1
Running head: WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
The Impact of Subjective Well-being on Relational Maturity and Marriage Permanence
Low Jun Xin
29062896
Submitted as PSY3062 Milestone 2
Tutor: Ms Shaleen Rajasegaram
Class: Wednesday 2p.m.
Word Count: 2839 words
2
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
The Impact of Subjective Well-being on Relational Maturity and Marriage Permanence
Emerging adulthood is a crucial period in an individual’s life journey, taking place
from 18 to 25 years old (Carroll et al., 2009). As societies nowadays become more and more
demanding, emerging adults are unclear of their future and this restrains the development of
their adulthood (Sharon, 2016). Upon reaching the emerging adulthood paradigm, young
people have to start making decisions as part of their developmental tasks, for instance,
making the transition from being a student to an office worker, and from a single individual
to one committed to a romantic relationship (Branje, Laninga-Wijnen, Yu & Meeus, 2014).
One of the most prominent transitions occurring during this period would be marriage. It was
suggested that good relational maturity contributes to longer marriage permanence (Carroll et
al., 2009; Sharon, 2016). Examples of relational maturity would be committing to
relationships (Schoebi et al., 2012) and controlling emotions (Elegbede & Ogunlege, 2018).
Since relational maturity assists positive growth of one's mental health and personality, it
could lead to the birth of and maintaining healthy relationship between couples, such as both
spouses could rely and trust each other (Roja, Sasikumar & Fathima, 2013). To enter a longterm marriage, both people have to tolerate each other and put in efforts to stabilize their
intimate relationship (Schoebi, Karney & Bradbury, 2012). Commitment is especially
important as it is seen as “the sense of allegiance that is established to the source of one’s
dependence” (Schoebi et al., 2012, p. 730). On the other hand, emotional control is essential
to develop rational thoughts and behaviours, making communication more effective and
contented in a relationship (Elegbede & Ogunlege, 2018). However, one has to have good
subjective well-being (SWB) as he or she has better life satisfaction, which influence their
emotions (Schoebi et al., 2012). Hence, it was suggested that good relational maturity could
be strengthened through good SWB (Schoebi et al., 2012; Sharon, 2016), which is especially
3
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
important in interpersonal relationships, and contributes to marriage permanence (Roja, et al.,
2013; Elegbede & Ogundele, 2018).
Elegbede and Ogundele (2018) stated that emotional control plays a pivotal role in
relationships since emotion is the core of forming and maintaining relationships. In reverse,
relationships are also sourced from emotions. As the surroundings and circumstances are
unstable and are constantly changing during emerging adulthood, it could take a toll on an
individual’s mental health and affect their ability to control their emotions (Branje et al.,
2014; Tagliabue, Olivari, Giuliani & Confalonieri, 2018). For example, in a romantic
relationship or marriage, one has to juggle their work commitment, financial issues, and time
spent with his or her romantic partner. There is a high probability of encountering dyadic
boundaries (e.g. disagreement with coworkers, losing money in investments). Previously,
Elegbede and Ogundele (2018) clearly expressed that relationships and emotions are
interdependent, and individuals who are poor in balancing their emotions may bring these
negative emotions into their relationships. This could potentially lead to disruption in
emotional interaction and thus, affecting marriage permanence (Elegbede & Ogundele,
2018).
Aside from emotional control, commitment is also viewed as the foundation of an
attachment and reliance between the partners in a relationship (Schoebi et al., 2012). Schoebi
et al. (2012) also mentioned that commitment in a long-term relationship such as marriage
involves trust and dependence deepening, it reinforces a couple’s bond. For example, a
trusting couple would generally learn to solve issues together, and this strengthens and
prolongs relationship. Kefalas, Furstenberg, Carr and Napolitano (2011) supported this
statement by noting that in a commitment, couples are able to obtain knowledge about their
partners, making decisions and experiencing ups and downs together, learning to
communicate, establishing mutual trust, and believing that they are fated for each other.
4
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
These aforementioned processes are believed to contribute to marriage permanence. Besides
that, by experiencing all these occasions together, people are able to be more considerate of
each other, thus maintaining marriage permanence.
It was suggested that people’s relational maturity is dependent on their personalities,
and their personalities are shaped by their respective SWB (Elegbele & Ogunlege, 2018).
