Religiosity and Adolescent Females’ Characterizations of Healthy Dating Dynamics

In this study, we utilize the Socialization Influence Framework to examine how personal religiosity may influence adolescent dating dynamics. We conducted fifty in-depth interviews with adolescent females aged 15-18 attending high schools in a mid-Atlantic city. Six broad themes characterizing healthy dating dynamics were identified: Investment in the Relationship; Healthy Communications; Harmonious Interactions; Non-Destructive Dynamics; Relations with Family, Friends and Others; and Maintenance of Personal Integrity. Differences in characterizations emerged in relation to the degree of personal religiosity. Findings have implications for faith-based initiatives and efforts to promote positive youth development. The process by which internalization of religious beliefs may also translate into risk for unhealthy dating dynamics remains an important area of study.

interviews with adolescent females in a private room at their school. In order to maintain the confidentiality of participants, each school received information of the date and time of the interviews but did not receive any identifying information on the participant. All interviews lasted approximately 1-1.5 hours. If a participant disclosed that she or someone she knew was in danger during the interview, we employed an IRB protocol to determine the nature and degree of harm and the need for further reporting and notification. All participants received an incentive "gift" bag that contained: a list of local and national hotlines, websites that address teen dating violence, and a 20-dollar incentive.

The Interview Guide
The research team developed the Interview Guide to explore females' perceptions of healthy and unhealthy dating relationships and the role of different socialization spheres (family, neighborhood, school, faith-based organizations and media) in shaping those perceptions. Specific to this paper, participants were asked "What do you value in a dating relationship?" and "What makes a relationship healthy?" We used probing follow-up questions to elicit a detailed description of participants' perceptions of a healthy relationship. For example, if the participant responded that she believed the trust was important in a healthy relationship, one follow-up question was "Can you describe what you mean by trust?"

Personal Religiosity Index
We embedded a series of 5 closed-ended questions in the Interview Guide to facilitate the construction of a personal religiosity index. This personal religiosity index expands upon the measure used by Jang and Johnson (2001) and Rostosky, Regnerus, and Wright (2003) and follows the recommendations of Sinha, Cnaan, and Gelles (2007) with the inclusion of a critical question on religious beliefs. The scale has adequate internal consistency (α = 0.69), based on data from Wave 1 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) (Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001). Two questions asked participants about their personal religious beliefs. Using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree), participants were asked: "I don't need religion to have good values" and "God has nothing to do with what happens to me personally" (Manlove, Terry-Humen, Ikramullah, & Moore, 2006). A third question asked, "What role does religion play in your life?" The response format included a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Very important" to "Not at all important" (Johnston, Bachman, & O'Malley, 2008). The remaining two questions asked participants to rate their frequency of attendance at religious services/activities and prayer use. These questions included: "Do you participate in religious activities/programs/services? If so, in an average year how often do you engage in these activities?" and "How often do you pray?" Response choices for both were "Once a week or more", "Monthly", "Yearly", or "Less than yearly" (Zelnick, Kanter, & Ford, 1981).
We constructed a tri-chotomized religiosity variable to stratify participants into groups that were labeled "High", "Moderate", and "Low" personal religiosity. High religiosity consisted of a response of www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct Children and Teenagers Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 16 Published by SCHOLINK INC. "Strongly disagree" or "Disagree" to the 2 religious beliefs questions, "Very important" or "Somewhat important" to the question on importance of religion, and "Once a week or more" to the question on frequency of attendance at any religious services/activities and prayer. Responses of "Neutral", "Strongly agree", or "Agree" to the religious beliefs questions, "Neutral", "Not at all important", or "Somewhat unimportant" to the importance of religion question, and "Less than yearly" or "Once a month or less" to the questions on frequency of attendance at any religious services/activities or prayer placed participants in the Low religiosity group. The remaining responses were identified as Moderate religiosity.
Participants were grouped into high, moderate, and low groups based on their responses across the individual items. Participants in the high religiosity group (N = 4) recorded "high" responses on all 5 religiosity items. Girls in the low religiosity group (N = 6) reported "low" on all 5 religiosity items. Girls who recorded mixed ratings of "high" and "low" on the religiosity items were included in the moderate religiosity group (N = 40).

