[1] The signature of a witness is required for all research studies involving more than minimal risk. If possible, the witness should be someone who is not involved in the study.
 |
 |
 |
Copyright © 2003 |
||
Susan Quinn |
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Susan Quinn - PMCH 6381 - Fall 2003
Couples have been establishing relationships since Adam and Eve. The types of relationships vary, from cohabitating under the same roof to the til-death-do-us-part marriage. This study examines the level of happiness associated with the type of living relationship. Couples who make the commitment to marriage appear to be happier than those who choose to test a relationship by living together. The participants in this study will be 100 couples randomly chosen from a group of volunteers. The ages of the couples vary from 25 year olds to 60 years old. There will be an equal distribution of dating, cohabitating couples and married couples. All couples chosen expressed a belief in a higher power, although no qualification was made for different types of religion. This could be a threat to external validity as some religions have much stronger belief against cohabitating. All couples have a minimum of high school graduation and all couples have one of the members gainfully employed. Couples are surveyed by questionnaire and interview to determine the level of satisfaction in the relationship. The role of relationship status (cohabitating or marriage) and the effect of happiness felt due to physical well-being, happiness felt due to financial stability and happiness felt due to emotional well-being were also rated as it relates to the relationship.
Section I
Five articles were reviewed that showed that childhood relationships influenced the type of commitment made to a relationship and whether to date, live together or marry. The hypothesis of the original study was “Is marriage chosen over cohabitation due to influences during childhood because of being raised in a two parent family unit?” Children who were raised with strong religious beliefs of commitment and family ties were found to choose to marry. Economic status and physical well-being are factors expected to be perceived as positives for couples to choose to marry rather than cohabitate. With changes in moral standards as it relates to religion, emotional support and financial status and those correlations with relationships, determining whether couples perceived their happiness to be greater because of marital commitment as compared to living together is the focus of the proposed study.
The review article by Stack and Eshleman (1998), addresses issues of comparative analysis, gender specificity and cohabitation as they relate to marital status and happiness. This study proved a consistency across countries that there is a relationship between level of happiness and marital status. The hypothesis was supported by proving that marriage is associated with higher levels of personal well-being, financial support, physical health and social integration in the 17-nation study. The internal validity was not threatened since factors previously associated with qualities that could affect level of perceived happiness were controlled in this study. The external validity was considered valid due to the size of the sample group. The groups of dating, living together and married couples was also equally represented.
The Key article (Clarkberg 1995) studies the attitudes about the patterns of time use, contact with relations, work, money, sex roles and attitudes and values about the marriage effect. Control variables include sex, religion, race and parental characteristics. The idealized hypothesis is supported in this article. Those who place high value on living close to parents, have family cohesion and value their religion chose marriage. Living together provides less expectation of commitment and less traditional roles, such as breadwinner or housewife, during cohabitation. The hypothesis that cohabitation will be chosen as the form of the first time household is supported through the study. This finding is based on that men and women who reject the constraints and demands of the traditional marriage are more likely than others to choose informal unions. Their view has evolved through attitudes and values experienced during childhood. The choice of marriage is based on the traditional life role modeled in history and was not witnessed as a childhood model by those choosing cohabitators. The level of happiness specifically was not measured in this study.
The oldest article (Bumpass 1991) supports the idealized hypothesis. The article hypothesis, that couples that are married feel a higher level of commitment and satisfaction in their relationship than couples that cohabitate, is also fully supported. The idea of cohabitation as a testing ground for marriage was considered unimportant in this large sample group (19%-20%). However, 74% of the cohabitating group felt they planned to marry their current partner. Thus, the values and attitudes of cohabitators is more relaxed and less committed to marriage than what past moral standards condoned. The role of cohabitation in replacing early marriage is most pronounced for persons who have not completed high school and feel cohabitation is a testing ground. The current exposure of children to cohabitation will affect their attitude and value towards future relationships. As the next generation of cohabitators have children, it will be interesting to study the value system of their progeny.
