print

Correlational findings

Study Austrom (1984): study CA Ontario 1982

Public:
23-59 aged English speaking, Toronto and Ontario, Canada, 198?
Sample:
Respondents:
N = 1038
Non Response:
45%
Assessment:
Questionnaire: paper

Correlate

Authors's label
Satisfaction with love relationship
Our Classification
Operationalization
Factor analysis based on answers to closed questions. The respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with their: 1. marital status, 2. love relationship(s), 3. sex life. Rated on a 11-point scale ranging from completely dissatisfied to completely satisfied.

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Elaboration / Remarks O-SLW-u-sq-n-11-a r = +.47 ALL Ss (married (including not formally married cohabitating Ss (considered as married) and non-married).


O-SLW-u-sq-n-11-a Beta = +.25 ß controlled for: gender, age, household income, marital status, being in love, desire to change dating pattern or marital status, locus of control, social support.
1. instrumental: problems managing money,deciding how to spend money, not enough money to do things, unsatisfying job, not enough money to get by on;
2. expressive: unsatisfactory sex life, problems communicating, dissatisfied with marital status, not enough close friends, no one to show love/affection, too dependent on others, not having children, no one to understand problems; 3. interpersonal demands: too many responsibilities, no one to depend on, too many demands on time, problems communicating, problems with children, problems with spouse/ex-spouse, conflicts with those who are close), and satisfaction with job and financial situation, friendships and living situation.

NON-MARRIED Ss ONLY:
                                                - - neutral or dissatisfied: Mt = 6.6
- satisfied:               Mt = 7.9
Difference significant (001)     

- males:    r = +.41        ß = +.27
- females:  r = +.45        ß = +.21
Beta's controlled for the same variables as above, except marital status and gender.