Using APA format peer review this paper. Please pay attention to grammar, and make comments on the paper using track changes in Microsoft Word. Everything is in APA format. Also must use track changes

Hire our professional essay experts at Gradehunters.net who are available online 24/7 for an essay paper written to a high standard at an affordable cost.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Using APA format peer review this paper. Please pay attention to grammar, and make comments on the paper using track changes in Microsoft Word. Everything is in APA format. Also must use track changes in Microsoft word

Using APA format peer review this paper. Please pay attention to grammar, and make comments on the paper using track changes in Microsoft Word. Everything is in APA format. Also must use track changes
41 INDIVIDUALS AFFECTS ON A RELATIONSHIP The Impact of Religious Identity, Economic Income, and Duration on Romantic Relationships Name The College of Staten Island City University of New York Abstract Relational satisfaction is an important aspect to a successful relationship. Relational satisfaction can negatively or positively effect a romantic relationship. This study will examine how religion, economic income, and duration of romantic relationships can impact relational satisfaction scores. We utilized the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) to measure the relational satisfaction scores for the study. To find the relational satisfaction scores of our participants, we conducted an online survey of 211 participants ages 18 and older. In the study we had to exclude 9 participants surveys due to inaccurate answers, which lead to our final sample size of 202 participants. One limitation in our study is time constraint, we only had a small amount of time to collect our data. For future research, having a longer period of time to collect data will help get more accurate data. We were unable to identify any significant differences in economic income and duration of romantic relationships on relational scores. However, we found a significant difference between religion and relational scores. While there is a significant difference between religion and relational scores, more research should be done on each individual religion along with having a wider range of religions, to make the study more culturally appropriate to get more accurate results. Key Words: Religion, Economic Income, Duration of Relationships, Relational Scores The Impact of Economic Income, Duration, and Religious Identity on Romantic Relationships According to the Center of disease control and prevention (2016) it is estimated that in 2016, about 42% of all suicides in the Unites States are related to relationship problems. That is approximately 18,900 people that died by suicide for reasons that include relationship problems (CDC 2016). According to the Center of disease control and prevention (2005), the average cost for women who were physically abused by their partner was 483 dollars compared to only 83 dollars for men. Furthermore, health care costs that are linked to domestic violence was estimated around 4.1 billion dollars (CDC 2005). For some people living with a disability, it can be hard for them to form a romantic relationship with someone. It has been shown that only 3 percent of people with a learning disability live as a couple, unlike the 70 percent of the general adult population that do live as a couple (Brandontrust 2004). Using this data can justify why this research on relationships needs to be done. The purpose of this study is to see how differences between individuals affect their relationships with their significant other. The study will focus on three different aspects that may have an effect on the relationship. The study will look at how religious groups differ in self-reported relational health scores. Another aspect the study will look at will be, how income levels can affect relationship well-being. Lastly, the study will try to determine if there a link between the duration of a relationship on romantic satisfaction. This study will try to determine if these aspects of a person’s life can impact their relationship for the good or bad. The study will use The Couple’s Satisfaction Index (CSI) to help measure the satisfaction rating of each relationship to gather the data. The study will also use attachment theory (Blakely and Dziadosz 2015) and goal theory (Greenway, 2020), to help further explain its findings. Goal theory is used in psychology to find research into motivation to learn. In further research, goal theory can also be used in relational studies. In relationship studies, goal theory can be used when an individual uses small goals as motivation to achieve a larger goal to make their relationship better with their significant other. This theory is mostly used when the couple’s relationship is failing, or the couple is starting to drift apart. It can also be used to make the relationship better than it already is. In Greenway’s (2020) study, he looked at if prayer in religious relationships can influence the goals of each induvial in the relationship. He studied couples from different religious backgrounds assigned each couple to pray with and for their significant other. He found that the couples who prayed with and for their significant other, reported more unity and trust than couples who were not assigned to pray. These findings show that a small goal, like praying with your significant other, can motivate a couple’s relationship to meet a larger goal, like have more trust and