Schoebi et al. (2012) also pointed out that excellent life satisfaction could enhance an
individual’s commitment in relationships. Liu, Dijst and Greetman (2017) continued to
explain that having quality SWB (e.g. having financial stability, good healthcare and social
support) impacts positively on their relational maturity (e.g. more to commitment, becoming
less self-oriented, and controlling one’s emotions well). For example, if one has quality
SWB, such as having secure financial planning, the individual would have good emotional
control and better consideration of others. If SWB does improve relational maturity, it means
that SWB might enhance stronger association between relational maturity and perceived
inherent marriage permanence. Nevertheless, Liu et al. (2017) did not consider their
participants’ marriage permanence. In order to further understand this relationship,
Wadsworth (2016) conducted a research on adults and found out that SWB was associated
with marriage permanence. He further explained that marriage permanence reasoned from
marriage satisfaction, and marriage satisfaction reasoned from good SWB. The participants in
Wadsworth’s (2016) study with good SWB did achieve conditions people deem excellent
such as having career stability, relationship stability and financial stability. However, it has to
be noted that the participants in Wadsworth’s (2016) consisted of adults, while this study
aims to research on emerging young adults.
Current Study
As most research were done on emotional control, there is not much information
about other aspects (e.g. consideration and commitment) that falls under relational maturity
5
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
category. Moreover, previous research were usually done on married couples instead of
unmarried emerging adults perceiving marriage permanence. This study shall offer a new
perspective by examining the moderating effects of SWB on the association between
relational maturity importance and perceived inherent permanence of marriage.
1. Participants who are high in relational maturity importance scores would score higher
in perceived inherent permanence of marriage compared to those who are low.
2. The positive relationship between relational maturity importance and perceived
inherent marriage permanence will be stronger as SWB increases.
Method
Participants
In this study, 1927 participants, age ranged from 18 to 25 (M= 20 years, SD= 1.85
years) were recruited via convenience sampling through social media (e.g. Facebook &
Twitter) and listserv invitations. The samples consisted of 469 males (24.3%), 1431 females
(74.2%), and 29 (1.5%) who identified themselves as other. All of the participants were from
English speaking institutions. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review
Board and the Primary Investigator from the Pacific Lutheran University. The participants
also gave their informed consent by indicating on the first page of the survey and were free to
quit the survey at any point.
After excluding participants with missing data, there were 1924 participants (M =
age
19.99 years, SD= 1.85 years). Amongst the samples were 468 males (24.3%), 1427 females
(74.2%), and 29 (1.5%) who identified themselves as other.
Materials
6
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
A self-report containing five items from the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985) was used to assess participants’ SWB, an example
of the items was ‘The conditions of my life are excellent’. The SWLS demonstrated good
internal consistency reliability of α = .88 (Kobau, Sniezek, Zack, Lucas & Burns, 2010). The
participants were to indicate their answers on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Whereas relational maturity importance was measured using four items from the
complete questionnaire of 40 items in the Markers of Emerging Adulthood (MoA), devised
by Fosse and Toyokawa (2016). The four items was ‘commitment on long-term relationship’,
‘emotional control’, ‘seeing parents as equal’ and ‘considerate of others’ respectively. These
items were evaluated using a four-point Likert scale (1 = not, 4 = very) on perceived
importance. Nevertheless, the reliability is low, having only α =.38 (Fosse & Toyokawa,
2016).
On the other hand, marriage permanence was measured using one item which was
‘Marriage should be for life, even if the marriage is mediocre or unsatisfying’. The answer of
the five-point Likert scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Procedure
A link to the EAMMi2 survey (Grahe et al., 2018) was sent to the participants via
email invitation or campus specific recruiting procedures (eg. SONA systems). If the
participants did the EAMMi2 survey online, they were to complete this survey alone after
self-debriefing and given informed consent. If the survey was done in the laboratory, the
researcher would fully debriefed the participants and then they were left in private to
complete the survey. Data was then collected.
Design
7
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
This study used a cross-sectional correlation, and a between subjects experiment
design. The first independent variable is the scores of SWB whilst the second independent
variable would be scores of relational maturity. On the other hand, the dependent variable is
the perceived inherent permanence of marriage.
Results
All data collected was analysed using SPSS software, maintaining 0.05 as the
significance level threshold. Cronbach’s alpha was also run for both scales to ensure internal
consistency reliability.