Data Analysis
In order to ensure the dependability and reliability of our qualitative data, we employed strategies developed by Devers (1999). We transcribed audiotapes of interviews and entered word documents of each transcription into ATLAS.ti (ATLAS.ti, 6.1 ed, 2010).
Data analysis occurred in a series of phases. First, we created a codebook based on constructs of the SIF model and other terms and concepts extracted from repeated reading of the transcripts. All codes were given operational definitions. We included codes such as "healthy", "gender roles", "partner characteristics", and "unhealthy/harmful" to capture the perceptions of healthy dating relationships.
Phase 2 included coding the transcripts. To ensure reliability and validity of the codebook, a primary and secondary coder independently coded two transcripts. These coders then met with the PI to review and revise codebook terms and definitions. Once we finalized the codebook, the coders and PI reviewed the first 10 transcripts twice to ensure consistent agreement. The primary coder coded the remainder of the transcripts. The secondary coder also reviewed coded transcripts after every 10 transcripts to ensure inter-rater reliability of the coding process. Systematic coding of transcripts in ATLAS.ti reduced the interview data into meaningful narrative segments associated with specific codes.
We stratified transcripts based on the High, Moderate and Low religiosity index. Within each of these strata, we conducted specific queries in ATLAS.ti using the "healthy" codebook term. We analyzed all narrative passages within each personal religiosity strata individually to identify emergent themes. We then used an iterative process of reading and rereading the narrative passages to increase comprehension, forming subcategories and categories from the themed data to capture context and dimensionality (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Finally, we compared themes across personal religiosity groups to determine similarities and differences among the depictions of healthy relationship characteristics.

Results
The final sample included 50 adolescent females, the majority of whom were 16 (40%) or 17 (34%) years of age (M = 16.41, SD = .86). Participants self-reported their race, ethnicity, grade, and other demographic information. Participants self-identified as White (46%), Black (32%), Mixed race (16%), and Hispanic or Latino (6%). By grade classification, 42% of the participants were juniors, 36% were seniors, and 22% were sophomores. 20% of the participants attended a public coeducational school, 40% attended an all-girls Roman Catholic school, 20% attended an all-girls private independent school, and 20% attended a coeducational Jewish community school.
Qualitative analysis led to the identification of six broad themes and 17 sub-themes that characterized healthy dating dynamics. The High religiosity group endorsed 53%, the Moderate religiosity group endorsed 94%, and the Low religiosity group endorsed 71% of the sub-themes. Overall, the High religiosity group endorsed 18% fewer themes than the Low religiosity group and 41% fewer than the Moderate group. Descriptive differences in the narrative discourses emerged based religiosity (see Table   1). Quotations in this section include the participants' age and religiosity group. "…like if the person gives you good advice or they help you like they benefit your life in some way they help you with advice or maybe they are helping you with your homework or maybe they are helping you get a job or maybe they are just a good person to be with, to talk to, maybe they make you feel better about some stuff, so that you both benefit from the relationship (15, Moderate)".
Emotional support reflected the amount of "empathy" from dating partners and involved a willingness to "confide in" each other. Comments about being sympathetic to each other's needs and struggles reflected this concept. One participant mentioned, "I think that a healthy relationship involves…I guess you can confide in somebody (16, Low)".
Instrumental support refers to help, aid, or assistance with tangible needs that the participants would receive (Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997). The ability to help each other was described as a valued characteristic of a healthy dating relationship. Participants mentioned their partner being physically present to provide concrete assistance, such as helping with homework or helping to prepare for a job interview or application. Appraisal support differs from instrumental support in that it relates to help with decision making, giving appropriate feedback, or deciding which course of action to take (Langford et al., 1997). As one participant put it, "…you supported the other person's decisions. You're encouraging of any decisions that they make, and you would hope that they do the same for you (17, Informational support denotes the provision of advice or information in the service of particular needs (Langford et al., 1997). Participants discussed this in the context of giving advice to each other, based on 'common principles' of attentiveness and good listening skills. Support in the form of "good" advice was seen as an asset in the relationship. One participant noted: "And if you do have advice, give it to them…(16, Moderate)". Participants within both Moderate and Low personal religiosity groups explicitly discussed how the Provision and Receipt of Social Support was an important characteristic of a healthy dating relationship. This was not overtly mentioned by those with High religiosity.