unity with each other (Greenway 2020). In a study by Addo and Sassler (2010), they looked at reasons for martial distress, specifically financial problems. Based on research it has been shown that low-income families, even if they have a basic form of savings, are more prone to marital distress because of their limited assets they have or can afford. The study looked at the associations between men and women statements of their financial arrangements and several aspects of the couple’s relational quality. They researchers used a multinomial logistic regression to get reasons predicting the way couples utilize their expenses. The outcome showed that, the couples that had joint accounts, were linked to higher levels of relationship quality (Addo & Sassler 2010). This study can be linked to goal theory because, the research showed that couples whose goal it was to have a decent financial status had better relational quality than those who weren’t as financially stable. Couples create financial goals to try and help make their economic situation better. In Eastwick et al. (2018), they examined three different aspects of the participants’ relationships which were, events that they had experienced in their own relationships, events that they believed to be common in relationships, and events that bode well and bode poorly for the future of a relationship. The researchers asked 86 undergraduate students to complete a 1-hr study for course credit at their university. They found that Short-term and long-term relationships begin at approximately the same level of romantic interest and rise at the same rates. However, as the relationship becomes sexual, romantic interest in short-term relationships levels out and falls, signifying an end to the relationship that arrived sooner than in long-term relationships (Eastwick et al. 2018). This research can be linked to goal theory because when these couples tracked their relationship development over time it helped the couple make sure their relationship is progressing well. In the study by Ellison, Burdette & Wilcox (2010), they looked at the link among relationships who shared similar religious beliefs and the quality of their relationship. In the study, they evaluated 2,400 individuals which consisted of Latinos and African Americans. The couple’s demographic features were used in the study as predictors of the couple’s relationship satisfaction. Researchers found that there is a positive association between similar religious beliefs and relationship quality. The research also concluded that religious homogamy is a weaker predictor of relationship quality (Ellison, Burdette & Wilcox 2010). Ellison, Burdette & Wilcox (2010) study can be linked to goal theory because the findings support that couples use their religious beliefs as goals to help report their quality of their relationship to be improved. In Kelley et al. (2020), they explore the dividing and uniting duality of relationally divisiveness of religiosity. The researchers questioned 198 couples, or 396 individuals, from the three different Abrahamic faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Their findings found that there were far more unifying accounts in relationships than were identified dividing accounts. They also found the unifying and dividing influences of beliefs and practices of these marital relationships were more prevalent than the unifying and dividing influences of the community on these relationships (Kelley et al. 2020). In relationships, couples use the dividing and uniting duality of relational divisiveness of religiosity to measure their relational progress. This can translate to the goal theory perspective since the couples are using dividing and uniting duality as goals to measure their progress in their relationship. In Mirecki et al. (2013), the study looks at the differences in relational health scores for individuals in their first and second marriages. They studied 1,067 individuals for this research and those individuals were gathered by convenience sampling. The participants were measured based on the length of their prior marriages, time taken between marriages, counseling and their current marriage. The study measured the participants satisfaction using the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test is a fifteen point scale that measures happiness as a factor for marital pleasure. Length of marriage was determined to be a significant correlation in romantic satisfaction (Mirecki et al.2013). This study measures how romantic satisfaction goals can change based on the situation or duration of the relationship of the couple, which can be supported by goal theory. In a study done by Perry (2015), he wanted to measure marriage quality and how it was affected by religious influences on the marital decision and the religious commitment of each induvial in the relationship. He gathered research using Portraits of American Life Study, where he had 1160 different married couples and were surveyed about religion and marriage experience from a seven month span in 2006. The PALS surveys measured relationship satisfaction, expressive devotion and insults or harsh criticism. He wanted to look at, the influence of religious factors on respondents’ marriage decision and the importance of religion to respondents’ spouses. These questions were measured on a five point scale. He discovered that participants that thought religion was an important factor to marriage decisions and had fewer religious spouses, experienced more negative outcomes (Perry 2015). Perry’s study can be linked to