Article Evaluation Due Tuesday 26
Faith and unfaithfulness: Can praying for your partner reduce infidelity
Joy Marie Prior
SFL 290
Introduction
(a) What was the purpose of the study? Study 1 To investigate whether prayer for the partner would influence the willingness to engage in extra dyadic romantic behavior that might produce hurt for the partner (e.g. infidelity). Study 2 An experimental design using self report that targeted the impact of prayer on infidelity, unlike study 1 this introduced an undirected prayer condition to control of the possible effects of any form of prayer. Study 3 This study build upon study 2 and introduced objective observes to report on the randomly assigned participants in the experiment commitment to their romantic partner.
Was it stated clearly? The purpose was stated clearly at the end of the review of the literature.
Is there a rationale presented for why the study is important? The relational was presented, because the author discussed how prayer has been viewed in social science, prayer in general, and hypothesized and correlations between prayer and relationships. After, the article discussed infidelity in dating relationships. This was important because it introduced the variables of the study, and why they are important in relationships and society.
(b) Did the review of literature relate to the study's purpose? the literature review was relevant because it introduced the reader to how prayer has been viewed and studied in the social sciences. The review gave the reader a clearer understand of what other studies and what ethical reasons would limit a true experiment on prayer in relationships. Besides discussing prayer in the social science the literature review discussed prayer in the religion.
Were the references cited recent (within 10 years of the article being published)? The references were cited, but a few were not within 10 years of the article being published. There were a few cited references that were from the 90’s and even from the 80’s.
(c) What were the research hypotheses and were they stated clearly? Study 1: The subjects randomly assigned to pray each day for the partner for four weeks would show lower levels of infidelity at the end of the four weeks than subjects assigned to pray in general, to focus on positive partner qualities, or to a neutral activity. Study 2: By believing that the relationship was sacred would mediate the relationship between infidelity and prayer. Study 3: The participants who had prayed for their partner for the four weeks would rate as more committed to their partner by objective observers than the control participants.
Do they present a clear association between the variables? All of the studies related to infidelity and prayer Study 1 there was lots of relation to infidelity and prayer but little related to why relationship satisfaction should be used to control for infidelity and prayer Study 2 There were many references that clarified why there were so many control groups in the study. Study 3 This study tried to over come the restrictions of self report by having observation; the references did not discuses what “observed” characteristics of infidelity could be.
Are they related to the review of literature? Prayer was mentioned several times throughout the review of the literature, but specifically the control variables for prayer were mentioned. The literature discussed the reasons why the different control groups were organized including simply becoming viewing the relationship as holly and that prayer simply makes one more aware of their personal moral compass. It also discussed infidelity and why this would be a relevant element to measure in the strength of a relationship. Although, the review of the literature did not specify why in Study 3 the objective observers would be looking for the commitment to partner, and how this relates to infidelity or what communications and infidelity have in common.
Methods
(d) What type of sampling method was used? Study 1 Convenience Sample? it was not specifically mentioned though. Study 2 Convenience Sample: it was not specifically mentioned though. Study 3 Convenience Sampling? it was not specifically mentioned though.
If no sampling method is specified, what type of sampling do you think they used? Study 1 I believe that the professors and research team used volunteered students from their classes to get course credit; Convenience Sampling. Study 2 The participants in the first study were asked the level of prayer they participate in and then the students who prayed at least minimally were asked to participate in study 2 for extra credit. Study 3 I assume that some of the students in the professors class were asked if they wanted to be in a study by their professor and if they did they would receive extra credit.
Is it clear where the sample comes from and how it was selected? Study 1 It is unclear how the sample was selected, and it appears that the sample came from the same university that published the article but this information is also not specified. It is specified that the sample came from a large university in Southeast in a semi-urban setting. Study 2 It appears just as in study 1 that the sample came from the university, but it does not state how the sample was selected. The student’s could have been in the previous study or they could have all been asked to participate who were walking to class that day. Study 3 The sample came from a selected university, and it was from students who had been in the previous two studies and wanted extra credit.