Healthy Communication
Healthy

Open, Easy, Ongoing Communication
Participants across all levels of personal religiosity described Open, Easy, and Ongoing Communication as "talking to each other". Indeed, this was the central characterization among participants with High personal religiosity. In contrast, participants with Moderate personal religiosity were more expressive in describing healthy communication as a key dynamic in healthy dating relationships. These participants noted that various forms of communication-whether it is in-person, via email, or through pictures being sent to each other-were equally acceptable if there was a "connection" and they were able to "express feelings". Conversations that were "fun", "laid back", and "not so serious" were described in a positive light that "leads to a comfortable feeling". Being able to talk about different "stuff" without it being "problematic" exemplified Open, Easy, Ongoing Communication for participants within the Moderate personal religiosity group. Communication that did not involve argument, "fighting over little things", or "being at each other's throat" allowed them to share their feelings with the other person. One participant www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct "expressing one's feelings" and "not withholding anything". For these participants, it was very important to be able to "be yourself" and not pretend or try to maintain an image that was not really you.
"Authenticity" was an adjective they repeatedly used in the context of "being true to oneself and knowing who you really are", "no pretense", so that you communicate openly (i.e., "speaking your mind") and honestly with the other person. It also conveyed their belief that a healthy relationship has to not only include disclosure but a fundamental understanding that you can believe what your partner tells you.

Conflict Resolution
It was important for participants within the Moderate and Low personal religiosity groups to feel that they could express themselves without fighting or arguing and that conversations would flow easily, not be forced or awkward but instead allow mutual sharing. Among participants with Low personal religiosity, the amount of time spent talking to the other person was important. Communication that did not involve arguing, "fighting over little things" or "being at each other's throat" allowed them to share their feelings with the other person. In giving their view of healthy communication, participants acknowledged that arguments do occur in dating relationships and they needed to be addressed through Conflict Resolution than be ignored. The participants noted that good communication skills are often necessary to work through "obstacles" and solve problems.
Although participants with High personal religiosity did not talk much about Conflict Resolution, they did discuss the importance of being able to "get over arguments" in order to have healthy communication. to "make it work". They even articulated what would appear to be a set of principles or ground rules for conflict resolution: 1) the importance of getting along or working together; 2) not yelling even when one was upset; and 3) putting effort into the relationship to make it work when distance was a factor.
Participant with Low religiosity did not mention Conflict Resolution when describing healthy dating relationships or even in the context of their discussion of communication.

Harmonious Interactions
Harmonious Interactions included four sub-themes: Compatibility; Reciprocity; Caring and Affectionate; and Not Rushing into Sex.

Compatibility
Compatibility reflected the ability to get along with the other person to the point of truly enjoying his or her company. Wanting to "hang out with each other", being "tuned in to each other", and "fitting together" exemplified Compatibility. Participants mentioned the importance of getting to know the person and trying new things together. Overall, participants felt it was essential to spend time together and accept each other, as in "not trying to change them" and/or being "willing to do what each other likes" for the relationship to be healthy. As one participant put it: "… healthy relationship umm just really be able to…do stuff have it doesn't even have to have the same interest but as long as they'll be willing to do what you like also…(17, High)".
Participants within the High religiosity group highlighted the ability to get along and the desire to be around one's partner using adjectives such as "sleep well", "smiles", and "being fed into". The Moderate religiosity group used unique adjectives like "good person" and "strong", in addition to referencing "flaws". Only the Moderate and Low religiosity groups mentioned the term "best friends". Moreover, in the Low religiosity group, Compatibility included "not moving quickly". The following quotes are illustrative: "Um being in tune with the other person…Knowing of the other person's quirks and downsides, will allow you to see them and look past them. So I think you should discover all of each other's flaws before something happens and you notice something and it kills everything" (17, Moderate); and "I don't think you should just jump right into a relationship and when you dating'em, you should get to know'em better.
Like, because y'all have that relationship…Like, y'all should be best friends as you get further into the relationship (16, Low)".

Reciprocity
Reciprocity overlapped somewhat with Compatibility but uniquely conveyed a clear sense of "not greedy", "not selfish"; whereas Participants with Moderate religiosity repeatedly referred to mutuality in "feeling", "effort and commitment", "happiness", "respect", and "time". One participant cogently put it as follows: "Just have everything mutual because if one person is putting more effort into the relationship than the other, then what's the point of doing it. In the end, that person is just going to leave (17, Moderate)". Participants within the Low religiosity group described how the other person should be "good to you", and they also spoke about mutuality as in "mutual feelings about the relationship", and: "Yeah. Um, I don't know, it could like, share feelings with them, or and he doesn't cheat on you, and hmm, you feel like he's like good to you and just not abusive verbally or… (18, Low)".

