Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

WELL-BEING, ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS: Well-Being, Romantic Relationships and Lay Theories 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
09.05.brady.pdf
09.05.brady.pdf [ 95.49kB ]
09.05.brady.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0086058.json
JSON-LD: 1.0086058+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0086058.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0086058+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0086058+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0086058+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0086058.ris

Full Text

Well‐Being   1    Running head: WELL-BEING, ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS       Well-Being, Romantic Relationships, and Lay Theories Naomi Brady Supervisor: Dr. Mark Holder University of British Columbia Okanagan  Well‐Being   2     Abstract Relationships are considered critical to subjective well-being.  In particular, aspects of friendships and spousal relationships are positively correlated with well-being including happiness.  Limited research on the contribution of romantic dating relationships to well-being suggests a positive correlation as well (Demir, 2008).  The present study investigated the contribution of romantic relationships to well-being including whether this contribution is mediated by personality. Unlike some previous research, which relied on modified measures of friendship to assess important characteristics of romantic relationships, undergraduate students were asked about dimensions of their relationships that were exclusively romantic (e.g., sexual intimacy).  Additionally, the perceived contribution of romantic relationships was studied by assessing lay theories (beliefs of the general population about the contribution of romantic relationships to well-being).  Lay theories of the relation between romantic relationships and well-being varied as a function of romantic relationship characteristics, and these lay theories agreed with the empirical findings of the relation between romantic relationships and well- being.  Additionally, the present study found there were specific characteristics of romantic relationships that predict well-being and that the results differed as a function of gender. Well‐Being   3     Well-Being, Romantic Relationships, and Lay Theories Research in psychology has historically focused on examining illness and dysfunction. More recently, there has been an increased focus on positive psychology. Rather than focusing on fixing people and eliminating problems, positive psychology is concerned with variables that promote well-being, such as social relations (Campbell, et al., 1976; Kraut & Johnston, 1979; Argyle & Martin, 1991)  and marriage (Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 2000; Stutzer & Frey, 2006). However, minimal research has looked at well-being and romantic relationships (Dush & Amato, 2005; Demir, 2008), or lay theories and well-being (Furnham & Cheng, 2000). The present study examined the relation between well-being, romantic relationships, and lay theories of romantic relationships. Well-being includes three main components: an affective component, a cognitive component, and a positive balance of affect (Argyle & Martin, 1991). The affective component of well-being is characterised by how someone feels including global happiness. The cognitive component of well-being is an individual’s assessment or appraisal of their life or how the individual rates their overall satisfaction with their life. Finally, well-being has both positive and negative affect (i.e., emotionality; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). These two aspects of affect are separate and not on a continuum opposing one another (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Greater well-being is characterised by more positive affect and less negative affect. Life satisfaction, the cognitive component of well-being, may involve comparing one’s own life to other’s (Argyle & Martin, 1991). This theory argues that people compare what they have with what others have and base their satisfaction on this comparison. Based on this theory, there would not be absolute elements necessary to make one happy, but rather satisfaction would depend on appraising what one has as being better than what someone else has. Another theory Well‐Being   4    suggests it is not one’s comparison to others that determines happiness, but their comparison to their ideal (Argyle & Martin, 1991).  A person compares what they have to what they would like to have in an ideal world. While both theories have limited applicability (e.g., they would not be applicable to feeling pain), satisfaction with romantic relationships may involve both types of comparison (Argyle & Martin, 1991). Following previous research on romantic relationships (Demir, 2008), the present study examined participant’s well-being on life satisfaction as well as subjective happiness. Social relations affect well-being (Argyle & Martin, 1991; Molden & Dweck, 2006). Campbell et al. (1976) studied what is important for life satisfaction. They found that the three most important factors were those that were social (i.e., family, marriage, and friendships). Social relations’ role in well-being may be caused by the positive activities associated with them such as eating, talking, and playing games (Argyle & Martin, 1991). Kraut and Johnston (1979) reported that social relations cause individuals to smile more frequently when talking to others but not when bowling. This supports that it is the social interaction with others that is linked to greater well-being. People who have higher well-being are more likely to get married (Diener, et al., 2000; Stutzer & Frey, 2006). Happiness is significantly higher for those who are married than those who are single or cohabitating (Diener, et al., 2000; Dush & Amato, 2005). This effect is similar in different nations around the world.  