/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 41 Phubbing and Relationship Satisf... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Log out

Learning Materials

Features

Discover

Chapter 12: Problem 41

Phubbing and Relationship Satisfaction Phubbing is the practice of ignoring one's companion or companions in order to pay attention to one's phone or other mobile device. In the conclusion of a 2017 study published in Personality and Individual Differences, researchers (Wang et al. 2017 ) concluded "The results indicated that partner phubbing had a negative effect on relationship satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction had a negative effect on depression." Is this conclusion likely to be the result of an observational study or a controlled experiment? Can we conclude phubbing causes decreased relationship satisfaction from this study? Explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified
The conclusion is likely to be the result of an observational study rather than a controlled experiment. From this study, it cannot be concluded that phubbing causes decreased relationship satisfaction as it might just be indicative of a correlation, not causation.

Step by step solution

01

Distinguish between an observational study and a controlled experiment

In an observational study, the researcher observes and measures characteristics without trying to modify the subjects being studied. In a controlled experiment, the researcher would manipulate one of the variables and try to determine how the manipulation influences other variables.
02

Study conclusion details and type

Looking at the conclusion, 'The results indicated that partner phubbing had a negative effect on relationship satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction had a negative effect on depression', It appears to be from an observational study. This is because the study seems to report an observed relationship and does not mention any interventions or manipulations executed by researchers.
03

Establishing causality

Establishing a causal effect requires an experiment, not an observational study. Hence from the given study, it can't be conclusively stated that phubbing causes decreased relationship satisfaction. This is because observational studies can indicate correlations or associations, but they cannot prove causality. There might be other variables at play that affect relationship satisfaction. Hence, a causal link cannot be definitively established from this study.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91影视!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Study Conclusion Analysis
Understanding the conclusions drawn from research studies is critical in the field of psychology, especially when it comes to interpreting the impact of certain behaviors on individuals' well-being. In analyzing the study conclusions regarding the effects of phubbing on relationship satisfaction, one must carefully differentiate between correlation and causality.

The conclusion drawn in the 2017 study indicates a negative correlation between phubbing and relationship satisfaction. A correlation signifies a statistical association where two variables move in some type of systematic relationship to one another. However, this does not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. To properly evaluate study conclusions, researchers and readers must scrutinize the methodology, controls in place, and the nature of the study 鈥� observational or experimental. A sound analysis would also involve looking for potential confounders or other explanatory variables that may have influenced the results.
Relationship Satisfaction
Relationship satisfaction is a critical component of psychological health and overall life satisfaction. It is often assessed through various subjective measures, such as questionnaires or interviews, which ask individuals to evaluate multiple aspects of their relationships.

Factors influencing relationship satisfaction are complex and multifaceted; they include communication quality, emotional intimacy, shared values, and increasingly, technology interference, such as 'phubbing'. When investigating the importance of relationship satisfaction, research must account for the intricate nature of human relationships.

Implications of Technology on Interpersonal Dynamics

As technology becomes more pervasive, its intrusiveness in face-to-face interactions is scrutinized for potential negative impacts, as was the case with the 2017 study linking partner phubbing to lower relationship satisfaction.

Researchers and individuals alike are interested in understanding how modern habits are reshaping the dynamics of personal relationships and overall satisfaction derived from them.
Causality in Research
The concept of causality is foundational in research and dictates the extent to which we can claim that one event is the result of another. In the context of the study on phubbing and relationship satisfaction, establishing causality would require researchers to evidence that phubbing directly causes changes in relationship satisfaction levels.

Causality can be established through controlled experiments where the researcher manipulates one variable (the independent variable) to observe the effect on another variable (the dependent variable), often while controlling for other variables. This contrasts with observational studies, where researchers observe associations without manipulating variables.

An integral part of research design, especially within social sciences, is teasing out causal links while considering confounding factors, which are external influences that may affect the observed outcome. Only through careful experiment design, controlling for potential confounds, and replicating results can causality be asserted with confidence.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

No Grass Suppose a homeowner is considering replacing the grass in the front yard with drought-resistant plants such as cactus. She wants to find out whether the neighbors approve of this or not, so she inquires about this at every fifth house in the subdivision. What kind of sampling is this?

