That's basically what I got from it as well.
They pretty much just asked people if they'd cheated.
Which means the atheists, thrill seekers, and abused/unstable were just less likely to lie than the christians.
Besides, once you toss out the non-religious, the crazy, and the thrill seekers, what the hell kind of fun can you have?
"Well, on our first date we went to church together. We avoided looking at one another or speaking so we wouldn't think of sin." Repeat for the next 2 months. Then marry. Screw that noise.
Edited to add: I fit all three and I've never cheated.
Also this is about the most accurate parody of eHarmony I've ever seen.
Right, I didn't read the article that is the primary basis for the eHarmony page, but based on the abstract, it is not a meta-analysis. Just a review of the literature. The methods of most of the studies cited are no doubt seriously flawed.
I counted 3 studies done in the Netherlands, practically a whole different culture, and one study on the 1970s. Without taking the time to read any of the studies, I already suspect eHarmony of cherry-picking their research. Too bad there is no link to the JSSR article.
I am one in a group of folks who by economic necessity are stuck in a seperate bedroom marriage. If I find a lady in my age group (60+) who has the same conditions, how does the group feel about us getting together for a couple hours in the afternoon? Is it sinful, is it immoral, is it even illegal?? Other than the possibility of being shot are there any longterm negatives?
And did anyone else notice that eHarm didn't put any interracial pairings (Maybe they didn't have any) on their commercials until this year? All their pairs on their commercials, whether white, black, or even some obscure pacific-islander-y ethnicity were the same for the woman and the man.
The eHarmony page doesn't give details, such as how much more likely is a person to "cheat" if they are not religious. I'd like to read the original article. Not having read the original study my guess is that religiosity accounts for only a small portion of the variance in infidelity. The journal article cited is a review article but doesn't appear to be a meta-analysis and as such the conclusions are potentially subjective and represent a generalization based upon selected articles most of which likely used faulty methods.
However, iff the difference, slight or substantial, is empirically verified then I don't see a reason to deny it or denounce eHarmony for acknowledging it. It could be that non-theism is associated with a more rebellious attitude and risky behavior. If that is real then as a cultural group (if we atheists/non-theists are ever able to reach that level of cohesion), we may want to address infidelity at some point, or not depending on the prevalence of values of the community.
Human sexuality is fundamentally conflicted and there are multiple strategies with a person over a lifetime and at any give moment. I believe a person is not typically aware of the ultimate reasons for their actions. In fact a strong case can be made that sexuality is irrational as an evolutionary adaptation. Methodical and rational forms of reproductive strategies did not work as well for our ancestors.
The article is written as advice for eHarmony users. I think that enable the reader to understand that there is a slant on the information. Though you are correct in the assesment earlier that infidelity by definition is not good. The source of information about non-religious behavior seems to come from the Association for the Sociology of Religion. In the abstract you can see a definate skewing of information as they link education with religiosity.
Does anyone know of an actual study of contentment or similar trait between atheist couples and religious couples? Something with more than 10 couples being interviewed?