Married couples are happier than those in a committed relationship and those in a committed relationship are happier than those in a dating relationship (Dush & Amato, 2005). Furthermore, couples becoming more committed in their relationship also had an increase in well-being. Studies have explored the relation between marriage and Well‐Being   5    well-being (Diener, et al., 2000; Stutzer & Frey, 2006) but the research on romantic relationships and well-being is limited (Demir, 2008). Demir (2008) found that romantic relationship quality accounted for 3-6% of the variance in happiness in young adults over and above the contribution of personality. Demir (2008) also found that emotional security and companionship were the strongest predictors of happiness. Although his results are encouraging for romantic relationship quality, the measure he used for exploring the important components of happiness in romantic relationships may not have been appropriate.  Demir (2008) used the McGill Friendship Questionnaire- Friend’s Functions to examine the unique characteristics of romantic relationships that contribute to happiness. This measure is typically used to test the quality of a friendship (Mendelson & Aboud, 1999). To measure romantic relationship quality, Demir used the Perceived Relationship Quality Component (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2007; Demir, 2008). This questionnaire was designed to measure romantic relationship quality. Since the Perceived Relationship Quality Component is a well established measure of romantic relationships, it is a better measure to use for identifying unique characteristics of a romantic relationship. The present study focused on the six items from this scale in analysing romantic relationships. The present study also assessed lay theories of the relation between well-being and romantic relationships. Lay theories are the beliefs held by the lay (general) population used in everyday life (Hong, Levi, & Chiu, 2001). Researchers use lay theories to examine people’s beliefs about different concepts compared to empirical findings. Lay theories tend to drive behaviour, even towards other people (Hong, Levi, & Chiu, 2001) which makes them important to understand. Well‐Being   6    Furnham and Cheng (2000) studied lay theories of happiness. They assessed the beliefs people held generally, how those beliefs were structured, and the relation between those beliefs and the person’s happiness. Some of the participant’s beliefs regarding the causes of happiness were not congruent with previous research on the causes of happiness. For example, participants did not attribute extroversion to happiness although research has consistently found the two to be linked (Brebner, Donaldson, Kirby, & Ward, 1995; Brebner, 1998; Cheng & Furnham, 2001; Steel & Ones, 2002; Hayes & Joseph, 2003). However, many aspects of their lay theories were congruent with empirical findings. Participants believed having close friends was important to happiness and empirical finds are congruent with this (Campbell, et al., 1976). Furthermore, participants believed education and intelligence were not important to happiness which also supports empirical research (Clemente & Saucer, 1976, in Furnham & Cheng, 2000).There were also prominent sex differences for some of the items; males regarded personal advantages as important and females regarded social support as more important. These findings suggest that the lay population accurately understands what leads to happiness. These findings support previous research such as lay theories regarding depression (Furnham & Kuyken 1991) and suicide (Knight, Furnham, & Lester, 1999) which agree with empirical findings. Research has consistently shown a strong relation between personality and well-being (Brebner, et al., 1995; Brebner, 1998; Cheng & Furnham, 2001; Steel & Ones, 2002; Hayes & Joseph, 2003; Holder & Coleman, 2008; Demir, 2008). Personality can account for up to 50% of the variance in well-being. As well, personality is an important factor in romantic relationships (Neyer & Voigt, 2001; Demir, 2008).  Previous research has consistently shown neuroticism and extroversion to be the main factors in both well-being and romantic relationships (Brebner, 1998; Brebner, et al., 1995; Cheng & Furnham, 2001; Neyer & Voigt, 2001; Steel & Ones, 2002; Well‐Being   7    Hayes & Joseph, 2003). Since the relation of neuroticism and extroversion to well-being and romantic relationships has been well established, they would be confounds if not controlled for. The present study accounted for both to establish the unique contribution of romantic relationships without inflating results by ignoring the variance accounted for by neuroticism and extroversion. The present study explored well-being, romantic relationships and lay theories of romantic relationships were studied to investigate whether lay theories account for the variance in well-being when neuroticism and extroversion were controlled for. Understanding what aspects of a relationship lay people believe promotes happiness may provide insight into what people may strive for in their relationships. The present study was designed to examine whether relationship quality accounts for variance in happiness over and above personality. Relationships are considered critical to subjective well-being.  