(e) What are some characteristics of the sample participants? Study 1 The majority of the sample size was overwhelmingly females. The age range was 17 to 29, and the age median was 19. All reported being in a romantic relationship. Study 2 About 89% of the participants were female and they came from a large public university. Each were selected because they were currently in a romantic relationship and they were currently praying. Study 3 The age range was from 18 to 32 and the median age was 19; from this I am assuming that 32 was an outlier for the ages.
How many people were in the sample for each study? Study 1 375 Study 2 83 Study 3 23
What sample characteristics did the author describe (i.e. what information was given about participants)? Study 1 they were undergraduate students at a large public university. They were living in a semi-urban lifestyle in the Southeast. Study 2 they were undergraduate students at a large public university. They were living in a semi-urban lifestyle in the Southeast, and the age range was from 18 to 34 with a median of 19. From this assume that 34 was an outlier age in the data. Study 3 In this study only those participants that reported being comfortable with prayer were asked to participate
Was the sample described adequately (i.e. what additional information could have been given to help better describe the sample)? Study 1 The sample size was described adequately because the reader understood who was in the sample and general characteristics about the participants. Study 2 sample size was described adequately because the reader understood who was in the sample and general characteristics about the participants. I would have liked to know what minimum amount of prayer was defined as though. Study 3 From the previous studies we learned that there was a dominate amount of female participants, but this study does not state how many females were in the study and how many males… it is an odd number so either males or females must have appeared more.
(f) Is it clear how the study was conducted (i.e. what procedures were explained)? Yes
Were the procedures explained in enough detail that YOU could go do the study)? Study 1 I could do by simply making the same test, but I did not know if there was a pretest or if I asked the questions to both partners or only one of the partners. Study 2 I understood the procedure and could make the questionnaire myself. Although, the article did not specify how the subjects were randomly assigned. I wondered if there was a “due” date for the online log or if the subjects simply entered the information at least 2 times a week when ever they felt like it. Study 3 I could do the study, but I think that it would be important to have the coders trained by either the same person or to the exact same standard as the coders used in this particular study because they had a high inter-rater reliability and it would be important to the results of my study that my coders perceived the same levels of infidelity.
What did they explain well? Study 1 the measurements were explained really well to the point that if I wanted to I could use the exact same measuring system in my own experiment. Study 2 The questioner was explained well, but I really appreciated knowing how each of the different groups were trained if you will for the study. The prayer group was given an example of the type of prayer they were asked to give. Study 3 How the subjects were suppose to participate was explained well, and the subjects were trained well so that they tried to eliminate lurking variables and make the conditions as equal as possible.
What could have been explained better? What was the descriptive statistics for Infidelity? Study 1 In the Prayer for Partner, and Relationship Satisfaction the coefficient alpha and the correlation were given, but not for infidelity. What were the levels of infidelity? Study 2 An example prayer for the group that was simply asked to pray for their partner. Study 3 I would have liked to know a little more about the video taping process and how long the videotape was and what questions were asked during the video taping duration.
(g) What were the independent and dependent variables studied? Study 1 The independent variable was prayer for partner and the dependent variable was infidelity and relationship satisfaction. With relationship satisfaction acting as a control. Study 2 The independent variable was prayer for partner and the dependent variables were Infidelity (thoughts and acts), Infidelity acts, and perception of a sanctified relationship. Study 3 the independent variables were the prayer for partner the dependent variables was infidelity that was measured by the trained observers that rated commitment to partner on a scale from one to seven.
What level of measurement was used for each of the independent and dependent variables (categorical or continuous)? Study 1 The independent variable was measured categorically by prayer for partner. The dependent variable were continuous. Study 2 The independent variable was continuous. The dependent variables were continuous. Study 3 The independent variable was categorical while the dependent variable was continuous.
o Hint: sometimes looking at the statistical analysis that was used will help you to figure out the level of measurement of the independent and dependent variables.
