Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

Stability and change in the first 10 years of marriage: Does commitment confer benefits beyond the effects of satisfaction?

Authors:

Schoebi, Dominik, ORCID 0000-0003-3991-2712 . Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland, dominik.schoebi@unifr.ch  Karney, Benjamin R.. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US Bradbury, Thomas N.. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US

Address:

Schoebi, Dominik, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Rue de Faucigny 2, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland, dominik.schoebi@unifr.ch

Source:

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 102(4), Apr, 2012. pp. 729-742.

NLM Title Abbreviation:

J Pers Soc Psychol

Publisher:

US : American Psychological Association

ISSN:

0022-3514 (Print) 1939-1315 (Electronic)

Language:

English

Keywords:

commitment, maintenance, marital interaction, relationships, satisfaction

Abstract:

Although commitment is theoretically distinct from relationship satisfaction, empirical associations between the concepts are high. After drawing from classic definitions of commitment to distinguish between commitment as the desire for a relationship to persist versus the behavioral inclination to maintain the relationship, we predicted that the former component would function much like satisfaction, whereas the latter component would operate independently of satisfaction to stabilize couple relationships. Using satisfaction and commitment data collected over the first 4 years of marriage (N = 172 couples), we demonstrate that only behavioral inclinations to maintain the marriage are related to observed marital interaction behaviors, to reported steps taken toward dissolution, and to 11-year divorce rates, independent of satisfaction. Consistent with dyadic ‘weak-link” conceptions of commitment, likelihood of divorce was found to increase as a function of the lower of the 2 partners’ inclination to maintain the relationship. Commitment may stabilize declining intimate partnerships, particularly when it is conceptualized as the inclination to maintain the relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Document Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

*Commitment; *Interpersonal Interaction; *Marriage; *Relationship Satisfaction

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):

Adult;  Divorce;  Family Conflict;  Female;  Follow-Up Studies;  Humans;  Interpersonal Relations;  Male;  Marriage;  Models, Psychological;  Personal Satisfaction;  Probability;  Problem Solving;  Surveys and Questionnaires;  Time Factors

PsycINFO Classification:

Marriage & Family (2950)

Population:

Human Male Female

Location:

US

Age Group:

Adulthood (18 yrs & older)

Tests & Measures:

Quality of Marriage Inventory Marital Status Inventory   DOI: 10.1037/t17909-000

Grant Sponsorship:

Sponsor: National Institute of Mental Health Grant Number: Grant MH48674 Recipients: Bradbury, Thomas N. Sponsor: Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland Grant Number: Grants PA001-10899 and PZ00P1_121616 Recipients: Schoebi, Dominik

Methodology:

Empirical Study; Quantitative Study

Format Covered:

Electronic

Publication Type:

Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal

Publication History:

First Posted: Nov 21, 2011; Accepted: Oct 14, 2011; Revised: Oct 11, 2011; First Submitted: Feb 1, 2011

Release Date:

20111121

Correction Date:

20140414

Copyright:

American Psychological Association. 2011

Digital Object Identifier:

http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1037/a0026290

PMID:

22103577

PsycARTICLES Identifier:

psp-102-4-729

Accession Number:

2011-26987-001

Number of Citations in Source:

90

Library Chat

 

Stability and Change in the First 10 Years of Marriage: Does Commitment Confer Benefits Beyond the Effects of Satisfaction?

Contents

1. The Concept of Commitment: Strengths and Limitations

2. Possible Advantages to Distinguishing Between Forms of Commitment

3. Does Commitment Stabilize Marriages? Evidence From Longitudinal Studies

4. Goals of the Present Study

5. Method

6. Participants

7. Procedure

8. Measures

9. Analytic Strategy

10. Results

11. Preliminary Analyses

12. How Are Fluctuations in Commitment Related to Changes in Relationship Satisfaction?

13. Are the Dimensions of Commitment Differentially Associated With Problem-Solving Behavior?

14. Does Commitment Predict Relationship Stability?

15. Discussion

16. Footnotes

17. References

Full Text

By: Dominik Schoebi Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland; Benjamin R. Karney Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles Thomas N. Bradbury Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH48674 to Thomas N. Bradbury. Dominik Schoebi’s work was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation Grants PA001-10899 and PZ00P1_121616.

