4 - (SYM 62) At the Crossroads of Religiosity, Spirituality, Queerness, and Relationship Functioning: Exploring Associations in a Nationally Representative Sample

The impact that religion and spirituality have on one’s individual mental, physical, and social well-being cannot be understated. The way these factors manifest in the context of romantic and intimate experiences has serious implications for the success of and satisfaction within such partnerships. Given the intersectionality between those with LGBTQ+ identities and the harm many have experienced through organized religion, it is important to uncover ways in which dyads and intimate partners can still thrive given their shared or divergent history with religion and spirituality and their current beliefs and practices. 

A nationally representative sample (N=297) of both heterosexual and LGBTQ+ individuals was recruited via Prolific with an eye towards those currently in an intimate or romantic relationship. Participants answered questionnaires regarding current and past religious experiences and beliefs, as well as broader feelings of spirituality. They additionally responded to measures tapping into their current relationship quality, communication, and sexual desire and satisfaction.

Preliminary analyses revealed several associations between relevant variables of interest. Broadly, respondents with greater feminist attitudes, and less rigidity around traditional gender role beliefs, were more likely to have a loose identification with their current religious affiliation (r = .15** and r = .14**, respectively), but were also more likely to be spiritually open (r = .34** and r = .32**, respectively). More specifically, respondents who identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community were less likely to ascribe to traditional religious beliefs (r = -.18**) but were more likely to display lower levels of spiritual well-being (r = -.21**). Further yet, in looking at how relationship structures relate to relationship outcomes, a one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between some of the different relationship statuses and satisfaction (F [4,280] = 5.842, p < .001); however, there were no statistically significant differences between CNM relationships and other relationship structures. 

These findings highlight the need for a more nuanced distinction when discussing religiosity and spirituality in the relationship literature, especially in the context of queer partnerships and alternative relationship structures. It will furthermore be important to ensure that measures are accurately capturing these distinct constructs so that treatment recommendations and potential relationship interventions can remain informed.