Caring and Affectionate
Caring and Affectionate only really emerged as a sub-theme among participants with Moderate personal religiosity. They were quite expressive in this regard. The participants characterized healthy relationships as including public displays of affection with statements such as: "we are together", having "physical chemistry" and "strong feelings" but emphasized that this was "not just for sex". They described caring as "more than just words", "doing cute little things", "royal treatment", being loving and kind, and remembering events. Aspects of affection, physical chemistry, and physical attraction were displayed through kissing, hugs, hand holding; that is, showing love non-sexually, and public displays of affection.
Caring, however, was described as something much deeper than the physical plane, as is expressed in this quote: "If you care about each other a lot and really actually care and not just say you do…You have to actually be willing to do almost anything for that person. I mean, not like anything, but just like if something is important. Maybe he'll cancel his plans for you or something important because he wants to be with you…(17, Moderate)".

Not Rushing into Sex
Only participants within the Moderate and Low religiosity groups described Not Rushing into Sex as a characteristic of a healthy relationship. Participants with High religiosity did not explicitly mention sex.
Not Rushing into Sex was seen as demonstration of respect for the participant and respecting the participants' "bodies and space, ideas and goals". Participants with Low personal religiosity made a singular reference to Not Rushing into Sex as not wanting to be pressured or rushed into sex, especially before marriage. One Moderate religiosity participant described this dynamic as follows: "These couples, that's the one probably the only consistent trend is that they don't rush into sex. They don't rush into love. They just kind of enjoy each other's company and don't even rush into saying "oh we're together (17, Moderate)".

Non-destructive Dynamic
Another major theme that emerged was the notion of a Non-Destructive Dynamic, which encompassed two sub-themes: Faithful and Trustworthy and Non-Abusive. Indeed, as one participant stated: "I think like if you guys trust each other I think that's like one-like the most important thing for like a healthy relationship (15, Moderate)".

Faithful and Trustworthy
A Faithful and Trustworthy dating relationship was described as when the other person was honest and accountable; that is, their words could be trusted to be "truth" worthy. "Trust" and being "faithful", or "not being unfaithful", were frequent adjectives used to describe a healthy dating relationship. With such a foundation, participants felt their partners would be "dependable" and would not "question their loyalty". A key characteristic of Faithful and Trustworthy was "not cheating". This referred to "being faithful" to the other person and to the relationship.
While participants across all three levels of personal religiosity described Faithful and Trustworthy as an important characteristic for a healthy dating relationship, participants within the High religiosity group characterized this as "not having a double standard … saying one thing and doing something different"; i.e., "going where you say". As one participant mentioned: Participants with both High and Moderate personal religiosity, discussed trust as follows: "trust that you have the best interest [and are] not self-motivation" and "trust that you have no reason not to trust [the other person]". Participants with Low personal religiosity were less descriptive about the idea of trustworthiness but said things such as "doesn't cheat on you" and "don't keep elaborating". The latter seemed to be a red flag or indication of one partner having something to hide or trying to rationalize a dynamic.

Non-abusive
Many participants spoke about what would not be characteristic of a healthy dating relationship. Being Non-Abusive included little to no fighting, "no hitting", "no hands", and "no physical, mental, emotional,

Interactions with Others
Interactions with Others included three sub-themes: Relationship with Family, Relationship with Friends, and Perceptions by Others.

Relationship with Family
Relationship with Family only emerged from the interviews with participants of Moderate personal religiosity. However, what they said was noteworthy. These participants characterized a healthy dating relationship as one where their partner would "respect me and my parents" and know their family. The participants noted that family history "helps figure out what's healthy and what is unhealthy" and that "knowing one's parent's background" was important. One participant mentioned: "I think the perfect dating relationship is um like they can trust each other, like they have met their parents, they know their parents, their parents trust both of them to be together without doing anything they don't supposed to be doing…(17, Moderate)".
Another said: "I guess just knowing like their background or stuff at least just knowing where they come from. And like if you see what type of parents they have or where they live or…that will explain to you like other reasons like, "Well that's why he does that" or "Well that's why he dresses like that" or does this or does that (16, Moderate)".