Arguably the simplest explanation for why a marriage dissolves is that one or both spouses become increasingly dissatisfied, diminishing the quality of couple interaction and prompting a separation or divorce in turn. Meta-analytic findings confirm the link between relationship distress and dissolution, but the magnitude of the association is modest (r ~ .3–.4; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), in part because many unhappy couples remain married. The concept of commitment is often invoked to explain the persistence of these unhappy marriages, under the assumption that relatively committed partners are motivated to continue their relationship for reasons other than their immediate emotional appraisals of the partnership (e.g., Kelley, 1983). A rich literature sheds light on the stabilizing role of commitment in dating relationships (e.g., Arriaga & Agnew, 2001), but the possibility that commitment operates differently in longer term partnerships has led some to call specifically for research on commitment in marriage and on the marital maintenance behaviors that commitment might motivate (e.g., Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). This article responds to this call, using observational and 11-year longitudinal data from newlywed spouses to address two questions that are largely unaddressed in the marital commitment literature: First, does commitment stabilize marriage? Second, does commitment motivate interpersonal behaviors? Because lowered relationship satisfaction provides a more parsimonious explanation for why spouses neglect relationship maintenance and contemplate divorce, we tested whether any effects of commitment on relationship outcomes and processes remain after controlling for spouses’ relationship satisfaction judgments.

The Concept of Commitment: Strengths and Limitations

 

In an early analysis of marital stability, Levinger (1965, 1976) proposed that the power of commitment derives from its ability to explain why two comparably satisfied or unsatisfied relationships might evolve in different ways: With otherwise equal forces of attraction in material, symbolic, and affectional domains, partners with more barriers to dissolution will be more committed and therefore will be more motivated to communicate better and to invest more energy in getting the relationship back on track when satisfaction dips, thereby experiencing a reduced risk of relationship dissolution (Berscheid, 1998; Lewis & Spanier, 1979). To the extent that the intense, passionate emotions enjoyed by partners early in their relationship give way to companionate love and perhaps disenchantment as a marriage unfolds (Aron, Fisher, & Strong, 2006), understanding how forces other than attractions and satisfaction operate to stabilize intimate relationships emerges as a crucial task. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

The broadly influential investment model was developed by Rusbult and colleagues (Rusbult, 1980, 1983) specifically to address the “unjustified persistence” problem, or why people remain involved in relationships that are not particularly satisfying. Building upon Levinger’s ideas and the principles of interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the investment model proposes that an individual depends upon a relationship—that is, an individual comes to need or rely upon a relationship as a source of desired experiences and outcomes—to the extent that he or she derives satisfaction from the relationship, has relatively few alternatives to the relationship, and has invested many resources in the relationship. With growing dependence comes a sense of commitment to the partner and to the relationship, according to the investment model, where commitment is understood to be “the sense of allegiance that is established to the source of one’s dependence” (Rusbult, Coolsen, Kirchner, & Clarke, 2006, p. 618). Note, however, that the investment model characterizes commitment as more than mere dependence upon a relationship, encompassing as well the special bond or attachment that one forms to the partner and the partnership. Dependence and commitment do go hand in hand in the investment model, but whereas dependence is theorized to be a structural property of dyads, commitment is viewed as a psychological state that captures more directly the experience of being in the relationship and being joined to another person within it (Rusbult et al., 2006). In turn, commitment is hypothesized to have two related but crucial downstream effects, first directly influencing how an individual behaves toward his or her partner and second influencing decisions to persist in the relationship. Conceptualized in this way, commitment is assumed to play a pivotal role in relationships, not only reflecting the dependence that arises between two people but also mediating links between the three bases that combine to determine dependence, on the one hand, and key actions likely to promote or curtail relationship development on the other (e.g., Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witcher, 1999). The unjustified persistence problem is therefore resolved by the investment model, in that commitment is rooted in experiences and judgments that extend beyond mere satisfaction; fluctuations in satisfaction therefore can occur without necessarily threatening relationship maintenance behaviors or relationship stability.