goal theory by, how religious goals within a marriage can affect spouses’ behaviors and attitudes towards their relationship. Schmiedeberg, Schroder, Schroder (2016) studied in their research how sexual satisfaction changes over the maturity of a relationship. The research consisted of young and middle-aged individuals in serious relationships. There were 2814 individuals that participated in the study. They used fixed effects regression models in order to get estimates based on changes within each individual over time. The study found a positive growth of sexual satisfaction in the first year of a relationship, led by a steady drop (Schmiedeberg, Schröder, & Schröder 2016). In this study it shows how sexual goals in a relationship can help with relationship stability and satisfaction, which can be linked to the use goal theory in relationships. Attachment theory is when we create our earliest relationship with our caregivers as an infant, specifically with our parents or guardians. This is how we create our expectations for how love should be expressed between one another. As we get older, we use that expectation of love to find the right partner who has the same expectation of love as we do. This shows that as we get older, we look for a partner that shares the same ideas and expectations as we do. In Blakely and Dziadosz study (2015), they use attachment theory as a framework for assessment and treatment in clinical work. They look at how a child’s attachment to its mother is essential to the child’s mental health. In the study, the also look at how separation and the loss of a primary caregiver can have negative effect on the mental health and interpersonal relationships of the child. An important finding in the study was that, adult attachment research found that there is a link in the style from childhood all the way through to adulthood, in the way a person learns to manage anxiety resulting from a lack of a positive attachment experience to the primary caretaker early in life. These findings show that if we don’t experience a positive expression of attachment by a caregiver, that induvial will have a difficult time finding a partner and handling the stress of becoming an adult (Dziadosz 2015). In Coughlin and Wade’s study (2012), they look at men’s masculinity ideology to gender roles, income and how it has effects on the quality of their relationship. They examined 47 men, ages ranging from 20-80 that reported their significant other as having a higher income than them. The researchers used the Masculine Gender Role Dogmatism Inventory scale that consisted of 28 items along with a 6-point Likert scale. They also used the Modified Interpersonal Relationship Scale to measure relationships quality. They found that the more one allowed traditional masculinity ideology the more they were likely to experience low relationship quality and the more they perceived differences in income as important. The research also showed, when the relationship endorsed nontraditional masculinity ideology, the more the relationship was likely to experience higher relationship quality the more they perceived income disparity as insignificant (Coughlin & Wade 2012). This study can be linked to attachment theory because in this study, it shows that individuals tend to attach themselves to other individuals that give them their best chance at a healthy relationship. In Debnam, et al. (2012) study, they look at how chronic disease is the main cause of death and disability within the U.S.A. This study sampled 2,370 African American men and women. The researchers conducted a phone interview with African Americans of the age 21 and above living in a private residence. The study tried to conduct random sampling by using a professional sampling firm that randomly selected those individuals to interview. The researchers gave participants compensation for their time by giving them a $25 gift card once they finished with the interview. The findings showed that various areas of religious social support predicted medium physical exercises and alcohol use over and above the role of general social groups. They also found that fruit and vegetable consumption was positively linked with general social support and all religious social support variables with the exception of the negative interaction subscale (Debnam et al, 2012). Attachment theory can be linked to this research because, couples try to attach their religion to their relationship, to have a healthier relationship with their significant other. In Gibson-Davis et al. (2018), they examined the economic bar to marriage which is expressed by the economic success of each individual in the relationship, including earnings, employment, and asset achievements, to determine whether their relationships are ready for marriage. Before they conducted the research, they found that low-income parents avoid marriage because they have not met the illusory economic bar to marriage. The researchers surveyed 4,444 couples aged 18 and up from prenatal clinics and hospital maternity wards. Research showed that couples who met the economic bar were significantly more likely to marry than couples who did not meet the bar (Gibson-Davis et al. 2018). These findings show that low income couples don’t tend to get attached to their significant other enough to get married, while higher income couples do get married because they are more attached to each other, which fits into the philosophy of attachment theory. Research by Hardie (2010), looked at the relationship between financial problems and conflict in couples. The