Relationship with Friends
All participants viewed Relationship with Friends such as "getting along with friends" and "respecting them" (i.e., one's friends) as vital to a healthy dating relationship. Participants underscored the importance of a bi-directional dynamic for respect: "my friends respect the guy…the guy respects my Participants within the High religiosity group felt that it was really important that anybody they dated "get along with friends, especially closest friends". Participants with Moderate personal religiosity spoke about the importance of gaining "approval from friends" as to whether they thought the relationship was healthy. These participants also mentioned the importance of a dating partner both knowing and liking friends and family. Participants with Low levels of religiosity only talked about friends in the context of "no mistreatment of you and friends". One participant stated: "…having them know your friends and like are on good terms with them because if they're not on good terms…and like your friends don't like them then they could like always try to like break the relationship apart which isn't good (15, Moderate)".

Pride in the Relationship
Only participants within the Low religiosity group addressed Pride in the Relationship. They described this as "not afraid to tell others" and "not embarrassed about the relationship". As one participant stated: "Um I guess one that where they… are not like afraid to tell anyone that they're together and they are I guess that's pretty much (15, Low)".

Maintenance of Personal Integrity
Maintenance of Personal Integrity encompasses three sub-themes: Self-Assured, Autonomous and Self-Respecting.
3.6.1 Self-assured Self-Assured only emerged from the narratives of participants with Moderate personal religiosity. These participants spoke about "confidence in [one's] choice" and underscored the importance of "be [ing] yourself", staying the "same person you were before going out, only more confident". One dimension of self-assuredness actually seemed to contradict elements of the Interactions with Others sub-theme. This contradiction was evident in the participants' beliefs that the opinions of others should not matter in a healthy dating relationship. Being self-assured included "not worrying about others" and "not needing approval". The participants' use of terms such as "accepting", "not judging", and "not letting society get to them" reflected being self-assured.

Autonomous
An important part of being Autonomous was the notion of having time and space for oneself without forsaking the relationship. The participants often described Autonomous as "taking a breath" and "taking time for yourself". Indeed, it appeared the time away strengthens and maintains the dating relationship by elaborating on the importance of the connection. These sentiments were cogently captured in the following quote: "I think also with a healthy relationship, you have to understand that um people need time away so a lot of times people don't see that and um like yes you may wanna be with them 24/7 but occasionally, you know, you have to go out with their friends, your friends, and they have to go out with their friends, and I mean I think it's in that little span of time that you'll realize how much more you care about each other (17, Moderate)".
Only participants in the Moderate and Low religiosity groups discussed being Autonomous. Autonomous often meant "not exclusive to [the] relationship". They framed this as taking a breather. More specifically, participants with moderate religiosity mentioned: "being free" and having it be okay to spend time with others. Participants within the Low religiosity group additionally expressed the need for "keeping your independence", as illustrated by this quote: "…a healthy relationship to me, is just keeping your independence to yourself like knowing who you are and not letting anybody touch that because if they don't like you for who you are, then maybe they don't belong in your life (16, Low)".

Self-respecting
Self-respecting encompassed the notion of having "confidence in [ones] self" and being "fully happy with who you are". The need to "speak up for yourself" illustrated this concept. It was important for the participants to "love themselves before loving anyone else". Participants addressed elements of Self-Respecting across all levels of religiosity. One participant with High religiosity stated that "being a good person was needed for being good in a relationship". Participants in the Moderate religiosity group spoke about Self-Respect in terms of "maturity", "true to self", and "respect for self" and referenced this in relation to both partners. As one participant puts it: "You should be confident in who you are and if the other person is confident who they are, and you both respect each other, then your relationship should be healthy (17, Moderate)". Participants with Low religiosity spoke about: being "fully happy with whom you are", "knowing who you are", "stand[ing up for] your own opinion", and "say something back or speak up for yourself".

Discussion
The current qualitative study sought to explore adolescent females' conceptualizations of healthy dating relationships by analyzing descriptive differences in their narrative discourses relative to the degree of personal religiosity; 6 broad themes and 17 sub-themes emerged. Our results suggest that personal religiosity is related to conceptions of dating dynamics among high school teenage females.