This theoretical representation of commitment, particularly the notion that commitment can be understood as the sense of allegiance one feels toward a unique and valued intimate bond, affords the concept a reasonable degree of precision as well as substantial explanatory power in relationship science. At the same time, the investment model provides more specificity with regard to hypothesized antecedents of dependence and commitment than to the means by which commitment affects interpersonal processes and decisions to persist. Although commitment level is assumed to influence a range of relationship maintenance mechanisms (e.g., accommodative behavior, willingness to sacrifice, derogation of alternative partners), the specific nature of these links is acknowledged to be underdeveloped, such that “future research should seek to further explicate the precise processes by which interdependent partners achieve long-term, well functioning relationships” (Rusbult et al., 1999, p. 446). This is an especially important challenge in that partners’ perceptions of pro-relationship maintenance behaviors are assumed to provide the foundation for trust and deepening dependence, a process that has been described as mutual cyclical growth (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999).

A central premise of the current research is that while the breadth of commitment as a concept within the investment model is an obvious asset, its heterogeneity as a concept must be addressed before it can enable fruitful hypotheses linking commitment as a psychological state to particular forms of interpersonal transactions. To the extent that commitment is understood as allegiance to one’s partner and relationship, we believe it is important to note that allegiance (and related concepts such as loyalty, faithfulness, and adherence) does not necessarily carry with it any behavioral efforts toward relationship maintenance. (Indeed, many people legitimately claim true allegiance to a democratic nation, to public broadcasting, to a religious faith, or even to an intimate partner without necessarily engaging in actions such as voting, donating money, praying, or apologizing for misdeeds.) We therefore propose that the concept of commitment can be profitably refined to include one element reflecting a desire for the relationship to persist and a related but distinct element reflecting the inclination to maintain the relationship. Early conceptualizations of the investment model alluded to this sort of distinction—Rusbult (1983, p. 102), for example, observed that “the definition of commitment includes two categories of definition advanced by other authors: behavioral intent and psychological attachment”—but these two elements have been subsumed and conflated in most conceptualizations of commitment. Formalizing a distinction between commitment as an inclination to engage in maintenance behaviors (which we refer to here as IM) and commitment as a longer term orientation (the desire for persistence, or DP) may be particularly important for understanding stability in marriage, as it combines a future-oriented goal or desire with the means by which that goal might be achieved. Three more specific implications of such a distinction are outlined next. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

Possible Advantages to Distinguishing Between Forms of Commitment

 

One possible advantage to distinguishing IM and DP elements of commitment is that doing so may help clarify recent findings that directly contradict investment model predictions, notably, a lack of association between commitment and marital maintenance behaviors. For example, Tran and Simpson (2009) used Rusbult’s five-item Commitment Scale to examine commitment in relation to 74 married couples’ observed constructive and destructive behaviors during a problem-solving interaction. This research design had the advantage of combining self-report and observational measurements, thus eliminating concerns of shared method variance. Although relatively committed partners would be expected on theoretical grounds to engage in more effective communication, Tran and Simpson found that commitment no longer predicted observed behaviors after controlling for relationship satisfaction. This might be interpreted as a strong challenge to the hypothesis that commitment contributes to relationship maintenance efforts, but distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment suggests an alternate view. Specifically, conceptualizing one dimension of commitment as an inclination to engage in behavioral efforts to maintain one’s relationship might result in commitment predicting relationship maintenance behaviors even after controlling for relationship satisfaction (cf. Finkel et al., 2002). Conceptualizing and assessing commitment in terms of one’s desire for the relationship to continue, in contrast, might overlap considerably with partners’ relationship satisfaction and therefore yield redundant effects.