In particular, aspects of friendships and spousal relationships are positively correlated with well-being including happiness (Argyle & Martin, 1991; Diener, et al., 2000; Dush & Amato, 2005; Stutzer & Frey, 2006; Fletcher, et al., 2007).  Limited research on the contribution of romantic dating relationships to well-being suggests a positive correlation as well (Demir, 2008).  The present student investigated whether romantic relationship quality predicted well-being and whether there were specific characteristics of romantic relationships that predicted well-being.  Whether lay theories of the relation between romantic relationships and well-being varied as a function of romantic relationship characteristics, and whether these lay theories agreed with the empirical findings of the relation between romantic relationships and well-being were also examined. Additionally, the present study investigated whether the results differed as a function of gender. Methods Well‐Being   8    Research Participants Students from the University of British Columbia Okanagan participated online (N= 424). Women in the sample ranged in age from 17-42 years (N = 132, M = 19.95, SD = 3.014). Men in the sample ranged from 17-47 years (N = 292, M = 20.21, SD = 3.667). Students were reminded that this study was strictly voluntary and those who were eligible for class credit were credited accordingly. Procedure A battery of questionnaires regarding romantic relationships, lay theories, personality, satisfaction with life, and subjective happiness, was administered online and at the participant’s convenience. The questionnaires took approximately two hours to complete. In order to receive credit for participation, students were asked to create a password at the beginning of the questionnaire and email the password to an assigned email address. Although this compromised the participant’s anonymity, confidentiality was maintained. Demographics Demographic information was collected including current marital status, length of current relationship, sex, age, and total number of serious relationships. Although relationship characteristics of the participant’s current romantic relationship were assessed, there may be differences in well-being across different levels of marital status. Therefore marital status was assessed by participants self-reporting whether they were currently single, dating, common law, divorced, separated, married, or other. Participants who chose “other” were also given space to provide an explanation. Participants were also asked the duration of their current relationship. Perceived Relationship Quality Component Well‐Being   9    The Perceived Relationship Quality Component was used to measure perceived romantic relationship quality (Fletcher, et al., 2007).  This scale consisted of six subscales with three items each. Fletcher, et al. (2007) examined the Perceived Relation Quality Component and found the three items that comprised the six subscales were unnecessarily redundant. The six items that were the best representatives of the subscales (i.e., those items measuring commitment, satisfaction, love, trust, sexual activity, and intimacy) would be sufficient to measure quality as well.  Demir (2008) used these same items to determine relationship quality in his study. The present study focused on these six items in analysing romantic relationships.  Each of the six items was ranked on a 7-point Likert scale anchored with “Strongly Disagree” and “Strongly Agree”. Lay Theories of Happiness Scale: The Lay Theories of Happiness Scale examined what participants believe contributes to overall well-being in a romantic relationship. In order to help compare lay theories with empirical relations the Perceived Relationship Quality Component was modified. Items on the Lay Theories of Happiness Scale directly mirrored items on the Perceived Relationship Quality Component. For example, the Perceived Relationship Quality Component included the item “I am committed in my current relationship” and the Lay Theories of Happiness Scale included the parallel item “I believe being committed to my partner contributes to my overall happiness”. Four items were reverse scored. There were six items in total that examined relationship commitment, satisfaction, love, trust, sexual activity, and intimacy. Each item was ranked on a 7- point Likert scale anchored with “Strongly Disagree” and “Strongly Agree”. NEO-Five Factor Inventory Well‐Being   10    Personality is often measured using the five factor model: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 1987; Rolland, Parker, Stumpf, 1998). The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) is a shortened version of the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (Rolland, Parker, & Stumpf, 1998). It consists of 60 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, anchored with “Strongly Disagree” and “Strongly Agree”. It has good internal reliability and has been tested on French and English samples with similar results (Rolland, Parker, Stumpf, 1998). It also maps onto the five factors well in both French and English samples. Each of the five factors consisted of a composite score of a subscale of items. The present study focused on the composite score of neuroticism and extroversion. Subjective Happiness Scale The Subjective Happiness Scale has high internal consistency, stability over time and across samples, and a unitary structure (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1997). This