The first article after the key article (Wu 1999) addresses that state of cohabitation as a precursor to marriage and the effect that has on the time involved in cohabitation and the time to marital commitment. This study used control variables for educational status, religion, nativity and geographic region. The overall consensus, even when including the control variables, is to prove a positive and significant support of the hypothesis. In summary, this article contends that cohabitating delays marriage timing due to exposure to the marital relationship during childhood.
The next article (Lampard 1999) hypothesize that people with children are more likely to repartner after divorce or widowhood than people entering into a first relationship. A second analysis of this study was to relate attitude about cohabitation vs. marriage. The study supported the idealized hypothesis that based on childhood lifestyle in relation to parental involvement influenced the child’s decision as an adult to cohabitate or marry. Children whose parents remained together chose to marry as compared to children whose parents were divorced, single and dating or cohabitating chose to try out marriage by cohabitating. This study was threatened by internal validity due to the lack of control variables such as education, religion or economic factors.
The most current study (Moore 2001) has the least supported hypothesis, partially due to threatened internal validity of a disproportionate number of married couples in the study. 87 couples were given the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale who were chosen in response to a newspaper advertisement. The study measured intimacy(communication, engagement and friendship) and dyadic adjustment (satisfaction, consensus, cohesion and affectional expression). The married respondents were more likely to be older and more likely to have been in their relationship longer than the dating or cohabitating couples. The hypothesis that attitude and values influence the length of relationship and the quality of relationship is only partially supported. The study supports the hypothesis that attitude and values caused less relationship adjustment and therefore, lengthened the duration of relationship. The second part of the hypothesis, that attitude and values also improve the quality of relationship was not supported. Cohabitating couples feel they had opportunity to terminate the relationship due to the lack of commitment when the relationship lost quality. Dating couples showed an increase in quality of relationship but that was not based on attitude and value towards the relationship. The external validity was threatened due to the lack of consideration of education and financial obligations impacting the sense of the married couples commitment to remain in the marital state. Although childhood exposure to marriage was measured, this study saw childhood relationship to marriage as a correlation to duration of relationship rather than influencing the choice of relationship.
The study outlined in this proposal will determine if married couples are happier in their relationships than cohabiting couples. A sample group will be selected based on volunteers who have a high school education, participate in some religious activity, and at least one member of the couple is employed full-time. The group will be surveyed as a single response item with fixed response categories, such as the Stack (1998) study. Although the couples might have longer duration (Moore, 2001) in their relationship, which could affect the results, it was not felt duration of relationship would threaten the validity of the study. The couples identified for the present study are similar to the study by Stack 1998, except all couples are from the United States. A language and philosophy external to the United States would be considered a qualifier. The proposed study will identify the level of happiness as it relates to the state of marital relationship as compared to the state of cohabitation.
In all of the articles reviewed, inventory surveys were administered to measure level of perceived happiness as it related to type of relationship in the study. In the article by Moore, McCabe & Brink (2001), the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale (Revised) (Moore et al, 1998) (PAIR-R) was used to assess intimacy. The Stack & Eshleman (1998) study conducted by the World Values Study Group (1991) performed the field work and interviews. A single item with fixed response categories measured happiness. Following previous research controls for economic well-being, national character and physical health will be excluded in the proposed study as compared to the Stack & Eshleman (1998) study. The advantage of the single item, fixed response is the concrete statistics obtained. The disadvantages and limitations are that external factors can not be taken into consideration with limited response options. Another disadvantage is that there is no control variable for length of relationship as it relates to the perceived level of happiness.
In the proposed study, the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Moore et al 2001) and the single item response used by Stack & Eshleman (1998) will be adapted to form a single-item response survey. In addition to the level of happiness, happiness will be related to financial satisfaction, health, and emotional well-being as it relates to cohabitation or marriage. Two separate analyses for men and women will qualify principle predictors of happiness, health and financial security to gain a perspective on relationship to overall happiness. The strength of this type of study is that the instrument has been used innumerable time in American-based research (Stack & Eshleman 1998). Comparison to prior studies will strengthen the hypothesis that married couples are happier.