This observation draws attention to a second possible benefit to distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment, which pertains to vexing measurement concerns. As noted earlier, the conceptual punch gained from the concept of commitment comes from it being distinct from relationship satisfaction. The investment model allows for covariation between satisfaction and commitment—for example, one would expect individuals to be more committed to relationships that are more fulfilling, all else being equal—yet there must be more to commitment than satisfaction if commitment is to operate by stabilizing a relationship that is not as satisfying as it once was. Unfortunately, although commitment is readily distinguished from satisfaction at a theoretical level (and even at an intuitive level: e.g., there are happy spouses who are uncommitted to their relationship and committed spouses who are unhappy with their relationship), measures of the two constructs correlate very highly. A meta-analysis of more than 50 studies and nearly 12,000 subjects found a correlation of .68 between satisfaction and commitment, with some correlations as high as .90 (Le & Agnew, 2003; also see Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010). In the face of such correlations, predicting relationship stability from measures of satisfaction and commitment provides limited information about their relative and unique contributions in the underlying model; until this overlap is resolved, the more parsimonious interpretation is that commitment and satisfaction measures tap a single underlying concept. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

Compounding this concern is the heterogeneous item content used in measures of commitment. With the widely used five-item Commitment Scale (Rusbult, 1983), participants are asked questions about their expectations for the future of the relationship (“How likely is it you will end your relationship in the near future?”) and about their preferred duration of the relationship (“For what length of time would you like your relationship to last?”). People might want to end their relationship not because they are uncommitted to it but rather because they find it unfulfilling, because the partner has treated them badly, or because they have learned that prior efforts at relationship maintenance have failed. As these alternative interpretations reflect global sentiments toward the relationship, inclusion of these items might account for at least part of the strong observed overlap between commitment and satisfaction. A later seven-item measure of commitment with revised item content again yielded very high correlations with satisfaction (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), suggesting that this problem extends beyond one particular instrument. Here, we adopt the view that testing investment model predictions regarding the relative contributions of satisfaction and commitment to relationship stability is likely to benefit from distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment.

There is a third possible advantage to distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment, in that doing so might not only add precision to the investment model but also rectify limitations in another leading theoretical perspective on relationship maintenance and development. Two key predictions in the investment model—that commitment instigates relationship maintenance behaviors and that satisfaction plays no role beyond commitment in determining whether a relationship continues or ends—are particularly important predictions because they are at odds with predictions derived from social-learning conceptions of marriage. Studies conducted in the social-learning tradition focus almost exclusively on marital interaction as an independent variable rather than as a dependent variable, thus neglecting crucial questions about what factors aside from relationship satisfaction motivate ordinary relationship behaviors. Two seminal works in this tradition, those by Gottman (1979) and by Jacobson and Margolin (1979), never mention commitment, leaving this model largely unable to explain why spouses in unfulfilling marriages maintain their relationship and why those marriages might persist. The investment model does invoke commitment explicitly on these two points but offers the somewhat surprising prediction that relationship satisfaction does not predict relationship stability beyond any effects of commitment. In contrast, the social-learning conception makes no reference to commitment but is explicit in proposing that when marital interactions become less rewarding and more punitive and as coercive cycles engulf couples’ positive feelings for one another, spouses become dissatisfied with the relationship and are likely to end the relationship as a consequence (Jacobson & Margolin, 1979). Thus, satisfaction should not predict relationship stability from the perspective of the investment model (after controlling for commitment), whereas satisfaction (and associated interpersonal processes) should predict relationship stability reliably from the perspective of social-learning-based analyses of marriage. Of course, to the extent that commitment and satisfaction are redundant, it is not possible to test the relative value of these perspectives; however, by distinguishing IM from DP, one might clarify whether the IM component of commitment predicts relationship processes and relationship stability independent of relationship satisfaction. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

A unique contribution of the IM component to relationship functioning and development beyond satisfaction would provide valuable insight into the stabilizing effects of commitment. A stabilizing effect of the IM component could deepen an understanding of the behavioral processes that prevent erosion of a relationship in times of declining satisfaction levels. Building on such a view, an important focus of analysis is therefore the necessity of both partners to hold a minimum level of IM as a resource that can be mobilized to prevent negative behaviors and habits from further eroding the relationship. Either partner dropping low in IM, however, incurs considerable risk for the relationship. According to such a perspective, the critical momentum would be located in the lower of the two partners’ IM or, in other words, the weaker link in the relationship (see also Attridge, Berscheid, & Simpson, 1995). Adopting such a dyadic perspective on how commitment acts on relationships becomes particularly important in the investigation of dyadic outcomes such as relationship stability.