Differences by Personal Religiosity
Our personal religiosity construct used Likert response questions with adequate psychometrics, along with additional questions endorsed by previous research (Jang & Johnson, 2001;Rostosky, Regnerus, & Wright, 2003;Sinha et al., 2007). We stratified participants into High, Moderate or Low religiosity www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct Children and Teenagers Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 28 Published by SCHOLINK INC. categories based on their responses. With 80% of the sample being categorized as Moderate religiosity, this group endorsed the most sub-themes (16); the High religiosity group endorsed the least (9); and the Low religiosity group endorsed 12 sub-themes. Subthemes recognized by the Moderate religiosity group offer insights on the interplay of religiosity and attitudes regarding healthy dating relationships.
A commonly held notion is that religions practiced in America value marriage and often herald those who endure a difficult one (Murray, 2002;Pyles, 2007). The "staying power" sub-theme identified in the current study most closely demonstrates this concept by illustrating the attempts of participants to place a priority on relationships with their partners despite experiencing problems such as fighting or "hard times". Interestingly, this theme was endorsed by both High and Moderate religiosity sub-samples but not by participants in the Low religiosity group. Research indicates that adolescents with low religiosity have more favorable attitudes towards separation and ending romantic relationships than those with higher religiosity (Shimkowski, Punyanunt-Carter, Colwell, & Norman, 2018). The "staying power" sub-theme may pose challenges for counseling professionals who, when providing services to women with a strong religious affiliation, must find an acceptable resolution that addresses the religious concerns of the individual, family, and sometimes even the larger community in which they are embedded.
Another sub-theme endorsed by High and Moderate religiosity groups was that "conflict resolution" was part of a healthy relationship. This may also stem from religious teachings that encourage and value working through conflict in a marriage to preserve family stability (Johnston, 1996). It is possible that participants with Low religiosity did not perceive conflict to be part of a healthy relationship. Data from Add Health suggest that adolescents who exhibit at least one risk factor for violence are also likely to use violence as a conflict resolution strategy in their relationship (Halpern et al., 2001). Taken together, these findings suggest that participants with stronger religiosity may value overcoming obstacles to maintain their existing relationships more highly than those with lower religiosity.
It is heartening that the majority of participants (both Moderate and Low religiosity) directly mentioned the sub-theme of "non-abusive" when describing a healthy relationship. Interestingly, those in the High religiosity group did not specifically mention a relationship without abuse as characteristic of healthy dating. Another sub-theme with a similar pattern of endorsement was being "autonomous". Participants in the Moderate and Low religiosity groups made statements asserting their ability to be independent as indicative that the relationship was healthy; participants with High religiosity did not mention autonomy in their responses. Finally, participants with Moderate and Low religiosity indicated that a healthy relationship includes the bi-directional provision and receipt of social support. These findings differ from "compatibility" but overlap with "reciprocity" in acknowledging both the importance of support and the mutuality of the process.
Not endorsing sub-themes of "non-abusive", "autonomous", and "provision of and receipt of social support" should not be interpreted to mean that these participants with High religiosity value dependent, unsupportive, and abusive relationships. As these participants were the only ones to discuss the "staying power" and "conflict resolution" sub-themes, this suggests the emergence of a more nuanced set of contrasts regarding ideas of what constitutes a healthy relationship. These findings are consistent with those of Bartkowski and colleagues, which indicate that adolescents with higher religious salience and personal religious commitment are more likely to resolve conflicts to maintain their relationships with their dating partner (Bartkowski, Xu, & Fondren, 2011).

Role of Religion in Dating Dynamics
Regardless of denomination, religion plays an important but seemingly invisible role in the lives of many American teenagers, and this could influence how adolescents construct definitions of healthy and unhealthy dating dynamics (Smith & Denton, 2005). The SIF guided our examination of the relationship between religiosity and adolescent dating relationships by addressing the influence of religion within primary and secondary socialization spheres of adolescent normative development (Wallace & Williams, 1997). The SIF suggests that religion relates to health outcomes but only indirectly through the socialization mechanisms of social control, social support, encouragement, rewards, values and identity formation (Wallace & Williams, 1997;Burkett & Warren, 1987). Furthermore, research suggests that socialization through doctrines, messages from, and ties to religious institutions reinforces attitudes, norms, and family practices, which do influence adolescent dating conceptualizations and experiences (Armet, 2009).
Teenagers increasingly confront social pressures to engage in sexual behavior within their romantic relationships. The current data indicate that, in contrast to the High religiosity group, participants in the Moderate and Low religiosity groups believed that "not being rushed into sex" was characteristic of a healthy dating relationship. Participants with High religiosity may not have spoken at all about this because they either believe or were socialized to regard pre-marital sex as inappropriate and/or unacceptable. In addition, though not mentioned in our interviews, abstinence education programs often use "virginity pledges" to encourage adolescents in making oral or written promises to refrain from sexual activity until marriage (Rosenbaum, 2009;Carpenter, 2011). Secondary virginity pledges assist sexually active teenagers with making decisions to refrain from sexual activity (Rosenbaum, 2009;Carpenter, 2011). It is possible that teens utilize defense mechanisms and adaptive strategies in an effort to preserve religious values when navigating the complex arena of sexual relationships during adolescence (Lefkowitz, Gillen, Shearer, & Boone, 2004). These paths that teens and young adults forge may well reflect their personal interpretation of what their chosen faith dictates around relationship expectations.