Music and Divergent Thinking In a 2017 study published at PLOS.org, researchers investigated the effect of music on creativity (Ritter and Ferguson 2017). Subjects were recruited for the study using an online research participation system at a university. Four pieces of music were selected with different emotional tones: calm, happy, sad, and anxious. Subjects were randomly assigned to listen to one of these four pieces or to a group that listened to no music (silence). After 15 seconds of music (or silence) subjects were given a task that assessed their creativity and divergent thinking. Read the excerpts from the study abstract and answer the following questions. Results: Our main hypothesis was that listening to happy music, as compared to a silence control condition, facilitates divergent thinking. An independent-samples \(t\) -test was conducted to compare the happy music condition with the silence control condition on overall divergent thinking (ODT). There was a significant difference in \(\mathrm{ODT}\) between the happy music \((\mathrm{M}=93.87, \mathrm{SD}=32.02)\) and silence \((\mathrm{M}=76.10\) \(\mathrm{SD}=32.62\) ) conditions, \(\mathrm{t}(57)=2.110, \mathrm{p}=.039 .\) The results suggest that listening to happy music increases performance on overall divergent thinking. a. Identify the treatment variable and the response variable. b. Was this a controlled experiment or an observational study? Explain. c. Can you conclude from that listening happy music enhances divergent thinking? Why or why not?

Intravenous Fluids Critically ill patients are often given intravenous fluids in hospital, either in the form of balanced crystalloids or saline solutions. In a 2018 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers investigated which of these approaches resulted in better clinical outcomes. Read this excerpt from the abstract that accompanies this study and answer the following questions (Semmler et al. 2018). Methods: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in five intensive care units at an academic center, we assigned 15,802 adults to receive saline or balanced crystalloids. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event within 30 days \(-\) a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction. Results: Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, \(1139(14.3 \%)\) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients \((15.4 \%)\) in the saline group \((P=0.04)\). a. Identify the treatment variable. b. The response variable in this study is major adverse kidney event within 30 days. Was there a significant difference in occurrence of major adverse kidney events between the two groups? Explain. Assume a significance level of \(0.05\). c. Based on this study, do you think one type of intravenous fluid may be preferable over the other? Explain.

Fast Eating and Obesity (Example 6) In a 2018 study by Hurst and Fukuda published in \(B M J\) Open, researchers in Japan surveyed 59,717 participants in Japan who had Type 2 diabetes. Participants were asked to rate their eating speed as Slow, Normal, or Fast. Researchers found that those who rated thein eating speeds as Slow or Normal were less likely to be obese than those who rated their eating speed as Fast. a. Can we conclude that fast eating causes obesity from this study? Why or why not? b. Can this association be generalized to the entire population of people with Type 2 diabetes? Why or why not?

Tomato Plants and Fertilizer Suppose you grow tomato plants in a greenhouse and sell the tomatoes by weight, so the amount of money you make depends on plants producing a large total weight of tomatoes. You want to determine which of two fertilizers will produce a heavier harvest of tomatoes, fertilizer \(\mathrm{A}\) or fertilizer \(\mathrm{B}\). There are two distinct regions in the greenhouse: one on the southern side that gets more light and one on the northern side that gets less light. There is room for 20 tomato plants on the southern side and 20 on the northern side. Assume that all the plants are beefsteak tomato plants. a. Identify the treatment and response variables. b. Describe a simple randomized design to test whether fertilizer \(\mathrm{A}\) is better than fertilizer B. c. Describe a blocked design to test which fertilizer produces a greater weight of tomatoes, blocking by southern side and northern side of the greenhouse. Explain why creating blocks based on whether plants are on the southern or northern side makes sense. d. Explain why researchers might prefer a blocked design.
See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

Geometry

Read Explanation

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

Read Explanation

Calculus

Read Explanation

Pure Maths

Read Explanation

Logic and Functions

Read Explanation

Mechanics Maths

Read Explanation
View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.