scale consists of four items, each of which is rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale. An example of an item from this scale is “Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself:” and participants are asked to rate themselves on a scale from 1 (Less Happy) to 7 (More Happy). The mean Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86 and it has a test-retest reliability of 0.72. This scale was used to determine part of the affective component of well-being. The Satisfaction with Life Scale The Satisfaction with Life Scale is a five item measure with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991; Pavot & Diener, 1993; Demir 2008). An example of an item from this scale is “The conditions of my life are excellent.” This measure has a high reliability with an alpha level of Well‐Being   11    0.86. This was used to measure the cognitive component of well-being by measuring the students’ satisfaction with life as a whole. Data Analyses Data collected were analysed using SPSS 16.0. Since the battery of questionnaires was administered online, participants were required to complete all items in one questionnaire before they were able to move on to the next one. Out of the 469 original participants, 25 participants did not complete the entire set of questionnaires. These cases were removed and they accounted for less than 5% of the total sample. The data set was cleaned for any univariate or multivariate outliers to fulfill the assumptions of the tests run using Mahalanobis Distance and Z-score outliers. Assumptions of normality were also tested and no transformations were necessary. After cleaning the data set there were 424 participants remaining with usable data. Results To test the hypotheses, bivariate correlations and hierarchical multiple regressions were performed. Using a hierarchical multiple regression model, the data for personality were entered first, as research has found that personality accounts for a large portion of the variance in a person’s happiness (Demir, 2008). By entering personality first, any variance found by remaining factors is over and above the contribution of personality. This approach systematically controlled for personality, eliminating it as a potential confound in our results.  Supporting previous research (Demir, 2008), neuroticism was negatively correlated and extroversion was positively correlated with subjective happiness and satisfaction with life (see Table 1). To investigate whether romantic relationship quality predicted well-being a hierarchical regression was run with personality entered in the first step and quality entered in the second. Romantic relationship quality was measured using a composite score of the six items from the Well‐Being   12    Perceived Relationship Quality. The composite scores on the Subjective Happiness Scale and the Satisfaction with Life Scale were used separately as dependant variables.  Romantic relationship quality accounted for 1% of the variance in subjective happiness, F (6, 417) = 99.21, p < .001, and 2% of the variance in satisfaction with life, F (3, 420) = 86.72, p < .001, over and above personality. However, when broken down by gender, however, romantic relationship quality was not a significant predictor of subjective happiness, F (6, 125) = 39.29, p <.001, or satisfaction with life, F (3, 128) = 42.63, p < .001, for men. In both analyses, neuroticism and extroversion were significant predictors making the overall model significant despite romantic relationship quality not being a unique predictor.  For women, romantic relationship quality accounted for 1% of the variance in subjective happiness, F (6, 285) = 63.80, p < .001, and 1% of the variance in satisfaction with life, F (3, 288) = 52.93, p < .001. To identify romantic relationship characteristics that were unique contributors to well-being, each of the six characteristics comprising romantic relationship quality (i.e., commitment, satisfaction, love, trust, sexual activity, and intimacy) were analysed using a hierarchical multiple regression with personality held constant. Relationship commitment was the only unique contributor for subjective happiness, accounting for 1% of the variance, F (8, 415) = 74.62, p < .001 and relationship satisfaction was the only unique contributor for life satisfaction, accounting for 1% of the variance, F (8, 415) = 35.340, p < .001. Examining gender differences, there were no significant unique predictors of subjective happiness, F (8, 123) = 30.76, p < .001, or satisfaction with life, F (8, 123) = 16.03, p < .001 for men. For women, however, relationship commitment accounted for 2% of the variance in Well‐Being   13    subjective happiness, F (8, 283) = 52.92, p < .001, and relationship satisfaction accounted for 4% of the variance in life satisfaction, F (8, 283) = 26.94, p < .001. The composite score of lay theories of happiness was regressed on subjective happiness and satisfaction with life while personality was held constant.  Overall, lay theories were not a significant predictor of satisfaction with life, F (3, 420) = 80.42, p < .001. However, lay theories accounted for 1% of the variance in subjective happiness, F (3, 288) = 124.80, p < .001. For men, lay theories were not a significant predictor for subjective happiness, F (3, 128) = 78.50, p <.001, or satisfaction with life, F (3, 128) = 41.92, p < .001. As well, lay theories were not a significant predictor of satisfaction with life for women, F (3,288) = 51.79, p < .001. Nonetheless, lay theories were a significant predictor of subjective happiness for women, accounting for 1% of the variance, F (3, 288) = 124.80, p <.001. Specific lay theories were those that corresponded with romantic relationship characteristics (i.e., those regarding commitment, satisfaction, love, trust, sexual activity, and intimacy).  