Does Commitment Stabilize Marriages? Evidence From Longitudinal Studies

 

To date, empirical clarification of any unique contribution that commitment makes to stabilizing marriages has been hindered not only by the measurement issues just noted but also by the small number and relatively short duration of longitudinal studies addressing this problem. Using residualized-change analyses, one study of 65 newlywed married couples failed to find any association between commitment and relationship well-being 2 years later, perhaps because of the high degree of stability in relationship functioning (Drigotas, Rusbult, & Verette, 1999). Further analysis of this same sample failed to show that commitment predicted change in self-reported relationship maintenance behavior, “presumably because of insufficient change over time in the criteria” (Wieselquist et al., 1999, p. 956; also see Van Lange et al., 1997, Study 6). Commitment did contribute to the prediction of relationship duration in the 15-year Boston Couples Study (Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996), though in this case commitment was measured with items tapping the estimated likelihood of marrying the partner and items from Rubin’s (1970) Love Scale, making it difficult to know whether commitment or relationship satisfaction was the driving force. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

One longitudinal study has managed to circumvent the problem of high stability in relationship outcomes while also assessing specific dimensions of commitment (Stanley, Whitton, Sadberry, Clements, & Markman, 2006; but see Arriaga & Agnew, 2001, for a study on dating couples). Conducted with 38 couples in their 3rd year of marriage, this study demonstrated that two indices of commitment—one reflecting the desire for the relationship to continue and the other reflecting a willingness to maintain the relationship by making sacrifices—predicted residualized changes in husbands’ satisfaction from the 3rd to the 5th year of marriage; for wives, only the “willingness to sacrifice” items predicted changes in satisfaction (Stanley et al., 2006). Husbands’ willingness to sacrifice also mediated the association between their global desire for the relationship to continue and their changes in satisfaction. Although this sample is small and the couples participated in an educational workshop as newlyweds, it (a) provides valuable preliminary support for the idea that commitment can stabilize relationships, particularly when couples are studied through a period when their relationships are changing, and (b) underscores the value of distinguishing between commitment as a desire for the relationship to continue versus commitment as an inclination to engage in behaviors that will maintain the relationship. This study also draws attention to the importance of sacrifice as a form of relationship maintenance that might be characteristic of relatively committed individuals. Scholars working within the investment model tradition have suggested that the willingness to sacrifice is particularly influential as a relationship maintenance strategy because maintenance efforts perceived as incurring some cost for a partner are more likely to be attributed by the other partner to pro-relationship motives, thereby engendering trust and deepening dependence (e.g., Van Lange et al., 1997). Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

Thus, when conducted over sufficient spans of time, longitudinal studies permit analysis of changes in relationship satisfaction and how those changes might be tied to indices of commitment. Longitudinal studies are also valuable because they can provide information about relationship dissolution, which is presumed to be a key consequence of low commitment according to the investment model (e.g., Rusbult, 1983). Shifting from satisfaction (an individual-level variable) to dissolution (a characteristic of the dyad) is likely to also require a shift in the level at which commitment is conceptualized (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Specifically, as we noted earlier, commitment may predict dissolution not simply when it is low in an absolute sense but when it is low relative to that of the partner. This dyadic-level approach to commitment, first formulated by Waller and Hill (1951) as the principle of least interest, argues that the fate of a relationship should depend more strongly on the partner for whom there is less at stake—also known as the weak-link partner—if the relationship were to end. Data from a 6-month study of dating relationships support this view, even after controlling for main effects of commitment (Attridge et al., 1995; also see Oriña et al., 2011), and in the present study, we aimed to provide a further test of this dyadic model using married couples examined over an 11-year period.

Track 1: Dissecting Quantitative Articles

 

Dissecting Research Articles – Quantitative – Psychology

In the Dissecting a Quantitative Article courseroom activity, you read a research article referred to as Sample Article 1. Sample Article 1 is an example of a quantitative research study. After reading the article, please answer the questions posed in each section of this form. If you do not know the answer, circle Neutral.

Note: You may refer to the Dissecting Research Articles handout as you complete this activity.

Section 1: Abstract, Introduction, Hypothesis, Research Question, and the Literature Review

If you wish to review the handout’s section on the Abstract, Introduction, Hypothesis, Research Question, and Literature review, please do so now. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

 

Directions : After reading Sample Article 1, please answer the following questions.