Dependent
Variable:
Couples level of satisfaction in relationship as it relates to perceived happiness
is the dependent variable. Being married is more closely tied to the variance
in happiness than was cohabitation.
Independent Variables:
The independent variable in this study is the type of relationship a couple
is in. They are either dating, cohabitating, or are married. Control variables
have been established for education, religion, and economic status have been
taken into consideration when the sample group was formed.
Hypothesis:
The hypothesis of this study is that the commitment to a marital relationship
is associated with a higher level of personal well-being than couples living
together. The advantage of being married over those who are not married report
a higher indicator of well-being happiness. The sense of well being within
marital couples stems from an increased feeling of emotional and physical
well-being, and financial support.
Population and Sample
There will be a random sample recruited from the general population in response to a newspaper advertisement inviting participants to volunteer for a study on relationships and level of happiness. Heterosexual couples with a high school education, employment by at least one member in the couple and participants in a religious society will be sought in an attempt to minimize external factors.
The research question for this study, “Are married couples happier in their relationship than cohabiting couples?” is a relationship question. The research design used for this question is represented in Design Three, a differences design, in The Whole Art of Deduction with three groups and one observation.
R
| Event |
1 |
| Group 1 |
O1 |
| Group 2 |
O1 |
| Group 3 |
O1 |
The group is given a survey, rating questionnaire and a private interview for the observation.
Participants will complete one assessment for this study. Means and standard deviations will be computed on the scores obtained from these assessments for each group (dating, cohabiting and married). The means will be tested by a t-test for independent means to see if there is a significant difference. If the difference is significant then the hypothesis will be supported. The assessment will be a modified PAIR and DAS (Moore 2001) survey based on the single response item “All things taken into consideration, would you say you are: not at all happy (0), not very happy(1), quite happy(2), or very happy(3)?” (Stack & Eshleman 1998) Permission to use this assessment was granted by Educators Publishing Service, Inc. Table 1 shows sample effects of marital status on happiness, financial satisfaction and reported health. Table 2 shows sample effects of marital status by gender. Appendix A shows a sample of this assessment.
SATISFACTION, AND REPORTED HEALTH
Legend for Chart:
A - Independent Variable
B - Happiness
C - Financial Satisfaction
D – Health
A |
B |
C |
D |
Marital Status |
|||
| Married |
0.156(a) |
0.031(a) |
0.026(a) |
| Cohabitant |
0.046(a) |
-0.034(a) |
-0.016(a) |
| Divorced |
-0.016(a) |
-0.044(a) |
-0.001 |
| Separated |
-0.022(a) |
-0.043(a) |
0.0004 |
| Widowed |
-0.019(a) |
-0.039 |
-0.019(a) |
| Reported health |
0.213(a) |
0.149(a) |
-- |
Socioeconomic status |
|||
| Financial satisfaction |
0.218(a) |
-- |
0.133(a) |
| Unemployed |
-0.031(a) |
-0.121(a) |
-0.027(a) |
| Education |
0.005 |
0.071(a) |
0.097(a) |
| Controls |
|||
| Male |
-0.024(a) |
-0.017(a) |
0.05 |
| Age |
-0.047(a) |
0.156(a) |
-0.307(a) |
| Church attendance |
0.035(a) |
0.079(a) |
0.019(a) |
| Parental status |
0.005 |
-0.052 |
0.013 |
(a) - p < 0.05.