None of the specific lay theories were unique contributors to subjective happiness, F (8, 423) = 72.67, p < .001, or to satisfaction with life, F (8, 415) = 32.60, p < .001. This was also true of men for subjective happiness, F (8, 123) = 29.26, p < .001, and satisfaction with life, F (8, 123) = 15.31, p < .001, and of women for subjective happiness, F (8, 283) = 48.46, p < .001. Lay theories of relationship commitment, however, accounted for 2% of the variance in satisfaction with life for women, F (8, 283) = 21.91, p < .001. The relation between responses on the six romantic relationships characteristic items and the corresponding six lay theories of happiness items were analysed using a bivariate correlation (see Table 2).  There was a significant positive correlation between responses regarding commitment, satisfaction and sexual activity. In other words, those participants who responded higher on Well‐Being   14    commitment, satisfaction, and sexual activity within their relationship also reported those characteristics as being more important to their happiness.  Discussion  This study examined at the relations between well-being, romantic relationships, and lay theories.  Results support previous research (Demir, 2008) indicating romantic relationship quality is predictive of well-being. Furthermore, women who have a higher quality romantic relationship also have higher well-being. Self-reported relationship commitment was predictive of subjective happiness. This suggests that women who rated their relationship commitment higher were more likely to rate their subjective happiness as higher. Additionally, women who were more satisfied in their current relationship also rated their life satisfaction higher.  There was congruence between what actually predicts well-being (i.e., relationship commitment and relationship satisfaction) and what people believe predicts their well-being (i.e., relationship commitment and relationship satisfaction) supporting previous research on lay theories (Furnham & Kuyken 1991; Knight, Furnham, & Lester, 1999; Furnham & Cheng, 2000). For men, results suggest romantic relationship quality and characteristics do not predict well-being. Furthermore, men do not believe romantic relationship quality or characteristics predict their well-being. Conversely, women believe relationship commitment and relationship satisfaction predict their well-being, and the results suggest these beliefs are in line with reality. Lay theories in general were only a predictor of subjective happiness for women. Furthermore, relationship commitment was a unique predictor of subjective happiness for women. The gender differences found in this study support previous research on lay theories and happiness (Furnham & Cheng, 2000). Well‐Being   15    Examining the relation between romantic relationships and lay theories, women who were more committed, satisfied and sexually active in their current relationship were more likely to believe these characteristics of romantic relationships were important to their well-being. However, this effect is not seen with trust, intimacy, or love. The moderate correlations between participant’s responses on both questionnaires (see Table 2) support that the two measures were related but not singular (i.e., measuring exactly the same construct; Schmitt, 1996)  Research on well-being is expanding. This study has expanded the analysis of well-being, romantic relationships, and lay theories. Future research should examine, in more depth, the complexities of these constructs such as gender differences. While results suggest a gender difference, it is possible that this was caused by the difference in sample sizes for men and women (Maxwell, 2000). This difference in sample size may have affected the power of the analysis and caused a type two error for men. As well, future research should investigate other romantic relationship characteristics not included in the analysis of this study. For example, future studies should analyse characteristics that should be negatively related to romantic relationships such as conflict (Demir, Ozdemir, & Weitekamp, 2006) and additional characteristics that may be important in romantic relationships such as similarity to one’s partner (Pickford, Signori, & Rempel, 1966; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000).  Well‐Being   16     References Argyle, M., & Martin, M. (1991). The psychological causes of happiness. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz, Subjective Well-Being: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp.77- 100). Toronto: Pergamon Press Canada Ltd. Brebner, J. (1998). Happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 279- 296. Brebner, J., Donaldson, J., Kirby, N., & Ward, L. (1995). Relationships between happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 251-258. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The Quality of American Life: perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cheng, H. & Furnham, A. (2001). Attributional style and personality as predictors of happiness and mental health. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 307-327. Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies. Demir, M., Ozdemir, M., & Weitekamp, L. A. (2007). Looking to happy tomorrow with friends: Best and close friendships as they predict happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 243-271. Well‐Being   17    Diener, E., Gohm, C.L., Suh, E.M., Oishi, S., 2000. Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 31 (4), 419–436. Dush, C. M. K. & Amato P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 607-627. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2007). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 340-354. Furnham, A, & Cheng, H. (2000). Lay theories of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 227-246. Furnham, A., Kuyken, W. (1991). Lay theories of depression. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6, 329-342. Hayes, N. & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Difference, 34, 723-727. Holder, M. D., & Coleman, B. (2008). The contribution of temperament, popularity, and physical appearance to children’s happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 279-302. Hong, Y., Levy, R., & Chiu, C. (2001). The contribution of the lay theories approach to the study of groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 98-106. Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(9), 1539-1553. Well‐Being   18    Knight, M. T. D., Furnham, A. F., & Lester, D. (1999). Lay theories of suicide. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 453-457. Lyubomirsky, S. & Lepper, H. S. (1997). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137-155. Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 434-458. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 52(1), 81-90. Mendelson, M. J. & Aboud (1999). Measuring friendship quality in late adolescents and young adults: McGill friendship questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31(2), 130-132. Molden, D. C. & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: Lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychological Association, 61(3), 192-203. Neyer, F. & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: a dyadic approach. European Journal of Psychology, 18, 279-299. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. American Psychological Association, Inc, 5(2), 164-172. Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149-161. Well‐Being   19    Pickford, J. H., Signori, E. I., & Rempel, H. (1966). Similar or related personality traits as a factor in marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 190-192. Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 251-259. Rolland, J. P., Parker, W. D., & Stumpf H. (1998). A psychometric examination of the French translation of the NEO-PI-R and the NEO-FFI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71(2), 269-291. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.  Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350- 353. Steel, P. & Ones, D. S. (2002). Personality and happiness: A national level analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 767-781. Stutzer, A. & Frey, B., S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 326-347. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.  Well‐Being   20     Table 1. First Order Correlations SHS SWLS Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Contentiousness RCSTotal SWLS .652** Neuroticism -.649** -.581** Extraversion .662** .439** -.512** Openness .122* .178** -.124* .084 Agreeableness .368** .294** -.270** .416** .133** Contentiousness .371** .354** -.378** .360** .081 .337** RCSTotal .217** .189** -.038 .207** .034 .116* .114* LTHTotal .088 .032 -.006 .047 .178** .094 .113* .332** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Well‐Being   21      Table 2.  First Order Correlations between Romantic Relationship Characteristics and Lay Theories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 RCS 1. Commitment - 2. Satisfaction .490** 3. Love .372** .559** 4. Trust -.315** -.241** -.171** 5. Sexual Activity .300** .436** .472** -.203** 6. Intimacy .074 .050 .030 -.055 .013 7. Summed Score .558** .696** .727** .072 .655** .379** LTH 8.   Commitment .491** .386** .283** -.245** .224** .041 .345** 9.   Satisfaction .331** .370** .296** -.220** .270** -.015 .308** .581** 10. Love -.032 -.049 .083 -.081 .015 .095 .015 .027 .137** 11. Trust -.029 -.013 .072 -.001 .004 -.017 .009 .051 .112* .469** 12. Sexual Activity -.044 .085 .130** -.024 .384** .007 .187** .127** .217** -.001 -.015 13. Intimacy .200** .203** .215** -.121* .519** .005 .329** .397** .471** .053 .017 .631** 14. Summed Score .223** .255** .293** -.181** .425** .037 .332** .569** .658** .461** .395** .657** .764** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Well‐Being   22     Appendix A Demographics Age: ______ Sex: ______ Current Marital Status: o Currently Married o Currently Separated o Currently Divorced o Currently Common Law o Currently Dating o Currently Single o Currently Other: _________________ Duration of Current Romantic Relationship: o No current relationship o Less than 1 month o 1-6 months o 6 months – 1 year o 1-2 years o 2 years or more Including your present relationship, how many serious relationships have you been involved in? o 0-20+ Well‐Being   23    Satisfaction With Life Scale  Below are five statements which which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale below indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item.  Please be open and honest in your responding.  The 7 – point scale is as follows:  1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = neither agree nor disagree 5 = slightly agree 6 = agree 7 = strongly agree  _____ 1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.          _____ 2. The conditions of my life are excellent.          _____ 3. I am satisfied with my life.            _____ 4. So far I have gotten the important         things I want in life.  _____ 5. If I could live my life over,                   Well‐Being   24    Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)  For each of the following statements and/or questions, please fill in the circle on the scale that you feel is most appropriate in describing you.  1. In general, I consider myself:                         Not a very          A very        happy person         happy person  2. Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself:                         Less happy            More happy  3. Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything. To what extent does this characterization describe you?                         Not at all     A great deal  4. Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be. To what extent does this characterization describe you?                       Not at all      A great deal     Well‐Being   25    NEO-Five Factor Inventory  The following pages contain statements that can be used to describe personality characteristics, attitudes, feelings and behaviors.  Do not be concerned if a few statements seem unusual--they are included to describe a wide variety of people.  Try to be as honest and serious as you can in your responses.  Using the 1-5 scale below, please rate the accuracy each statement by placing the appropriate number on the dash beside each statement.                                      1                   2                   3                 4                5                              strongly        disagree        neutral        agree       strongly                              disagree                                                                    agree   _____(1) I am not a worrier. ____ (2) I like to have a lot of people around me. ____ (3) I don’t like to waste my time daydreaming. ____ (4) I try to be courteous to everyone I meet. ____ (5) I keep my belongings clean and neat. ____ (6) I often feel inferior to others. ____ (7) I laugh easily. ____ (8) Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it. ____ (9) I often get into arguments with my family and co-workers. ____ (10) I’m pretty good about pacing myself so that I get things done on time. ____ (11) When I’m under a great deal of stress, sometimes I feel like I’m going to pieces. ____ (12) I don’t consider myself especially “lighthearted”. ____ (13) I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature. ____ (14) Some people think I’m selfish and egotistical. ____ (15) I am not a very methodical person. ____ (16) I rarely feel lonely or blue. ____ (17) I really enjoy talking to people. ____ (18) I believe letting students listen to controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead       them. ____ (19) I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them. ____ (20) I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously. ____ (21) I often feel tense and jittery. ____ (22) I like to be where the action is. ____ (23) Poetry has little or no effect on me. ____ (24) I tend to be cynical and skeptical of others’ intentions. ____ (25) I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion. ____ (26) Sometimes I feel completely worthless. ____ (27) I usually prefer to do things alone. ____ (28) I often try new and foreign foods. ____ (29) I believe most people will take advantage of you if you let them. ____ (30) I waste a lot of time before setting down to work. ____ (31) I rarely feel fearful or anxious. Well‐Being   26    ____ (32) I often feel as if I’m bursting with energy. ____ (33) I seldom notice the moods or feelings that different environments produce. ____ (34) Most people I know like me. ____ (35) I work hard to accomplish my goals. ____ (36) I often get angry at the way people treat me. ____ (37) I am a cheerful, high-spirited person. ____ (38) I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. ____ (39) Some people think of me as cold and calculating. ____ (40) When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through. ____ (41) Too often when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up. ____ (42) I am not a cheerful optimist. ____ (43) Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a chill or a       wave of excitement. ____ (44) I’m hardheaded and tough-minded in my attitudes. ____ (45) Sometimes I’m not as dependable or reliable as I should be. ____ (46) I am very seldom sad or depressed. ____ (47) My life is fast-paced. ____ (48) I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human       condition. ____ (49) I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate. ____ (50) I am a productive person who always gets the job done. ____ (51) I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems for me. ____ (52) I am a very active person. ____ (53) I have a lot of intellectual curiosity. ____ (54) If I don’t like people, I let them know it. ____ (55) I never seem to be able to get organized. ____ (56) At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide. ____ (57) I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others. ____ (58) I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas. ____ (59) If necessary, I am willing to manipulate people to get what I want. ____ (60) I strive for excellence in everything I do.   