Schoebi, D., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2012). Stability and change in the first 10 years of marriage: Does commitment confer benefits beyond the effects of satisfaction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 729–742.

 

1. “An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; it allows the readers to survey the contents of an article quickly and, like a title, it enables the persons interested in the document to retrieve it from abstracting and indexing databases” (APA, 2010, p. 25). The abstract clearly and accurately summarizes the content of the study.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

2. The introduction describes the research topic and depicts the problem statement. The introduction should inform the reader regarding the potential of the research to provide important and relevant answers. The introduction explains why this problem is important and why this topic is worth researching.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

3. Leed and Ormrod (2005) state that the research problem is the heart of the research process. “To see the problem with unwavering clarity and to state it in precise and unmistakable terms is the first requirement in the research process” (p. 43). The research problem clarifies the goals and the direction of the research. The problem statement is clearly articulated, specific, and comprehensive. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

4. The key terms should be defined so that the reader understands exactly what the writer is saying. The research questions are clearly stated and the key terms are defined.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

5. The literature review outlines the theory and past findings that are relevant to the research goals. The literature review should document the importance of the research problem. The literature review supports the necessity to study the specific research topic.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

6. The introduction, statement of the problem, and the literature review are appropriate and consistent with the research question.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

Section 2: Methodology – Research Design, Methods and Procedures, and Sampling

 

7. If you wish to review the handout’s section on methodology, research design, methods and procedures, and sampling, please do so now. The research design is stated and there is a detailed description of how the study will be conducted.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

8. The methods and procedures regarding how data with be collected are clearly described.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

9. The research design is suitable to answer the research questions.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

10. The instruments used to measure the outcomes are described; the reasons for why they were chosen are discussed; and the validity and reliability of the instruments are established.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

To evaluate the research evidence, it is important to know who the participants are and how they were chosen. The sampling strategy refers to the process of obtaining the research participants to be included in the study. The sampling section should clearly indicate the specific procedures used to recruit the participants. It should also indicate the sample size and the eligibility criteria. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

 

11. The participants were properly selected.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

12. The sampling strategy was clearly explained.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

Section 3: Variables

You can review the section on variables in the handout if you wish.

Directions: From your review of Sample Article 1, answer the questions below.

 

13. In reviewing Sample Article 1, identify the variables in the study. Which is (are) the independent variable(s)? Which is (are) the dependent variable(s)?

 

a. Independent variables(s)

 

 

 

b. Dependent variable(s)

 

 

14. An extraneous variable can create problems for the researcher. Extraneous variables are undesired variables that can influence the dependent variable and change or invalidate the results of an experiment. Can you identify any extraneous variables in Sample Article 1?

Section 4: Analysis, Findings, Discussion, and Ethics

If you wish to review the handout’s section on Analysis, Findings, Discussion, and Ethics, please do so now. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

 

Directions: Having read the results presented in Sample Article 1, answer the following questions:

 

15. The results are presented in enough detail to allow the reader to evaluate the results.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

16. The conclusions and generalizations are valid and justified by the data analysis.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

17. The researcher has considered other possible interpretations of the results.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

18. The discussion is reasonable in view of the data collected and analyzed.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

19. The research questions were answered.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

20. There is no evidence of ethical violations in this research.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

After presenting the results, the researcher interprets the implications of the research findings. This includes recommendations for further research and suggestions for relevant application of the research findings. Please answer these questions about that section of the Sample Article.

 

21. The researcher clearly states the implications and applications of the research.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

22. This research has contributed relevant information to the field of study in your school.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

23. The researcher offers a reflection on the limitations of the study including the research design.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

Please keep this list of questions and train yourself to use them to dissect all the articles in your literature review on the research topic. After using it frequently, you will not need the list, because the questions will come more naturally. Using the questions to train yourself will also allow you to keep deepening your knowledge of the elements of a well constructed research article. Quantitative Article Assignment Paper

 

References

Craig, E. (1978). The heart of the teacher. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0131108956.

 

 

1

phd_t1_psy_u05s2_f01_dissquan.docx