TABLE 2. EFFECT OF MARITAL STATUS ON GLOBAL HAPPINESS BY GENDER
Legend for Chart:
A - Independent Variable
B - Females b
C - Females SE
D - Females Beta
E - Males b
F - Males SE
G - Males Beta
H - Difference in Slopes z Test
| A |
B |
C |
D |
| E |
F |
G |
|
| H |
|||
| Marital status |
|||
| Married |
.200(a) |
0.02 |
0.158 |
| .170(a) |
0.021 |
0.15 |
|
| 0.72 |
|||
| Coabitant |
.144(a) |
0.029 |
0.05 |
| .103(a) |
0.029 |
0.038 |
|
| 1.00 |
|||
| Divorced |
-0.033 |
0.037 |
-.009 |
| .-.130(a) |
0.048 |
-.027 |
|
| 1.6 |
|||
| Separated |
-0.128(a) |
0.049 |
-.024 |
| -.111(a) |
0.057 |
-.019 |
|
| -.023 |
|||
| Widowed |
-0.043 |
0.029 |
-.021 |
| 0.017 |
0.041 |
0.005 |
|
| -1.19 |
|||
| Financial satisfaction |
.057(a) |
0.002 |
0.221 |
| .053(a) |
0.003 |
0.213 |
|
| 1.11 |
|||
| Health |
.142(a) |
0.006 |
0.222 |
| .126(a) |
0.007 |
0.2 |
|
| 1.74 |
|||
R2 0.23 0.19
F 107.23(a) 77.74(a)
n 10127 9237
Note: For the purposes of brevity and clarity, the coefficients for
the control variables are not shown.
(a) - p < .05.
Appendix A
ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale Items
Response choices
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| Strongly Disagree |
Moderately Disagree |
Neither Agree nor Disagree |
Moderately Agree |
Strongly Agree |
( + ) 1. My partner and I understand each other perfectly
( - ) 2. I am not pleased with the personality characteristics and personal habits of my partner.
( + ) 3. I am very happy with how we handle our responsibilities in our marriage
( + ) 4. My partner completely understands and sympathizes with my every mood.
( - ) 5. I am not happy about our communication and feel my partner does not understand me.
( + ) 6. Our relationship is a perfect success.
( + ) 7. I am very happy about how we make decisions and resolve conflicts.
( - ) 8. I am unhappy about our financial. position and the way we make financial decisions.
( - ) 9. I have some needs that are not. being met by our relationship.
( + ) 10. I am very happy with how we manage our leisure activities and the time we spend together.
( + ) 11. I am very pleased about how we express affection and relate sexually.
( - ) 12. I am not satisfied with the way we each handle our responsibilities as parents.
( + ) 13. I have never regretted my relationship with my partner, not even for a moment.
( -) 14. I am dissatisfied about our relationship with my parents, in-laws, and/or friends.
( + ) 15. I feel very good about how we each practice our religious beliefs and values role responsibilities.
Clarksberg, Marvin, Stolzenberg, Ross M., Waite, Linda J., “Attitudes, value, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions.” Social Forces, Chapel Hill: Dec 1995, Vol. 74, Iss. 2, p609.
Bumpass, Larry L., Sweet, James A., Cherlin, Andrew “The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage & the Family. Nov 91, Vol. 53, Iss. 4 p 913.
Wu, Zheng. “Premarital Cohabitation and the Timing of First Marriages.” Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, Feb 99, Vol. 36, p19.
Lampard, Richard, Kay, Peggs. “Repartnering: The relevance of parenthood and gender to cohabitation and remarriage among the ….” British Journal of Sociology; Sep 99, Vol. 50 Issue 3, p443.
Moore, Kathleen A., McCabe, Marita P., and Brink, Roger B. “Are married couples happier in their relationships than cohabiting couples? Intimacy and relationship factors.” British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy. Vol. 16, No. 1, 2001.
Stack, Steven, Eshleman, J. Ross. “Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study.” Journal of Marriage & the Family. May 98. Vol. 60 Issue 2. p527.
Trochim, William M. K. “The Research Methods Knowledge Base.” Cornell University. 2001.