Strengths and Limitations
We endeavored to document conceptualizations of healthy dating relationships from the perspective or voice of adolescent participants, thus empowering them to contribute to our understanding of an issue that has both personal importance and larger applicability. We conducted in-depth interviews with a diverse sample of 50 adolescent females across different types of schools and religious faiths. Our team also followed a detailed, stepwise and systematic analytic process to enhance the rigor-both dependability and reliability-of the data (Devers, 1999). We also made efforts to maximize adolescent participation by providing multiple opportunities to inform parents about the study. We asked questions in well-advertised orientation sessions and made frequent contacts with parents to address concerns or reservations. Our findings help fill gaps in understanding the potentially important role of religiosity on adolescent romantic relationships.
Despite the demonstrated strengths, this study does present some limitations. Since many of the study participants were minors and the data collection was not anonymous, we instructed participants, verbally and in writing, that we would have to break confidentiality and tell parents/and or authorities if teens reported abuse or if we had concerns of potential threat of abuse. Although we did emphasize our interest in their attitudes and beliefs, as opposed to personal relationships and experiences, our IRB protocol may have censured what participants were willing to disclose. We also did not interpret the current data based upon underlying spiritual belief systems or religious denomination. In addition, measuring religiosity is complicated by the multi-dimensional nature of the construct. Our purposive sampling endeavored to maximize religious diversity in terms of affiliation. However, an analysis of the personal religiosity index indicates that few participants were labeled as High or Low religiosity. That is, we stratified participants by degree of personal religiosity after all the interviews were completed, and thus, we could not correct for the imbalance in the distribution of High, Moderate and Low religiosity participants. While we could have tried to recruit our sample based upon adolescent's degree of religiosity, due to the dynamic and complex process of identity development among adolescents, it would have been difficult to determine how adolescents would rate their religiosity beforehand (Tanti, Stukas, Halloran, & Foddy, 2011). Finally, we based our analysis on the degree of religiosity, not by enrollment in different types of schools. A religious school context could inflate one's individual religiosity. Yet the fact that 80% of the sample were categorized as Moderate religiosity reduces that likelihood (Regnerus, 2000). While we did not see evidence of this effect within the data, it is possible that the school context is playing a "hidden" role in their dating behaviors.

Implications and Future Directions
Our findings have important implications for faith-based initiatives and other efforts to promote positive youth development. Focusing on the positive characteristics that teens associate with healthy dating relationships is both affirming and empowering and can facilitate ongoing dialog as well as their investment and co-ownership of school and faith-based programs. With over 80% of Americans identifying with a religious affiliation and 20-25% of women in America experiencing violence from an intimate partner over their lifetime, there is reason to believe the intersection of faith and gender is fertile ground for continued examination of healthy and harmful dating dynamics (Pew Research Center, 2015;Breiding et al., 2014).
Future research should examine how other aspects of religion can mediate dating dynamics with respect to social control and social support mechanisms. Our study suggests a next step might be to examine how females' engagement in different faith-based activities including, but not limited to, worship and prayer shapes their attitudes and normative beliefs. Additional clarifications of how religion shapes intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional dynamics related to teen dating relationships can shed light as to what extent and why adolescent females may tolerate violence within their romantic relationships.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest that perceptions of what constitutes a healthy teen dating relationship may differ based on degrees of personal religiosity. It raises important questions regarding how youth internalize religious teachings about healthy dating dynamics. Future research should examine how other aspects of religion and socialization can mediate dating relationship dynamics with respect to social control and social support mechanisms.