Preliminary Analyses
Univariate outliers with z scores of relational maturity importance more and less than
3.29 and -3.29 were winsorized. This was done to lessen the impact on the results and
distortion of the data distribution. Relational maturity importance variable has seven outliers,
which was then winsorized to the closest highest data point not considered to be an outlier
(Reifman & Keyton, 2010). With reference to Appendix, the inspection of the normal
probability plot, and residual and scatterplot indicate that the assumptions of normality,
linearity and homoscedasticity were met. Even if the Shapiro-Wilk test showed that normality
assumption was violated, p < . 001, according to the Central Limit Theorem, data distribution
could be assumed as normal as this study consisted of a large sample size (Anderson, 2010).
Furthermore, as multicollinearity was not detected, this indicates that the VIF and the
tolerance value obtained was below 10 and above 0.1 respectively.
In the data for relational maturity importance, the scores ranged from a minimum
value of 1 to a maximum value of 4 (MRMI = 3.33, SD = 0.54). While the total scores of the
SWB questionnaire ranged from a minimum value of 5 to a maximum value of 35 (MSWB =
8
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
22.36, SD = 6.85). The Zero-order’s correlation between relational maturity importance and
perceived inherent marriage permanence is r = .11. While for SWB and perceived inherent
marriage permanence, the Zero-order’s correlation is r = .09. On the other hand, the Zeroorder’s correlation between relational maturity importance and SWB is 0.14. The summary of
descriptive statistics and Zero-order correlations of variables will be presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations of Variables
Variable
Mean SD
1
1. Relational maturity importance
3.33
1
2. Subjective Well-being
22.36 6.84
0.11* 1
3. Perceived inherent permanence of marriage
2.49
0.9*
0.54
1.28
2
3
0.14* 1
Note. N = 1921 , *p<.001
Primary Analyses
In order to test if emerging adults’ SWB may be accounted for significant variance in
perceived inherent permanence, and this relationship may be moderated via relational
maturity, a moderated hierarchical multiple regression model was analysed. A two stage
hierarchical multiple regression was carried out with perceived inherent permanence of
marriage as the dependent variable. At stage one, relational maturity importance and SWB
were entered. Whereas for stage two, the interaction of both relational maturity importance
and SWB was entered.
Table 2
9
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables predicting Perceived Inherent
Permanence of Marriage.
Variable
β
t
sr2
Step 1
Relational Maturity Importance
.23
4.31
.01
Subjective Well-being
.01
3.18
.01
Step 2
Relational Maturity Importance*
<.001 -.03
R
R2
∆R2
.13
.017
.017
.13
.017
<.001
<.001
Subjective Well-being
Note. N = 1921
The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at Stage one, relational maturity
importance contributed significantly to the regression model, F (2, 1918) = 16.56, p < .001,
and accounted for 1.7% of the variation in perceived inherent permanence of marriage.
Introducing the interaction of relational maturity importance and SWB, it accounted for 0%
of the variation in perceived inherent marriage importance, F (3, 1917) = .001, p =.98. The
three variables accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in perceived inherent
permanence of marriage, F (3, 1917) = 11.04, p < .001.
Unstandardised (B) and standardised (β) regression coefficients, and squared semipartial (or ‘part’) correlations (sr2) for each predictor variable in the regression model are
reported in Table 3.
10
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
Table 3
Unstandardised (B) and Standardised (β) Regression Coefficients, and Squared Semi-Partial
Correlations for Each Predictor Variable in a Regression Model predicting Perceived
Inherent Permanence of Marriage
Variable
B [95% CI]
β
sr2
Relational Maturity Importance
0.23 [0.13, 0.34]*
.10
.01
Subjective Well-being
0.01 [0.01, 0.02]*
.07
.01
Note. N = 1921. CI = confidence interval, *p < .001
Cronbach’s alpha for the 5-item SWB questionnaire was .87. However, Cronbach’s
alpha for the 4-item relational maturity importance was only .55.
Discussion
This research aimed to examine whether relational maturity importance would have
an impact on perceived inherent marriage permanence, and to examine whether SWB do
strengthen the relationship between relational maturity importance and perceived inherent
marriage permanence.
