: A step-by-step guide to using qualtrics. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.
SwannW. B.Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. Social Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 2, 33–66.
39.
SwannW. B.PolzerJ. T.SeyleD. C.KoS. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29, 9–27.
40.
ThiessenD.GreggB. (1980). Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 111–140.
41.
WinkP.CiciollaL.DillonM.TracyA. (2007). Religiousness, spiritual seeking, and personality: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 75, 1051–1070.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