(h) What measures/instruments were used to measure the independent and dependent variables? Study 1 the measures were all self report. The independent variable was continuous by a five point scale that measured frequency of actions. The dependent variable of Infidelity was a response that asked if the subject simply had or had not participated in infidel acts with someone other than their romantic partner. Relationship satisfaction was measured by a four item on a six point scale. Study 2 All were self report. Infidelity was measured with a 9-item scale that asked them about their relationship to and level of attraction to someone other than their romantic partner. Infidelity acts measured on a scale how participants behaved around a person they were attracted to. The perception of sanctified relationship was measured by a 2-item scale. Study 3 The groups were assigned and categorical, but the level of commitment was on a interval scale from 1 to 7.
How were they described? Study 1 they were described by the levels that each number represented and what questions were specifically asked. Study 2 They were interval, because it was on a scale of how the subject felt about a particular person and the numbers had significance because they went from lowest to highest and the author had to explain what the values signified. Study 3 The scores were interval because the author told us what the values for each number were and how they ranged; the lower the score the less committed the couple while the higher the score the more committed that couple appeared to be.
Were they adequately described (i.e. did they provide enough information that you know what the measure assessed, where it can be found, sample items included, how to score it, and information about reliability and validity)? Study 1 I was able to create the questions and understood what the various levels signified, although because of external validity I do not know if relationship satisfaction would be measured and considered the same be a population in a different social context. Study 2 I did not know all of the specific questions asked but I knew were the questionnaires came from and why the researchers chose those scales. Study 3 I did not know how long the video type was or if the person asking questions was the objective observers or another party. I did have enough information though that I understood what was being assessed.
Results & Discussion
(i) In discussing the results, what conclusions were drawn and were they appropriate (i.e. in the discussion were the results related to the research questions/hypotheses and the review of literature)? Study 1 The results were not only given, but they were analyzed. The study controlled for relationship satisfaction and found that there was not a statistically significant influence. It also controlled for relationship length, and relationship status (which was not specified as to what this meant, but I assumed it meant dating or married). Study 2 The study explained not only what the results were but that they eliminated some of the subjects in prayer group because they were praying for their partner. It was interesting to see how these subjects changed the results. The authors noted how each of the groups did and why (from the reference articles) the authors analyzed the data and why the researchers felt that not including the data of the participants who prayed for their partner consistently in the group asked to pray was justified. Study 3 The results were simple and did not included all of the statistics of the controlled groups.
Is the discussion of the results consistent with the actual results? Study 1 The author stays true to the results and notes that study 1 could only obtain a correlation between prayer and infidelity not a causation. Study 2 The discussion used the statistically significant results to make conclusions and implications about the prayer for partner did make a difference over the other control variables. Study 3 The discussion notes that the study results were not significant and that although it appears that the subjects asked to pray for their partner had less infidelity and praying for partner might have an effect but not a significant effect.
Do the authors stray too far from the actual results when speculating about implications of the results? Study 1 The author stayed within the premise of the results and noted that it was unclear in this study if specifically praying for partner decrease infidelity or if people who chose to pray for their partner have characteristics that would make them more faithful. Study 2 The author’s used what was considered statistically significant and made their implications based on the results in the study. They also noted that the study was based on self reports and that these self reports could inaccurately depict infidelity. Study 3 The author does say that the effects of praying for one’s partner is apparent to objective observers although after wards the author states that these results are not statistically significant.
(j) Your general evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Was it clearly written and understandable? Study 1 I was able to follow the study, but I because of the lectures in class I am familiar with the study and believe that this familiarity helped me to understand it clearly. Study 2 Same as study 1. Study 3 Same as study 1.
Other
If you believe any of the above issues have not been addressed, be sure to tell me that, too.
Please do not try to make up components that are not in the article. For example, if there are no hypotheses, just state that.
For each article evaluation you are required to do an evaluation of the participation of group members (Group evaluation form available on Blackboard under Assignments).
o Group members who receive low evaluations will receive fewer points.
o If you do not hand in a group evaluation form on the day the article evaluation is due, you will be docked one point on this assignment.
o If you do not participate as part of a group for this assignment, you will also receive fewer points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)