The results showed that higher scores in relational maturity importance is positively
correlated with higher scores in perceived inherent marriage permanence. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1 is accepted. The findings are consistent with past literature that the importance
of controlling emotions (Elegbele & Ogunlege, 2018), committing to relationships (Kefalas et
al., 2011), and being considerate to others (Liu et al., 2017) contribute significantly to
perceived inherent marriage permanence. Although it is a significant contribution, the
contributing percentage is low. It is possible that the low percentage is due to low Cronbach’s
11
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
alpha of the relational maturity importance scale, meaning that the items used in the scale
have poor correlation and interrelatedness. Reifman and Grahe (2016) justified that the poor
inter-item correlations could stem from the reason that the particular tasks within the similar
domain may be impossible to accomplish within a similar time frame. In addition, there are
other factors that could have contributed in higher inter-correlations if they were included in
the scale. For instance, the quality of communication (Lavner, Karney & Bradbury, 2016)
and couple similarity (Chi, Epstein, Fang, Lam & Li, 2013) also account for perceived
inherent marriage permanence. In Chi et al.’s (2013) findings, it was found out that
similarities between couples contribute towards higher marriage satisfaction, which in turn,
result in longer marriage permanence. It was further explained that this is because
confirmation and support could be gained for individuals’ self-concept through their partners
harbouring equivalent beliefs (Chi et al., 2013). On top of that, the findings in the study by
Lavner et al. (2016) also demonstrated that good communication quality was positively
correlated with higher chances of marriage permanence. For example, positive
communications such as confronting partners instead of mindreading predict high marriage
satisfaction, and lead to lasting marriage (Lavner et al., 2016).
For hypothesis 2, on the contrary, rejected the speculation that SWB would strengthen
the positive relationship between relational maturity importance and perceived inherent
marriage permanence. Results of this study displayed that SWB does not contribute any
significance towards the moderating effect, even when the Cronbach’s alpha for the SWB
scale is high, indicating that the items are highly correlated and predict each other well. This
could only mean that there are other aspects, instead of SWB that help moderate the
relationship between relational maturity importance and perceived inherent marriage
permanence. For example, some moderators would be religious beliefs (Polinska, 2010) and
financial well-being (. Faith based marriages usually attend to the present reality of couples’
12
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
relationships instead of just focusing on the finality of the bond (Polinska, 2010). While for
financial well-being, Lersch (2017) found that this aspect do enhance individuals’ emotional
control and commitments in their married lives, increasing marriage permanence.
Strengths and Limitations
A strength of this study would be having a large sample size, this increases
generalisability as there would be more diversity in participants’ races and backgrounds,
individual differences would be masked over, thus, allowing the results to be more
representative of the target population. Aside from that, this study also collected quantitative
data. Since this study consisted of a large number of participants, it allows consistency in the
findings, hence, increasing the reliability of the study. Furthermore, the strength of this study
would be ecological validity. As the survey was done online and the participants were
allowed to finish in their convenient time, they were not pressured to perform desirable
results.
Even though the sample of this study is large, it has to be noted that the gender ratio is
distorted, there are 469 males and 1431 females. The results may be more biased towards
females’ perspectives when it comes to emotional related questions. Hence, the
generalisability of the findings obtained might limit to females only. Also, the study was
conducted in the West, results gained might not be representative of the East as there are
cultural differences. Another limitation of the study is that it is only applicable to emerging
young adults, the findings are not relevant to lifespan phases such as middle-aged adulthood,
as the development and thinking will have a distinctive difference. Moreover, the
questionnaires for this survey contained many questions, it consisted of 25 pages, participants
might feel overwhelmed halfway and just simply choose their answers, lowering the
reliability of the results.
Conclusions
13
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
In conclusion, high relational maturity importance is positively correlated with perceived
inherent permanence of marriage, and SWB does not produce any moderating effect. There
are other factors that contribute towards moderating the relationship between relational
maturity importance and perceived inherent permanence of marriage. Future research should
not examine only on emotional control topic, there is lack of information on the topics of
couples’ consideration and relationship establishment with parents. Besides that, future
studies could revise the scale used to assess relational maturity importance as the internal
consistency is low. Also, future research on this topic should also be done in other continents
to obtain diverse results.
14
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
References
Anderson, C. J. (2010). Central limit theorem. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0160
Branje, S., Laninga-Wijnen, L., Yu, R., & Meeus, W. (2014). Associations among school and
friendship identity in adolescence and romantic relationships and work in emerging
adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 2(1), 6-16.
Carroll, J. S., Badger, S., Willoughby, B. J., Nelson, L. J., Madsen, S. D., & Mcnamara B. C.
(2009). Ready or not?: Criteria for marriage readiness among emerging adults.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(3), 349-375.
Chi, P., Epstein, N. B., Fang, X., Lam, D. O. B., & Li, X. (2013). Similarity of relationship
standards, couple communication patterns, and marital satisfaction among Chinese
couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(5), 806-816.