Well‐Being   27    Relationship Characteristics Scale The following questions are pertaining to your current relationship. Please answer as honestly as possible. o Not currently in a relationships  1.) I am committed to my current partner: Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   2.) My current partner is committed to me: Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   3.) In 5 years from now I do not see my partner and I being together: Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   4.) In 5 years from now I hope my partner and I will be together:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   5.) I am not currently in a quality relationship:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   6.) I am happy in my current relationship:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree      Well‐Being   28    7.) My partner is happy in my current relationship:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   8.) I am satisfied in my current relationship:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   9.) My partner is satisfied in my current relationship: Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   10.) My current partner is not romantic:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   11.) I am romantic in my current relationship:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   12.) My current partner and I are similar:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   13.) I am in love with my current partner:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   14.) My current partner is in love with me:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  Well‐Being   29    15.) My partner financially supports me:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   16.) I financially support my current partner:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   17.) My current partner respects me:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   18.) I respect my current partner:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   19.) My current partner allows me to be myself:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   20.) I allow my current partner to be himself/herself:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   21.) I cannot trust my current partner:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree       Well‐Being   30     22.) My current partner can trust me  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   23.) I am sexually active with my current partner:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   24.) My partner and I are intimate with one another:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   25.) There is a lot of conflict in my current relationship:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   26.) My partner and I are close:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree            Well‐Being   31    Lay Theories of Happiness Scale The following questions are pertaining to what you think makes you happy in your relationship. Please answer as honestly as possible.  1.) I believe being committed to my partner is important in my overall happiness: Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  2.) I believe my partner being committed to me is important in my overall happiness: Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  3.) I believe being with my partner in the future is not important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  4.) I believe hoping to be with my partner in the future is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  5.) I believe having a quality relationship is not important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  6.) I believe my being happy in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  7.) I believe my partner being happy in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   8.) I believe being satisfied in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  Well‐Being   32    9.) I believe my partner being satisfied in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  10.) I believe romance in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  11.) I believe being similar to my partner is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  12.) I believe being in love with my partner is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  13.) I believe my partner being in love with my partner is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree   14.) I believe being financially supported by my partner is not important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  15.) I believe financially supporting my partner is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree    16.) I believe respecting my partner in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  Well‐Being   33    17.) I believe my partner respecting me in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  18.) I believe being myself in my current relationship is not important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  19.) I believe my partner being himself/herself in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  20.) I believe trusting my partner in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  21.) I believe my partner trusting me in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  22.) I believe being sexually active in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  23.) I believe intimacy in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree 24.) I believe conflict in my relationship is important in my overall happiness:  Strongly  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree         Agree  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 12 2
China 7 11
France 1 0
Austria 1 0
Germany 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 10 0
Beijing 7 0
Unknown 5 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items