researched contained 838 in non-marital relationships and 864 married couples drawn from a multistage cluster and school-based sample. In the study, Hardie’s findings showed that financial insecurity was an indication of the level of romantic satisfaction found in each relationship, as well as young married couples are were more likely to experience separation or divorce than their older counterparts because of financial problems (Hardie 2010). Individuals tend to attach economic hardships to the level of romantic satisfaction inside the couple’s relationships. This can be linked to attachment theory because individuals want to attach themselves with a partner who is financial stable. Krause and Hayward (2015) studied the association between religious beliefs and the effects of self-related health and individual life satisfaction. The study surveyed 1,535 middle aged and older adults, who were White and African American people. The research only studied the individuals who practiced Christianity. The researchers have found that people who were religious and trusted God, experienced better health outcomes and better life satisfaction then those who did not believe in God (Krause & Hayward 2015). This fits attachment theory’s definition because these couples attach religious beliefs, the relations of health outcomes and life satisfaction of an individual, to their relational success. In Lavner et al. (2018), they researched self-reported personality changes in spouses overtime and its link to marital fulfilment. The research studied 169 newlyweds couples that were heterosexual. The couples completed a questionnaire privately and attended a 3-hr laboratory within the first 6 months of their marriage. After these initial assessments, they had to follow up by answering questionnaires 12 months later after their sessions were over. The study examined marital satisfaction and change in the couples big 5 personality traits. The findings revealed major changes in the big 5 personality traits over the first year and a half for the couples, more so in the women than the men. The significant changes were connected to significant decline in marital satisfaction (Lavner et al. 2018). Individuals attach certain personalities to their significant others and when their personality changes it can damage the attachment to their partner, which is what attachment theory explains. In Prawitz et al. (2013), they researched low-income consumers experiencing differing levels of economic pressure and financial distress. The study had 221 participants who qualified as having a low income in eight different states. The participants filled out an online survey to determine their economic stress and pressure. The findings showed that many of the participants suffer economically which leads to an increase their stress levels which also affects their wellbeing. The findings also discuss, since these individuals have increased stress and pressure because of their finances, their families can also take on those same stresses and pressures as well (Prawitz et al. 2013). This research portrays attachment theory because, couples with a low income can then attach their stress and pressure on the well-being of their own family. Lastly, in Vancour and Fallon’s study (2017), they wanted to see if sexual debut can be a reason for failed relationships. The study only used 194 surveyed participants because the undergraduate students had to be relationship and be 18 and older. The findings found that young adults who postponed sexual contact in their relationships reported higher relational satisfaction than those who had sexual intercourse within the first 2 months of their relationship (Vancour & Fallon 2017). In this study it concludes that sexual debut and romantic relationship satisfaction along with sexual satisfaction help a couple become more attached to one another, which explains attachment theory’s philosophy. One gap between past research and my study is that we will measure the couple’s relationship satisfaction using The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI). Another difference in our research will be, all of our data will only be collected by using a questionnaire/survey. Lastly, in our study, there will be no in person contact with any participants because of our situation with covid-19. In our study, our first research question will be do religious groups differ in self-reported relational health scores. We will use this research question to look at, if there are no significant statistical differences in relational health scores across religious groups and also use it to see if there are significant statistical differences in relational health scores across religious groups. The next research question we will use will be, what are the effects of income levels on relationship well-being. Our hypotheses for this research question will look at, if there is no significant statistical effect of income levels on relationship well-being and if there are significant statistical effects on income levels on relationship well-being. Our last research question will analyze if there is a link between duration of a relationship on romantic satisfaction. Our hypothesis will look at if, there is no link between the duration of a relationship on romantic satisfaction as well as if there is a link between the duration of a relationship on romantic satisfaction. Method Design For this study we will be using a correlational design and ex post facto (quasi-experimental) . The dependent variables in our research will consist of ethnicity, age, religion