VanLaningham, Jody, Johnson, David R., Amato, Paul. “Marital Happiness, Marital Duration and the U-Shaped Curve: Evidence from a Five-Wave Panel Study.” Social Forces. Jun 2001, Vol. 79, Issue 4, p1313.
Fowers,
Blaine J., Olson, David H. “ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: A Brief Research
and Clinical Tool” Journal of Family Psychology. 1993. Vol 7, No. 2,
176-185.
CONSENT FORM FOR EXEMPT
(page 1 of 3)
CONSENT FORM
Are married couples happier than cohabiting couples?
Invitation to Participate: You are invited to participate in a study of level of happiness associated with your dating, cohabiting or marital relationship being conducted by Susan Quinn in association with the University of Texas at Brownsville, College of Education as part of the requirements for Masters of Education in Educational Technology degree.
Basis for Subject Selection: You have been selected because your response to the newspaper advertisement and the answers you gave qualified you as the type of subject we are looking for in our study. This study will provide valuable results in the study of relationship status, as it exists in the United States.
Overall Purpose of Study: With changes that have taken place in today’s world, the moral climate has changed, yet the influence relationships have on children today have a determining factor in their choices and level of happiness in the relationships they enter.
a. The study consists of a single-entry multiple choice questionnaire and interview.
b. Single response questions evaluating the level of happiness as it relates to relationship, health, emotional well-being, and financial status will be accessed.
.
c. Graduate students involved with the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston will perform the evaluations, along with graduate students from other research universities across the United States.
d. Participation will take place at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston and other research universities across the United States, as designated. Scheduled evaluations will be from December 1 through December 5, 2003.
e. No prior actions will need to be taken prior to attending the evaluation.
f. There will be no instances of deception or a need for de-briefing following the evaluation.
Model Consent Form (page 2 of 3)
Potential risks and discomforts: Risks can be classified generally, within some overlap, as:
1) physical – none expected.
2) psychological – possible depression, confusion, feelings of guilt after interview
3) social – none expected
4) legal – none expected.
5) economic – none expected
The probability of risks arise from feelings of guilt regarding lower expectations in relationship or religious aspects of guilt associated with relationship.
Potential Benefits: The benefits hoped for in this study are to provide sociological and psychological information to prepare associates with information regarding relationships and level of perceived happiness. The effects of relationships filters down to children in relationships, whether dating, cohabiting or married. Based on the study results, researchers expect to provide better understanding and coping skills for children to understand their choice of relationship and the effects their choice could have on their level of happiness
Alternatives to Participation: There is no alternative treatment available.
Compensation for Participation: Compensation is made in terms of cost of transportation to the college, $10 per hour for time of participation and travel time or $50.00 per person, whichever is higher.
Assurance of Confidentiality: Any information obtained that could identify the subject will remain confidential and will only be disclosed with the subject’s permission. Any information that might be released MUST receive permission by the subject prior to release. A consent form must be signed that states who will be receiving the information, the nature of the information, the purpose of the disclosure, and whether the subject’s name will be released.
Statement of Injury or Special Costs: There is no possibility of research related physical injury in this study, therefore, there are no special previsions made for injury.
Model Consent Form (Page 3 of 3)
Withdrawal from the Study: Your participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your you in any way. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time.
Offer to Answer Questions: You should feel free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you have any questions, you can contact Susan Quinn, phone 817-555-1212. If you have any questions about the right of research subjects, contact the Chairman of the UTB/TSC Human Subjects Research Review Committee (HSRRC) or the Office of Sponsored Programs at UTB/TSC (956) 983-7849.
Consent Statement:
You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that, having read and understood the information provided above, you have decided to participate. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.
___________________________________________ ____________________________
Signature of Subject Date
_____________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Signature of Witness Signature of Investigator
(If required, see footnote [1] )
[1] The signature of a witness is required for all research studies involving more than minimal risk. If possible, the witness should be someone who is not involved in the study.
|
|
|
Copyright © 2003 |
||
Susan Quinn |