When I initially saw the headline, I assumed there was a link between the cost of an engagement ring and the length of a marriage. I expect to find evidence of this correlation when I read the article. The headline makes a correlational claim that there is a relation between the ring price and a marriage continuation. If I came across the headline outside of this class, I would suppose that the headline states some facts that there is a connection between variables. Nonetheless, the ring price variable does not necessarily cause the change in the other variable, marriage duration. Causation denotes the action of one item causing another, whereas correlation is a connection between variables. The ring price does not end the marriage sooner; therefore, it is a correlational assertion.
My first impression of the article is that it is intriguing and catching since I would never have guessed that there might be a correlation between the cost of wedding rings and the success of the marriage itself. According to the news report authors, the research study by Francis-Tan and Mialon is about the research study is about the relationship between wedding spending and marital longevity employing data from the survey of over three thousand married people in the United States (Spector). They concluded that men who purchased an engagement ring for $2,000 to $4,000 had a higher divorce rate than men who spent $500 to $2,000. The researchers utilized an observational study design since they did not conduct experiments or influence participants’ replies. They surveyed members without influencing them, intending to observe the relationship between selected variables. Over 3,000 ever-married participants in the United States were included in the sample. The survey was used as material to collect the data.
I believe the research described in the news report adequately supports the correlational claim made in the headline. For instance, the headline stresses that the article will explain why less expensive engagement rings may lead to a long marriage. Therefore, the expense correlates with the length of the union. The research design does not allow for a causal claim because it explicitly states that the association may be but is not always a predictor of how long the couple will be together. When evaluating the headline and the study results, I think the most crucial detail in the news article is that a ring between $500 and $2000 is the ideal amount to spend if one wishes to reduce the chances of divorce.
The research study’s purpose was to assess the relationship between wedding budget and marital longevity utilizing data from a survey of over three thousand ever-married people in the United States. The variables the authors chose to study are wedding expenses, encompassing expenditures on engagement rings and wedding ceremonies, and marriage duration (Francis-Tan and Mialon 1920). The variables were operationalized via surveying respondents on “Mechanical Turk (mTurk), an online labor market operated by Amazon”; wedding expenditures and marriage duration were measurement variables (Francis-Tan and Mialon 1920). Francis-Tan and Mialon excluded respondents who used a non-U.S. IP address, mentioned having a same-sex marriage, indicated an age at marriage of less than thirteen years old, or were over sixty (1920). Following filters, the sample included 3,151 adult U.S. citizens who had been married to an opposite-sex person and had not been widowed.
Because there was no randomization or adjustment of an independent variable, the research study is observational. Furthermore, participants completed a survey and provided vital information about their marriages, such as wedding costs and union length. According to the study’s findings, wedding cost and marital longevity are positively correlated. The authors discovered that marital longevity is inversely related to the engagement ring and wedding ceremony cost. Hence, the researchers make a predictive (correlational claim) acknowledging that wedding expenditures are related to the marriage duration; nonetheless, they cannot say that allocating a high wedding budget causes a divorce sooner.
The data detailed in the original journal article properly supports the conclusion expressed in the headline of the new report from Part One, specifically that cheaper engagement rings may result in a long marriage. Francis-Tan and Mialon discovered evidence that relatively high engagement ring spending is adversely related to marital longevity among male respondents (1919-1920). Similarly, comparatively high wedding expenditure is inversely associated with marriage duration among female respondents, whereas low wedding spending is positively connected to marriage duration among both male and female respondents. Nonetheless, there are omissions in how the news report interpreted the original research study. For instance, it does not mention the sample details, such as that same-sex couples or widowed persons were excluded. Furthermore, the news report does not acknowledge that the information obtained included respondents’ marital status, marriage length, children, length of time dated, honeymoon, engagement ring expenditures, wedding attendance, education, occupation, and family income, among other characteristics.
The alternative explanation for the study findings is that the association between wedding spending and marital duration is caused by a lack of affection and understanding between couples. This gap leads to a need to persuade everyone else that their union is worthy. Nonetheless, costly diamond rings and grandiose weddings may jeopardize a couple’s ability to stay together. The reason for this is that the duo is more concerned about showcasing and celebrating the start of a family instead of strengthening it. The research was designed to take into consideration the confounding variables. Francis-Tan and Mialon used a Cox proportional hazard model to predict marriage breakup based on wedding costs and other factors (1922). A diagnostic test employing Schoenfeld residuals was also performed to establish the proportional hazards assumption’s accuracy. The authors conclude that it may be valuable in a future study to create “a population-representative longitudinal sample of dating couples” (Francis-Tan and Mialon 1927). The research will follow married couples through the various phases of their relationship, collecting prospective data on wedding expenditures and marital happiness.
The author of the news report did not exaggerate the facts; nonetheless, they included stories that were not part of the original study paper to pique the readers’ attention. For instance, the news article discusses Patrick, the fiancé, and his actions, as well as how women sometimes use Instagram filters to make their rings appear more dazzling. There were quotes from marriage and family therapists and wedding officiants to attract readers’ attention.
This process taught me that news headlines are meant to pique viewers’ curiosity and are not always as accurate as the actual findings. Media articles frequently include storytelling and statements from respected specialists and do not incorporate dull statistics to make the material easy to read and comprehend. I believe it is critical to double-check facts in social media news and compare them to authentic results in academic publications or official sources. If I could re-write the headline to reflect what the original research study measured, I would formulate it as: ‘The correlation between wedding costs and marriage duration.’ Statistical research is rarely wholly reported in the media, and obtaining the original findings is critical if one wants to receive precise data. The assignment was beneficial since it taught me how to compare and contrast facts from the media and scholarly sources.
Works Cited
Francis-Tan, Andrew, and Hugo M. Mialon. ““A Diamond is Forever” and Other Fairy Tales: The Relationship Between Wedding Expenses and Marriage Duration.” Economic Inquiry, vol. 53, no. 4, 2015, pp. 1919-1930.
Spector, Nicole. “Diamonds aren’t Forever: Why Cheaper Engagement Rings May Mean a Longer Marriage.” Better by Today, Web.