association, gender, and race. The grouping variables will consist of religion, economic income, and the duration of relationships. We do not have any independent variables because our study does not manipulate any measures. Participants In this study we surveyed 211 participants. There were 9 participants who were excluded from this study due to random responses or being ineligible. Participants ages ranged between 18 to 81 (M = 27.74; SD = 11.04). There were 134 females (66.3%), 66 males (32.7%), 1 transgender (0.5%), and 1 participant who identified as other (0.5%). For ethnicity our study had, 68 white/Caucasian- non-Hispanic (33.5%), 48 African American (23%), 18 Hispanic/Lantinx (8.9%), 1 Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander (0.5%), 1 American Indian/Alaskan native (0.5%), 1 Middle Eastern (0.5%), 8 Chinese (3.9%), 17 Filipino (8.4%), 7 Indian (3.4%), 5 Korean (2.5%), 11 Southeast Asian (5.4%), 7 Mexican (3.4%), 4 that were unknown/not reported (2%), and 7 decline to answer (3.4%). In the study we had 140 participants identify that they were religious (69%) and 63 participants who identified as non-religious (31%). For religion the study consisted of 106 Christianity (52.2%), 10 Judaism (4.9%), 53 Islam (26.1%), 3 Buddhism (1.5%), 2 Hinduism (1%), 8 Agnostic (3.9%), 8 Atheist (3.9%), and 13 who reported they follow another religion (6.4%). Participants in our study’s income had a range from $0 to $2,000,000 (M = 56,246.36; SD = 189153.89). In our study we had to exclude an additional two of our participants answers to their income answer because their answers were not acceptable. The duration of relationships in our study ranged from 1 month to 40 years (M = 5.10; SD = 7.07). Lastly, we measured that 178 participants spoke English (87.7%) and 25 participants said that English is not their first language (12.3%). Instruments Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-32) For this study, we used the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) instrument (Funk & Rogge 2007). It is a 32-item scale used to analyze an individual’s satisfaction within a relationship. This instrument contained 8 different sub scales to measure an individual’s relational satisfaction. The instrument used 8 different subscales however, each subscale still only measured the relational satisfaction of the participant ranging from duration, happiness, and satisfaction of a relationship. The CSI-32 scores are based off total scores, with the score range from 0 to 161. The instrument has a strong internal consistency reliability (Cronbach Alpha = .94) (Funk & Rogge 2007), For a copy of this instrument, see Appendix A. Demographics Questionnaire The demographics questionnaire is a 9-item measure that includes questions about age, gender, ethnicity, economic income, religion and duration of relationship. For a copy of this instrument, see Appendix B. Procedures To begin the research for this study, we got IRB approval. To collect the data, we posted the survey online on multiple platforms to get sufficient data to perform the research. The survey link was posted on Instagram, WhatsApp, and Snapchat. The survey was also sent out to phone and email contacts. After the data was collected, it was entered into an excel sheet. Then, the survey answers were coded into numbers using our index score ratings. After the data was entered into the excel sheet, it was entered into SPSS to begin the statistical analysis of our research. Results Total Income The first research question of this study was, what are the effects on relationship satisfaction? The null hypothesis is, there is no significant statistical effect of income levels on relationship well-being and the alternative hypothesis is, there are significant statistical effects on income levels on relationship well-being. A total of 211 participants volunteered for this study. After excluding 11 participants due to missing data or being ineligible, a person correlation (N = 200) was conducted to explore the relationship between relationship satisfaction (M = 112.55; SD = 37.25) and total income (M = 56,246.36; SD = 189,153.89). The results of the r (198) = .079, p = .267 reveal a non-significant relationship between relationship satisfaction and total income. See table 1. Duration of Relationship The next research question is, is there a link between the duration of a relationship on romantic satisfaction? The null hypothesis is that, there is no link between the duration of a relationship on romantic satisfaction. The alternative hypothesis is that, there is a link between the duration of a relationship on romantic satisfaction. A total of 211 participants volunteered for this study. After excluding 9 participants due to missing data or being ineligible, a person correlation (N = 202) was conducted to explore the relationship between relationship satisfaction (M = 112.55; SD = 37.25) and duration of relationship (M = 5.10; SD = 7.07). The results of the r (200) = .038, p = .589 reveal a non-significant relationship between relationship satisfaction and duration of relationship. See table 2 Religion The final research question for this study is, do religious groups differ in self-reported relational health scores. The null hypothesis is, there are no significant statistical differences in relational health scores across religious groups and the alternative hypothesis is that, there are significant statistical differences in relational health scores across religious groups. A one-way between subject’s ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of