Elegbede, P., & Ogunleye, A. (2018). Emotional control, self-efficacy and social support as
predictors of intimate relationship satisfaction among dating partners. Ife Psychologia,
26(1), 154-169.
Kefalas, M. J., Furstenberg, F. F., Carr, P. J., & Napolitano, L. (2011). “Marriage is more
than being together”: The meaning of marriage for young adults. Journal of Family
Issues, 32(7), 845-875.
Kobau, R., Sniezek, J., Zack, M. M., Lucas, R. E., & Burns, A. (2010). Well‐being
assessment: An evaluation of well‐being scales for public health and population
estimates of well‐being among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Wellbeing, 2(3), 272-297.
15
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
Lavner, J. A., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2016). Does couples' communication predict
marital satisfaction, or does marital satisfaction predict communication?. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 78(3), 680-694.
Lersch, P. M. (2017). Individual wealth and subjective financial well‐being in marriage:
Resource integration or separation?. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(5), 12111223.
Liu, Y., Dijst, M., & Geertman, S. (2017). The subjective well-being of older adults in
Shanghai: The role of residential environment and individual resources. Urban
Studies, 54(7), 1692-1714.
Polinska, W. (2010). “Till death do us part"? Buddhist insights on Christian marriage.
Buddhist - Christian Studies, 30, 29-40.
Reifman, A., & Keyton, K. (2010). Winsorize. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Research Design (pp. 1636-1638). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag.
Reifman, A., & Grahe, J. E. (2016). Introduction to the special issue of emerging adulthood.
Emerging Adulthood, 4(3), 135-141.
Roja, M. P., Sasikumar, N., & Fathima, M. P. (2013). A study on emotional maturity and
self concept at higher secondary level. Research in Psychology and Behavioral
Sciences, 1(5), 81-83.
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.
Sharon, T. (2016). Constructing adulthood: Markers of adulthood and well-being among
16
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood, 4(3), 161-167.
Tagliabue, S., Olivari, M., Giuliani, C., & Confalonieri, E. (2018). To seek or not to seek
advice: Talking about romantic issues during emerging adulthood. Europe's Journal of
Psychology, 14(1), 125-142.
Wadsworth, T. (2016). Marriage and subjective well-being: How and why context matters.
Social Indicators Research, 126(3), 1025-1048.
17
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
Appendix
18
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
19
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
20
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
21
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
22
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
23
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
PSY3062 Milestone 2 Marking Criteria
Student name: Low Jun Xin
Not shown
0
Poor
1-20%
Fair
20-40%
Good
40-60%
Very good
60-80%
Excellent
80-100%
Revision - Introduction
Feedback from Milestone 1 incorporated and addressed. All previous
feedback should be addressed and fixed
Very Good
Revision – Method
Feedback from Milestone 1 incorporated and addressed. All previous
feedback should be addressed and fixed.
Very Good
Results – Descriptive stats and data cleaning
Clear and succinct description of how data were handled, including any
recoding/transformation of continuous variables, handling of outliers,
missing values, etc. Data cleaning decisions were appropriate for the
project.
Excellent
Descriptive data are presented clearly and appropriately in correct APA
format, either in text or in a descriptive statistics table.
Excellent
Results – Primary analysis
Analyses correctly reported and described with accurate interpretations
Analyses are appropriate to address the study hypotheses. All
hypotheses/aims are addressed by at least one analysis.
Sophistication of results.
Results tell and convincing story
Essential supporting SPSS (or other software) output in appendix and no
non-essential output such as from analyses not reported on at all
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Discussion: summary and interpretation of key findings
Clearly and accurately specifies hypotheses and whether these were
supported or not by the results.
Excellent
The report clearly and specifically describes a compelling range of
similarities and differences between the findings of the current study and
those of past studies.
Excellent
Discussion: strengths and limitations; conclusions
Summarize strengths of the study
Summarize limitations of the study. In limitations, discuss their potential
impact on the
findings. Provide suggestions for future research that would address these
limitations
Very Good
Good
24
WELL-BEING, RELATIONAL MATURITY & MARRIAGE
Conclusion: Brief paragraph highlighting the take home message from the
study, neither over nor understating the significance of the results. Ideally
will also identify some practical implications (e.g., for economic, clinical,
interventional, educational, etc. applications). May also suggest directions
for future research.
Very Good
Presentation
APA style used throughout
Very Good
All cited papers referenced and vice versa
Excellent
Quality of expression – scientific language used with proper spelling and
grammar
Very Good
Please see Moodle for final grade out of 100