relationship satisfaction scores across adherents of Christianity (M = 117.59; SD = 34.66), Judaism (M = 82.40; SD = 30.98), Islam (M = 111.13; SD = 35.79), Buddhism (M = 148.00; SD = 8.54), Hinduism (M = 114.5; SD = 30.40), Agnostic (M = 131.37; SD = 12.94), Atheist (M = 89.75; SD = 56.12), and Other religions (M = 94.84; SD = 48.09). There was a significant difference of relationship satisfaction scores across the 8 conditions F (7, 194) = 2.934, p = .006. While the general model was significant, post hoc comparison using the Scheffe test did not yield any statically significant pairwise comparison. See tables 3, 4, and 5. Discussion Research Question 1 In the first research question of our study, we observed whether religious groups contrasted in relational health scores. Our data found significant differences between the different religious groups. The findings of our study support the research done by Krause and Hayward (2015), and Debnam et al. (2012) because their research also showed a link between religious beliefs and overall life satisfaction, like our data showed as well. Both our data, Debnam et al. (2012) and Krause and Hayward (2015), showed a connection that religious beliefs can have a positive effect on some aspects of a couple’s life. Our findings are also in agreement with Kelley et al. (2020) and Ellison et al. (2010), because they both showed an association that, religious couples have higher relational satisfaction than couples who aren’t as religious. A related study performed by Perry (2015), showed that there is a link between marital satisfaction and those who had a religious partner of any kind. The research from these studies show concurrence with this research question. Research Question 2 Our second research question in our study was to find if income levels have an effect on relationship satisfaction. Our data revealed that there was no statistically significant relationship between income levels and relationship satisfaction. Relational satisfaction scores did not increase when there was a rise in income. We also found that relational satisfaction scores did not decrease when income declined as well. Our findings are not consistent with the findings of Addo and Sassler (2010) and Prawitz, Kalkowski and Cohart (2013), where both studies found that couples who have a low income reported higher stress levels. This led to lower reported relational satisfaction within their relationship, while our study did not find a correlation between income levels and relational satisfaction scores. In Coughlin and Wade (2012), their findings show that when there are economic disparities between two people in a relationship, it can lead to low relationship quality which translates to low relationship satisfaction. These findings do not comply to our findings as we did not find any proof that economic disparities can impact relational satisfaction. Lastly in Gibson-Davis et al. (2018) and Hardie (2010), their research showed that couples who don’t have financial insecurities reported higher romantic satisfaction with their partner. Our research did not find any correlation with higher income having an effect on romantic satisfaction. The research from these studies don’t show compliance with our research question. Research Question 3 Our third research question for the study is to find if duration of a relationship can effect relational well-being. Our data revealed that there was no statistically significant association between duration of a relationship and relational well-being. Relational satisfaction scores did not increase for longer relationships. Our data also showed that, relational satisfaction scores did not decrease when relationship duration decreased as well. Our findings are not consistent with the findings of Eastwick et al. (2018) and Mirecki et al. (2013), where their data found that longer relationships have higher romantic scores than those of short-term relationships. Also, our data is not consistent with the studies of Lavner et al., study (2018) and Schmiedeberg, Schroder, and Schroder (2015), their findings showed a link to, as the duration of a relationship increases, romantic satisfaction decreases. Our data was unable to detect a correlation to romantic scores on duration of relationships like these studies were able to. Furthermore, in Vancour and Fallon (2017), their data showed when couples delay sexual interactions with each other, their relational satisfaction would increase leading to a longer and stronger relationship. These findings also go against our data, as our findings did not find any association to relational well-being and duration of relationships. The findings from these studies do not show compliance with this research question. Limitations One limitation within the study is time constraints. We only had 4 weeks to gather information which may have altered our findings. If we had a longer amount of time to gather data, we could have gotten a larger sample size which can help generalize our data more. Another limitation for our study can be our budget. We didn’t have any funds to help produce our study, which may have helped us get more accurate data. Cultural bias can be another limitation because if people of a certain religion or ethnicity are having relational problems, they won’t want to report their troubles honestly because they don’t want us to make assumptions about their religion, race, or ethnicity. Based on these limitations, our findings will not be able to make any generalizations on a population. Future Research In future research, we would recommend that researchers make the study have a longer period of time to collect the data. Also, getting some funding for future studies can help attract more participants. Doing this would have allowed us to get more accurate answers from participants because they may be more accurate with their answers if they are given a reward upon completion of the survey. Lastly, having more culturally based questions in the survey may make people of different religion, race, or ethnicity more comfortable answering our survey questions. If we use more culturally based questions, their answers can be more specific since the questions are based solely on their own personal beliefs. References Addo, F. R., & Sassler, S. (2010). Financial arrangements and relationship quality in low- income couples. Family Relations, 59(4), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00612.x Blakely, T. J., & Dziadosz, G. M. (2015). Application of attachment theory in clinical social work. Health & Social Work, 40(4), 283. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlv059 Brandontrust. (2017, April 13). Love, sex, relationships, and learning disabilities. https://www.brandontrust.org/whats-happening/news/love-sex-relationships-and-learning-disabilities/ Coughlin, P., & Wade, J. (2012). Masculinity ideology, income disparity, and romantic relationship quality among men with higher earning female partners. Sex Roles, 67(5–6), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0187-6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, June 07). Suicide rising across the US. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/index.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005, October 25). Average Health Care Cost for Women Exceeds Twice the Average Cost for Men. https://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r051025.htm Debnam, K., Holt, C., Clark, E., Roth, D., & Southward, P. (2012). Relationship between religious social support and general social support with health behaviors in a national sample of African Americans. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-011-9338-4 Eastwick, P. W., Keneski, E., Morgan, T. A., McDonald, M. A., & Huang, S. A. (2018). What do short-term and long-term relationships look like? Building the relationship coordination and strategic timing (ReCAST) model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 747–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000428.supp (Supplemental) Ellison, C. G., Burdette, A. M., & Wilcox, W. B. (2010). The couple that prays together: Race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship quality among working-age adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00742.x   Funk, J. L. & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572-583. Gibson-Davis, C., Gassman-Pines, A., & Lehrman, R. (2018). “His” and “Hers”: Meeting the  economic bar to marriage. Demography, 55(6), 2321–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0726-z Greenway, T. S. (2020). A review of theories accounting for the relationship between intercessory prayer and prosocial behavior: Current research and future directions. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000209 Hardie, J., & Lucas, A. (2010). Economic factors and relationship quality among young couples comparing cohabitation and marriage. Journal of Marriage & Family, 72(5), 1141–1154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00755.x Kelley, H. H., Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2020). Uniting and dividing influences of  religion in marriage among highly religious couples. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000262.supp (Supplemental) Krause, N., & Hayward, R. D. (2015). Assessing whether trust in God offsets the effects of financial strain on health and well-being. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 25(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2014.952588  Lavner, J. A., Weiss, B., Miller, J. D., & Karney, B. R. (2018). Personality change among newlyweds: Patterns, predictors, and associations with marital satisfaction over time. Developmental Psychology, 54(6), 1172–1185. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000491.supp (Supplemental) Mirecki, R., Chou, J., Elliott, M., & Schneider, C. (2013). What factors influence marital satisfaction? Differences between first and second marriages. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 54(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.743831 Perry, S. (2015). A match made in heaven. Religion-based marriage decisions, marital quality, and the moderating effects of spouse’s religious commitment. Social Indicators Research, 123(1), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0730-7 Prawitz, A. D., Kalkowski, J. C., & Cohart, J. (2013). Responses to economic pressure by low- income families: Financial distress and hopefulness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-012-9288-1 Schmiedeberg, C., Schröder, J., & Schröder, J. (2016). Does sexual satisfaction change with relationship duration? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0587-0 Vancour, J. M., & Fallon, M. (2017). Romantic satisfaction in young adults as a function of sexual debut. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 22(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN22.2.121  Table 1 Total Income Effects on Relationship Satisfaction     CSI Total  Income$  CSI Total  Pearson Correlation  1  .079    Sig. (2-tailed)      .267    N  202  200  Income$  Pearson Correlation  .079  1    Sig. (2-tailed)  .267        N 200  201    Table 2 Duration of Relationship Effects on Relationship Satisfaction       CSI Total  RELATIONSHIP   Duration  CSI total  Pearson Correlation  1  .038    Sig. (2-tailed)      .589    N  202  202  Relationship   Duration  Pearson Correlation  .038  1    Sig. (2-tailed)  .589        N  202  203  Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Religious scores Religion N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum Christianity 105 117.5905 34.66258 3.38272 110.8824 124.2985 11.00 159.00 Judaism 10 82.4000 30.98458 9.79819 60.2350 104.5650 39.00 131.00 Islam 53 111.1321 35.79806 4.91724 101.2649 120.9992 18.00 156.00 Buddhism 3 148.0000 8.54400 4.93288 126.7755 169.2245 139.00 156.00 Hinduism 2 114.5000 30.40559 21.50000 -158.6834 387.6834 93.00 136.00 Agnostic 8 131.3750 12.94977 4.57843 120.5487 142.2013 110.00 145.00 Atheist 8 89.7500 56.12931 19.84471 42.8247 136.6753 24.00 148.00 OTHER 13 94.8462 48.09339 13.33871 65.7836 123.9087 18.00 154.00 Total 202 112.5545 37.25653 2.62136 107.3856 117.7233 11.00 159.00 Table 4 Religions Significance on Relationship Satisfaction     Sum of Squares  df  Mean Square  F  Sig.  Between Groups  26710.468  7  3815.781  2.934  .006  Within Groups  252287.433  194  1300.451          Total  278997.901  201                Table 5 Comparison Between Mean Differences of Religious Scores Dependent Variable: CSITotal (I) RELIGION (J) RELIGION (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Christianity Judaism 35.19048 11.93442 .282 -10.0962 80.4772 Islam 6.45840 6.07635 .992 -16.5991 29.5159 Buddhism -30.40952 21.11561 .955 -110.5354 49.7164 Hinduism 3.09048 25.74122 1.000 -94.5880 100.7689 Agnostic -13.78452 13.22655 .993 -63.9744 36.4053 Atheist 27.84048 13.22655 .728 -22.3494 78.0303 OTHER 22.74432 10.60283 .708 -17.4895 62.9781 Judaism Christianity -35.19048 11.93442 .282 -80.4772 10.0962 Islam -28.73208 12.43310 .619 -75.9111 18.4469 Buddhism -65.60000 23.73876 .371 -155.6798 24.4798 Hinduism -32.10000 27.93332 .988 -138.0966 73.8966 Agnostic -48.97500 17.10560 .321 -113.8844 15.9344 Atheist -7.35000 17.10560 1.000 -72.2594 57.5594 OTHER -12.44615 15.16838 .998 -70.0045 45.1122 Islam Christianity -6.45840 6.07635 .992 -29.5159 16.5991 Judaism 28.73208 12.43310 .619 -18.4469 75.9111 Buddhism -36.86792 21.40141 .887 -118.0784 44.3425 Hinduism -3.36792 25.97618 1.000 -101.9379 95.2021 Agnostic -20.24292 13.67820 .948 -72.1466 31.6608 Atheist 21.38208 13.67820 .930 -30.5216 73.2858 OTHER 16.28592 11.16116 .951 -26.0666 58.6384 Buddhism Christianity 30.40952 21.11561 .955 -49.7164 110.5354 Judaism 65.60000 23.73876 .371 -24.4798 155.6798 Islam 36.86792 21.40141 .887 -44.3425 118.0784 Hinduism 33.50000 32.91973 .994 -91.4182 158.4182 Agnostic 16.62500 24.41393 1.000 -76.0168 109.2668 Atheist 58.25000 24.41393 .577 -34.3918 150.8918 OTHER 53.15385 23.09801 .624 -34.4946 140.8023 Hinduism Christianity -3.09048 25.74122 1.000 -100.7689 94.5880 Judaism 32.10000 27.93332 .988 -73.8966 138.0966 Islam 3.36792 25.97618 1.000 -95.2021 101.9379 Buddhism -33.50000 32.91973 .994 -158.4182 91.4182 Agnostic -16.87500 28.50933 1.000 -125.0574 91.3074 Atheist 24.75000 28.50933 .998 -83.4324 132.9324 OTHER 19.65385 27.39087 .999 -84.2844 123.5921 Agnostic Christianity 13.78452 13.22655 .993 -36.4053 63.9744 Judaism 48.97500 17.10560 .321 -15.9344 113.8844 Islam 20.24292 13.67820 .948 -31.6608 72.1466 Buddhism -16.62500 24.41393 1.000 -109.2668 76.0168 Hinduism 16.87500 28.50933 1.000 -91.3074 125.0574 Atheist 41.62500 18.03088 .620 -26.7955 110.0455 OTHER 36.52885 16.20466 .650 -24.9619 98.0195 Atheist Christianity -27.84048 13.22655 .728 -78.0303 22.3494 Judaism 7.35000 17.10560 1.000 -57.5594 72.2594 Islam -21.38208 13.67820 .930 -73.2858 30.5216 Buddhism -58.25000 24.41393 .577 -150.8918 34.3918 Hinduism -24.75000 28.50933 .998 -132.9324 83.4324 Agnostic -41.62500 18.03088 .620 -110.0455 26.7955 OTHER -5.09615 16.20466 1.000 -66.5869 56.3945 OTHER Christianity -22.74432 10.60283 .708 -62.9781 17.4895 Judaism 12.44615 15.16838 .998 -45.1122 70.0045 Islam -16.28592 11.16116 .951 -58.6384 26.0666 Buddhism -53.15385 23.09801 .624 -140.8023 34.4946 Hinduism -19.65385 27.39087 .999 -123.5921 84.2844 Agnostic -36.52885 16.20466 .650 -98.0195 24.9619 Atheist 5.09615 16.20466 1.000 -56.3945 66.5869 Appendix A Appendix B Demographic Questions  1) Age:  _____ 2) Gender  A. Female  B. Male  C. Transgender D. Prefer Not to Answer 3) Your ethnic and racial background  A. African American, Black  B. Chinese  C. Filipino  D. Indian  E. Japanese  F. Korean  G. Southeast Asian  H. White Caucasian – Non-Hispanic  I. Hispanic or Latino  J. Mexican  K. American Indian, Alaskan Native L. Middle Eastern  M. More than one race  N. Unknown or not reported  O. Decline to answer  4) Are you a native English speaker? A. Yes  B. No  C. Decline to answer  5) If NO, how long have you been speaking English? ____ 6) Estimate your annual income in whole dollars $____   7) Do you consider yourself to be a religious person?  A. Yes  B. No  C. Decline to answer  8) If YES, what religion are you affiliated with?  A. Non-Religious Secular  B. Agnostic C. Atheist  C. Christianity  D. Judaism  E. Islam  F. Buddhism  G. Hinduism  H. Sikhism  I. Unitarian-Universalism  J. Wiccan Pagan Druid  K. Spiritualism  L. Native American  M. Baha’i  N. Other: ______ 9) How long were/are you in your latest romantic relationship? ________

Writerbay.net

Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!

Get a 15% discount for your first order


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper