94".3. 000009,; I .00.. ...40004 J0 .44. 4‘ {904.0440 00‘09402. 400.0 041.0; 9 4 40 .. 00 .4. .4400. 0 440. . 000. . . 450...“ “.....z ...n ... 0034......3004 $.04 "H.114." .. 3204;400:3040. 4.00.00.01.41449 .4H .42....“134.U 30.0.4.2...942 00 fl... 4400“}..1. .4, :0 ... . . . . 0 . 0 .. 04,9344. . 0 4 0 _ .. .4 .0 n. 44.. . .... 0. W900. .009. 03 0.414.019. 4. 6.00. 0.0 0.. 10. . 0.. 9014.90. .45.... .4134; 0 4. J .0.! 40... .04 . 04 03.20.29.00 u". .I 344 . 4m: 94 00 9 .4404 I. 4.04.44 04.44.00. .0.. . 4049.. H...- 0.40.0.0 .04 I. . 0.3.8.0. .400 040944 0470.14.49.41 .. . 40... . manna...” .naflrufli .49 90.34004 ._ ”dinii 5’49”? 4...! “ , 4897400190.. 4‘00 0“”.“44H3u444 ”49“ .00.. 3.4.5 ..,mmmflfie .. .3, 400....0.......n...,.uw...5.........a.........n..n....nuu..u... gamma. .mffzu:.mmwhnmum...u.-. .. 4U4.0. 70104.4... 9. 4 . .,. 2.40. 4.4046.449.4.990 9 4 4.9. .4 ..0 0.494.999. 04. .0 .04 0.9 0040400. 44000, 0. 4. .4.. 4 4.. 0.40... 094 0004 .. .. a 004.4 4.00.1099 . 9V0]? ... .040.” 4. 4.4 0.300.170. .44... .0 0. 4 4. 0.... .142. .34.. 0.914 4. 04... :0. 0504.01.13. . 00 .{I 9 ‘0 ‘9 0. . .0.... , 4.0 J..04.9’.' .0 .9490._4I404..A 9C 9‘0 04044 0 000544404 43808400 9404 9”” 00’... '30004'. .34”, 4|4u40l‘4.940.9.44..00 ‘0”..1..‘:.4‘.4 40‘: 04.0%“ .0944 ‘équ .04 0. ' . 94I..t. 44.44}: 0 099. C‘ . 4 4 4. 000.600.6940 0‘40]. 1.0.. 0 U‘ 90 400“ 10.004.901.004: 4490 0|." 0... 9 Q‘io. ‘.4000000.04.. ‘00-- _ .. f U. ‘04 '. ‘4 44009 .994 . . . , ,4 . . 0409. %&I.O4”4.4411fi44 4.0. 09. 00.00.“..43104Lwr'. “400,434.13” 904 07.4.0404... I 342.201 40I.0 0“.” .700. . . 9 . .' .4. .. . . . 4 ,009.l.4.'4...0f400 . . 00.2 . : . . . , . . . . .. . .....04. 0..... ... .....3 4404044034. 4. “$4.03 .J......1 30:041....r 4.0404443444044044. . .404 I)... 0... 0.0104204... 10.40:“... “MI... 440.. . .. . . , . . . . . . «....th ..u..0..4..0«m.—.~ {4.. .40.. :4 00404.I3303.B4 .3440“. «$.60. 3.3.1.404130082944. 040”: 6.14.3... s. .... .. 0.44.0.0 0.. 4. 4 :4... 4.4 . . .. 004: . . . .. . 04.. is: 4... 104900..”40‘3“ “1999999 9 .P. . .l 9999 44.440 091394049-0' . 0 09‘..." .049900, ‘9‘ .’ .y .0 40 1014'. ...0.. 9.5.0 4. 904.009.4490 . . 449' 4. '4 .0 . .“ 409 430.900le 0‘ 94. .0. . .4.? 0.. . ‘ u... .4. , 4.?du404. 0 014.0. .0:- 7241.01 ..0 .... 08:00.02. .4 1.L0.4.\449 €2.94. 0... 4.40.. 4 .. 4:. 3.0000013". 04 ...... 4. .. 44 . . .440 ~ . . . $144. 0 4’ 4“.) .00... «.044. 1090004004,. 40. '00. 0 ...0.. :00; .0.... 44.004 0. 4.0 1:04.404 54.440. 44.46. 2:000:08 .00 .04 04. 4.01.4230: .4 40g»... 44 I. 4.4“.” .44! ‘4 43.040, 0 900'. 44.000.00.034 0944.4. 44.4. 044.04 . . 39“,..406‘. 9 00 .. .00 0. 4 00000.30 544.400,... 0.0.‘0 .10.. , §0nfi4fio .44 44 who! .054 00.444 "044.... iylfiu‘o.{f.44.0flfl .40. 19446004130900.09 40‘- 0.0... 01.0.... 0 040 04!..0 . 0“ 0 ...0. 404003.40. 0.14.0..04444 ...-......9... .... 0...... . . . ..0. .0....4.440.. 00004....00. .. .010 .. 4.. 3.42,}, . I0 49 “4.4.4... .2049 44‘4” 04 “4419,44 44-0 4.. 00 0|40.3I‘000.344\0..\4.30.04001 9‘: 009.0040. 104.. 0. .0.... 0:0 .4004'4044..0.004.40 04.400.020.40. 64.....00: 4030.04.04 .. . 4.4.0. 0 0. 4.49 .0 4? . .40... 40 0 4.4 . 4.140. . Fungi 9. .0 4n .4 0.0 l... . “4.00.4 4.340044048” 0 149003.940. .04 .4 4.4904475. .440 4 .4. 0”“ 4:0. 440 0 £3.40. .00 0404940 .. .. .9. 04. . . 00.4.0.9.044.44.90..9 0.4 093...... 0409 II. ....0. 494.0000 00 . . . .. . 4 9.4.40... .3 444 : . 944.09 .41. 4. . . 0..]. 004. 44. . .1000..44...4.|.:... 004 40000. ...-4.0.49.8. .0. 40 .490 ..«...0.44\4.44, l .4.... [4.31.0.13 4 .4 ... .44 .0.... ”1' 0.4.0.31...” .§ 4.. 0...... .. 0.. .0.. 4..-.....0. 044.4. 0. .... 20494.4 .00! 3.7.4.... 4000.039... #4.. 0:2. . .0 . .422... .4.. . . . , . . , 1.40.0 . ...0.: . :04 4. ....4... ...,0 .. . . .. ... . .. 100.0. . 02.101... .4. .1500: ... . .4... ...”: 40 .143..~.4I0‘4.~fl.a4“ 04.. 00 5.0 .1101. . 00 4.4. 0-0.4.0.. .0401 04 44.04.. . 4 ... . .4 . 40444409410. ...0...- o 4, .... 3.01.0 9..; 04.000.404.000. . 03.8.1002}; .. .3314. . ... .l4 .. ...... ..130..4..1... I9, 3440. .04. 4.0. 10....00 14k. .... 004.0... ..00 .4 0. 0491.40. 4 4.. $0.41. 040.. ,. .0 40..» 500.09.043.34: 14.904049 60 I _ .9 40.49.9404. .. ...:4 9.040.949.1400 4. . 0.440 0.0.404 04100 4 440 .9.-0.0.4... . .. . . 2 9 0.00 400000... 0.4 4.0. 40 I 04. ..4 9(...'..4 .494 094. 4.. 40. 020.044.09.03 4.. .4 .0....44 30.0.4134 .' .. 20040.4. 2 .40 44 . ...-.0.; 4 0400 .4494 4.‘ ...0.. .. 440 .400 4001...... .4. 4f.90494.44404400.. 0 _ lnzlr0=04y 3’90 (99.40910 4 4902:0509... 40 , .4404 2,7 0 ’2. 4' ...-.0. 0'. 5.0 [90. 4.. 0. .4.. .4449: 04. . . 4 .4.. ...440 ... 90:0 ‘4 ....0 .. .... . 0.. .0. . .4. I. 00. .09. 40 ...0. 0.4. 01.0.0“... 449. .4. .4 .000. .400 .‘0 I ‘94. I (440.490.4440) 0. 4 4 4. £543 ‘— 44.0. .10n...’ 944 4. .. 4 493.0.» 00kg! 4.4I00.‘ .20.: .005 94440. .404. 09. 00. 0 4 004 0.00. 044.. 444 4.0002.) ..400. .0.. .. 04 9.4.0 0 7. 4. 00 00.4. ..4 4.4 04400 04. ...4 .1.00..0. ... 044 .,...9.. 00 04.4.0.0 9.444 O 04... 4. 000. ....i _. .. 40.0... .... . 4.9. ... 3040.0 .0. I. 44 4. .09.. r a} .0 .90. 9:4 . 440,944. (0.49.04 . V9 64.40 [.0.-49.1.4040'43 .9.! 94 4. 0.0.00.9 ‘4. .4.)! ..4 04400.01... 0.70430. 0...... 0. 00.90.904.00... 00 .4. .. 14.34 40049919.... _ .. . 009.... 9.00 44. 004. 0. .0.-007.9. {0042400042 .4. . 4.0.. .04 .4 ‘20 O... 0 .4. 9. . (49.094 0 01.41. 1490.0 4 4 4 . 4L4", .0 4.2.00. .044 .4. ”94 4040“" .. ... .? Ju...0€.1.00.0. 4. 1.4400000. 4. 0 .44. ..44. .0994... :4. 414.300 4 09.9.0.4..0404.94\4,4.. 081.000.925.430... 0.4.0.01... . ‘ 2.0.4.433. . . ...0..- 9.4.... 44400 .91.... ..4? 0444.04...... .4.. 2 .00 0000. .0, .4. 114.. «1460:8444... 00.. .0. 00.4.. .. _ 0004...... 4.043.002.2010... . .ll 4.... 4. J1 .4m4J4.‘IJ.M.000.401Q.90.02 4. ...0.... ..I I 44.00.... 0. 04.4.. 30.0.. .0.-.01.? 004. A .44 0.. 404.44. 4.4. .8404... 940.4... 4... .... . 2 0. .. . 34.004... 0 4... . 32...! .4.. 4.10240. .4 . . . .4.... 404. 10.4.0... .0.. 4.3.0.3 A00 94.“.400‘4007 4004 0 94 .94" “44400 09904 . . . .44” 04.94, l0.009.'.04.. 040.000.444.044. 90 .. .04.! 0. .44 4.4. II. 0:09-40:40 05‘ 409:“. 440 900.4494. .0 4999.040. :4 .040. 0.044 00.. ....0443 . 20.044.40.40 0.0. 4 .9. .40040..494..4.4.0.04404 . . . . . . 0000.9! ...”...4 .0404?! ...0.. .4. .9. 4.4 4 4.04. . 4.... :0 .- 44......0 . 4... ... 04.60. 2.444.845.-. ...-4 .n :4 ‘4... 404...... . 44.0.40 {0.0.4.1 .9.. 4 .0.}! .40......4.04... 90.00. 440.434. 04.04. .. .4.... 4.40.0 4.... ...... 4 ...-...0....10. .0... . ....00....0 {0... .. 40.0 0....44, 00.4 3.0... .400 . : ...0.... .....40. .... .r 3.4.. .0.! 0 0.400430... .. .3 4. 4.40:1U0004il 44 40"4.0.00.....4 (9 200044.... 004..- .4.”...«(.....4..00.04:.I00.. 4: 4 4 44 ‘0‘4.0.§4.'.440..0090?.. 4.000.000.9130; .4... 0.. .0 0. 402.349.4102. ... .. 0:44.30... 2040.........4004.... 0..... 0.4. ......40..0..0....44.4.! 4. . , . . ...0. 01.0.0334 4...!0..0...‘.' 4"... 3.308409409944940. 993“” . .1900... 09.... .4.. 443.1”44.4u. .9...“ ”4.091.170. 4.040.“..4) 4400041044. 4 .4104". ’0' 44. .000 H0600: .. 0.. 090.. 0.00 4 .0 .0 . I 4. ‘0 4 9. .994 4.49. .4943 .04 04.. 40.444. 4 0 4 4. £44.10? .44 . 0 .4, 0004.44.40: .00 400., . .. .. 4. 494 0“? 90 “4‘4 99. .0: 0944 . . 44 . 04 .4000 O0 99 4 .4.4 O I 40 4 004 90 ‘ 0 900 0.. 0 30,300 000 0040. 0 0 . 0 4 9.0 94.14.00.4ul4"..9l0unum.p0. 44. 9 r0410491990¥00i48 990 91 00“, ..944Q.0 099.00. 1940». .. 0.“... 9 ‘8'.” 099 0. .049; 0 00,9 04.. 4. 4 0490“".‘04. .09.“.04.04O040.0”Y..0000.9 9 . .0. 40 4 0H049ruu4l4w'40304n40u 490..“th . . 4440 44.40... 9099 01.94 . , . 1140‘ 4 .. ”9.4 I 24“.!” «an. 0J4! I. 440 44.4! ..0 4.4 .1 «40009400099... .04“ 04004 ....44. 0 00. 0. v4- 4'70004. .44 00.949.040.441fio4 4. .30 00.410.009.904‘0 99.44.00. 0.04.4 904|000.. 4. 0.40 00 .4. 309...! 444.402.040.000 0.... .094 4 30.4 0 4.1.54. 4.04 4 . ....94...09., 44... 40. . . 19444 934“ .4 ‘04,. .1 3 u 4 ‘ 0 9649949 00.90. I00. J94; '.000" 0409...}.0 44 4.3.00 ,NQ‘.‘ 4 4 I... 9‘ 'd I 900.04,.to9090 0“.“QIV ‘03439409 ,0... 04409.04 00 0. 340;.Jr’01' . . . n 409 0046! 09009000094 710000409004. , . . . . 4. . 4 0440.94? 0.90.0494 0.0 40'. 44 .094“. [04.009 . 3.4.0!” 4'! .flasé ... .61’09.49?49.~.0 4.04400494064‘4 0 .9".0 0.4.40.0... 0 00“ 009.69... 00.006.00.164. 94‘. P04, 0.90.900 ‘94. 00,464. 4. #4040090. .. . .. . 4 . ...0. 644.91 .4149...0000.4‘ 4440.809040'I5440? ‘Lu9'440 :9 I 0. 44. “04990.4 0. 44.0.0040” 4 .009409Iu4l.9..010.4¢.9.4‘ 0000. .4. .08.... 4 ..‘44449694'40.4440l900 9.0594, .. 40.90.0430“... ,4..I0 0404. 9.049.. 2144044..0....40400.. 490 4 . 0.14. 904.0. 04.0.0104 00.04... .044... 3140......0 09.00.0303 40 9214.44.84... . 4 r0“ ,0. 4r. 9 16949.. ,4‘40‘4040030‘0, 400 0 I 0.009. 400.“ .5.“ .94. 4549070440030. "9... 90‘0— 490090,4‘00.9.4‘.009 '04 4 .009. ..0000904.4 .4 . .. 04900 0. 0’ 0 I 9.4400940 .0944994. U0 . . .. . .0990. .3041... ....0‘0 4. 9. 04.03404'0. 0. .‘I34‘4a0 .44 3.0009 .9... 4.1”. .... u. .40. “05.24.14. .30000043439430 44045.4. .0002... 49.40. 4: 000. .0: 0.0.40 4'99 4. 0. 4 0004:.4449141 004. 3.39.44.54.43 4.... 0.44 ... I4. .. . . . ,. . . 0... ....0 . . , . . ..4. 04...: .0. 4. 4. 1.451).. .0 4..... .v :44... 4:!40. . .4. .. .40. ".09 4 4. 4.4.4.. 00.4.0.4 040.05.90.09. 04.. 00.40.. .4940 ..00 .3000: I...e..fl.u.'340 ..l 000. 4.44.00 0.00 . 0 0.30.0 4 01.400.000.040...0=9.0 0044....449. . . .0... 0... 0.0 4.0 . . . . 9.040. ... .4.": 0.1.0. .4..940..0..0 94:10. {43.43. .lwnl‘oti 0.4.u44“.. 4.04 H004.n400l.144wn44.u0“‘000u9459.. 4 094£fi4443fin0839uh 3900.90 400 4 404404204 C900 44.54909 0”“ 00.4.09. 10.0 9,V009400.'409 004.099.. 40.0.0.9'04 00 90.43.0004. 000004. . 4.9... II 0 . . . . .. 0429440004 . v. . 4 4 90 14’0‘1004 g 4 I 0‘ 9. .00 . . .0 . .4, 0 v .- . . 4. 00 u. . Z .. 4 . . . . 4.0.4.4006?! .0... 0004 4 . 04.810 .047... ,I 9009944....140040004u0090944‘0904‘0.’ 04‘: ..444003044 0 . ..0 ....‘4344 “9‘4“... 0. .Ia0ru}w4u40fl9.000444“04.94 .0 “”04"”04... 94.400010" 00404 . 044.0000 49 4444 .940004 . ...HJQII... 4. '24.. . ., . . . 4 04V§09 04009.4: 044:4. .00 04 43000? .40. 00.4 0.49 0.. 04. 4908143104894, ..09. ..4949 4 .D00. . 090.4II'I.09. 0.40.. 040 9944044349.. ..0 V 4. .04.} (40.04., 9.. .4540 000904300 0 40040 4’. 0 090 .04. .009. .. 0. 004. 0. .4... .4494044. . .. 00 00,0 901.90... ...4. 40 1.4 t.) .4 0. .440 . 910404 0 .4 .9 .0 09049.) 3.9.94 ,0 .4 4 3000.46.00.90... Q0000. .909 4. 0.0.00.4. 44440.. ......34404o07 .. 440.. .. .. .04 0- 000-4 2 .049 00. .0. 04 00. 0.400. 9.0009. .\0 ..4044, . . . . . . 4. 094.. 40. .. 440040.02. 0. 0'0 0.. by ...0.. 9.94 4 0.. .94 0 40:9..4 944’... 1.9.. ... 0000....0‘ 0. a 4 .0..40.'00...0J 341-:9'w1.’v.0.0.00..44 494 09 000404.. 4 .0.-292.301.49-1344040004. 9.2.9.. . 04 .04. 000..9.10.00..0..00.49000 44304400040000. 0.499 .40 ..4 4.0. 94.0 .08... 5:44 0.. ..004 .44. 12.400.30-404: 000940... 4.. .9 2...... 4 . 40.4..- 90 04.000.00.094. 4 01.404. 9.000.. 0.400. 49. 1.4141021; ,.0.4.4... ,4... .4 ......«UL‘WHA. 9 41004|404».H.'0.0.4I6f.~44000 ..040... 4 44. .004 0.4. 900 30%|. 40 4 903‘. 41.004 0 .0 4 404.44 . 144.039.94.021. .0044094. ‘ .944 4.4.. .4 40.04.330.10. .0 0. 40.440404 0' . 094.... 00.4 , . m 4.009... .. . 4 .4. .4. r. 40.4.3409 040 0.5.. . .90....09.) \‘. ... 9,4404...) ‘60 q . ..0'6 .0.4.4w0004.9099.. 3444 0042.017"! 10 .94. .04....4. 44. .0000 011000054. 4 4.04... ,4 0.4.4.0940... 0.914004 64040.99‘. .0.: . 0. .4 404 .49... 0.40 . 0.440 44 .. .00 ...0. 0944000.. lent-.41..-. 0 .0 4.. .44?- 4 . . ... .044. 8.49”. 16,49,148. 4040.4.) . 44-. 0 4 0. 0.444;. 9" .H3.94.0’!4g43 .1. .340‘0..040.0.0 494... 0440.44 044.94 .‘.'00. 0 . 9 4 040.4. .2I04’0r0... 909.99. 04409. .044 .04 4.4.. 0421.803: 0.4.4I..9044.9044...4.. 043.440.. 044 9.. 4.4.4.4....0 ...0.).44043443 04 .4. . f . . . . .499. 1050. 03.04.. 04.09.64: . 90.01.447.390! .8. 4914.44 ... 00944. #:0430000}... .1410. 0.0400900»... . ,. .04 .0040: 01343.!!4.’ 4. 30.44 0 0 . .9.. (0.4..004 0 404440. .0. .04 4.... . 04:04.02}. ...0.? 004.404... 4 0.4... 4. 0. 0.4... . .4 ...0.: . 1... ....0 004 0.. 04.00.. 04.4 0401'... .. . .. . . ..4... .....9. ... .4.. . 40. .04004. . 04 040 .444...99.9¢40000909.00.44040.040. 00404049901 394444.900... 0..:- ’09. 29.90090. 0.; 004.440. 04.0 0. 10,042.10... . ...-44.0 00000» 40 0 400.0 ‘0...044_~9...0090 044404-00'00’0‘. . . ’04....4440 4004 .4 ....0 04:04. 9 0 . .. 3040.. .. .4 4 . .4.&. .u. . 484. . -..0.: 4.194 .9. 09 0. . 04 30‘1059 4.. 2.400.041.0400079’0‘490004 094.40. 900004;..04090904300 0.4.4. . 044 .0 ...0. 0 00 04.0049 .4I.4.0, 00. 99‘904 049 3044. 0. 44 9 0.04 4494.400 0000.0 .0404 ‘30....4; '0. 4. . . 40 04.99.089.01. 4“.“"04404031‘404 4009140n$0 “4.. 0809. “n. 09044 ."0. 9449. 4.. . ... 000044.134. 00400"! 90 0.4.2901 0090.044 04.44.9049,. 0049.04... C...00.490!044. . .00.. . . .0009.....040.00..0.9499., . . _ . . 4 00. 4 . «L0. ... R04“. .1400. 5.4.4. 0.4.0 .....1900: 004. 30.004404... 4 .9 .00. .04. 0'04. . 0144.04.04.44. ... 0.0004404. 94.40.00. .400... 340000... .4, 0440... 9.4000044... 009.0 .4. . .04 .1 .03.”:9. .0090... 44. 44044.0. 00.4-39? 000.400 #47000 .00 004.....99 040. 00.00040. .0000. .04 . .0 .ll444490. 6.3.0.420. 9.44. 4.03-0.0 . .. p 0. 0 r ...r 03.1 '90.".9 9004 0‘0“ 1.1.4040; 0.4... 04-01.. I 9'. 93.00,..4. 404404."..4000‘00900‘1 94 90.94.40.000. 490.4 04. 6..., . 4 0930.30.00 00 0.0 .0 ...40 . . . . . . , 0.04.4..9004044..4404.,44. 34.04.] .. 4.6440044». 40.. ..4040 04...: l4l.ruu.4 44 4.4 .4... 4 1400.0“ ...}. 0.0 ...0. 0.4.01...» .0 .0 049440.... 00.4 0.....”09“. 4...; 4.040404.-. .4044 40. ......0..04409..... 4. 4 . 0.. 00 024.04.... 00'4. 0.900. 0.0. . ...... .040... 3.4000 40. 0 04.0 . . . . ...0 0 . 0:44. .9.. . . . 0 2.4 . 0. 40:00.0 09630-44114... :9. 0 4040094. 0 4 9 .000140"9440.444 134.444 0.0 4404.4 4.9.. ... .03 04.500104130 V044 9.4 .040 0, 0,-0.9. 0. 0?.0440 :04 4.4 . 03:04:04, 06... 0...... . 0. ...0.. .40. . 9. .900 {940.04 0 0.9409...‘ ..49 4 444 4.040000. 4 I400!!! . 4 0.04 90 .4-... 0.401400 .4.-0000 0.! 01.. 40.40;... . .00: X4940 5.4100. ... 9.. . I. 4.0.... 0. ‘044049404190: 4. 06.004.041.430. 4090009 40040 04.0.0.2. ....94. 0.4.90 .04.. ....0. 9.04.0134. .. . 4 0 034...; 0.4900. 4.2.907». 4 0 ... 4 040340.30... . '4.. 0 . 04.3 90 ,3; 90 uvfio. «I. 900.. 000400 0.} 04" 0‘44 .0400‘_4040.\090090‘4‘. . 0449: ’4 ,9 (4. .9‘9". 00,000904 000.00. 3990.09.30 04.04. .09 .I‘l‘.090‘69‘4‘430 3099.91! .. 0 .904 i. 0. 00934-09 . . 04040 .4 0 0.40 090.44,. 040.. «h? .0 “.49v4nn40u0u09fl 0.» . 49.4. .. 4 .0900..0.r0..9....40. . .....14’0'01. ..l .440 . .0. .4.. 0.440 0.0 4.040.... 4.... 0 40: ...4..|04.0 58.033.00.39... 4. 0.04000... 4. 9.3! 4.30. ..4.. .0004 000.94 . .0704 .0 0..... 0.014 .....00 4. 4.. 4 44.0. 0.00.! 04. 0 . 0 .9040 4140.. 0 .0. .... .0900 04‘ 0 ‘44,! .20.... 3. 0'4 0. 6.4‘0‘0\. I44 '2. . .0.. 0 090 0.44‘, 013.013.40.099: ‘4 ...-00000.4'0 30.92.49, 0. . . .4. 40 044 4.0 .4 4 .000 4 9 .0. 0 . 0401. u. 4042.40.2994004 04.0. .I 0444 4944: 94. 4000.0 604 J 90.4.5150. {3:42;} 13444 440 .9?- 4 404.0000 1" 9.9 4044’Q4 . 0. .9. 404. 009 49 .3400 44410 ... 00. 0. 949. 0 ..10004 0 04 4, .4 0 . .990 040404...- 0900.0 ‘4 O4 .. .400. 34.00.40.201, 0.004100 9 0.4.4.0. ‘ .0 01.904.00.44 :30! 04. . ..4. 19.40,.) 4 . 0 44.0. .00 . 0 4.. 0 ....0 .09. 4... 4 ... . ...-4... .4.. 81.44.30. 2.0.0.0.... 4 004.040.344.530 .9300. 4.4.40 300404 004.4 . .00 . 00. 440.04 4. 0 ..40 00.00. .0.-00.09... ..0300403 . . .4....- .... .. .. 4...... .04 44.4. 44010.40... .0003... 0.0..1 .4... K . .4.4.9'.9.0. 9‘9 104.4400 ‘90, 4004.004, 41. £9.00 100.4944 94 0.0 990,4...09449406000Q0.0404401. .0 . 04.0.40 . .44.. 49 ... 0.4409011 .(00.. 400004 0 A 0.. .4404. 00 .4 . '- .4099‘.. .44 .0.“ .403 50404 3909040909 9000"”. 9.04W”4H0U~.”0 40.040 ..0 90110 l'lL’ghI'1._=0.040 990.040.00.400 4309000000 140...?“- 20.9.9090 00.00 .0 04.0 44 .9401. 000,04. 1400.’ 4009.: 0 04 44.9 4 .4 9.09 .0 . 40a“. ....40. .994)..4044.9Q4. 4.403.490 ,4".,Ov.090."n4\20-n.4“0’0"909. ‘9. 0. 0",- .0‘0.“ 9 4.0.0 0 0 . .I 0 0 a 0 0 .0 0.. 0H. .4 I. ..0 0.4.3.405201003400432440004 0904004 I. .4.. 4.9 0 0 ..4 44 . 0.4. . J04. ... 0.. 944099004104 04,104.00}... 40 y .00....0..o4.4 .0. ..1. ..,. . ...0.... .0.. 3.4.0.3... . 2449.0 0.. 4. . 4 W54. (099....44104. ..0\.0. :49! 40.0.. 4 '4. 00 04.0.0.04440. ..44. 4 ,9 .0 0.0000944 44 100.4,..044 0.041.040.40... .0044, 0... 0..-4. 0 t 444 7.009.004 030.44 0C0..9.)0.’.0040 ’.000.\I0' 90.I00049 040.... 90.000 i..¢409“.44‘ £004.44 004004409, 00.. .44 ’40- 0409. 9' . 0044000 . . .0 .9 400. ~00 0’0‘. 4 09901.:003‘64 . 0 94010.49" 4.0.0000 4 0. 4. 0 1.000.. . 4 .3000. 0.0.4.00..0..|4 0. 00... 44.04904 4. ..0 9. . 0..,1409..9414..4 . 4 40904 4 4 . , , . . 13.44.004.190. 0044744000 11.40.4400...- .04. 441.14.01.40: .4.-.... .0444...I9..... ... 0.‘ . ...“.0. 4.400.. 4. 4. ..0.0.44.440...4... ....0. .0. .4 9.00.... 4 t .4. 4 .4.-...: 0.09.24.40.01... 9 . «“0444...40‘I.404.‘,OIJ~04:.7 00.4“ 4.19.4424... 4:04.044 11:91:. .a4.9.704..4)4.140.4 0 8.44... . 0.... 4 0. 40.4.. . . 4.4.4.... 4 ...0. 4.30.723... . .0 .... ... 01.3.0.1...304. ... 0. 4 . «u. ...53449230r, .0. .0. 044,... 0.0.30.0... 04.004.040.442 .44 0. 0 ... .9 00.00.4404 ‘4-4441..004.3il.’..gt4. . 00.4.0. 400.. .0 .0300040441000. 3000.00.00! 54...... 04‘340 0.4 0 0 . .4. 01440000. 094... .400... 444,. 1.3.0 00.4.. 09. 1. 49.9004 . ...19 '4. 0.4.0040: 4 44. ...0044. ..fifl 40. 3.40.4.0? . 0.00.7.4 .0 . 4. 4.44004... V .I ..40490 4.0...00u49f. 06.40. ..n duo-9"! 4 940 004.047.9444.. 01444404003490.0040; 090470. 0 0704903004 .4. 44400601009 00.00990 . 400.0. 04I94904‘4.04c.‘.‘.4...40 40040.4..4...9. 04.040049.- 4... ... .4004. .. 1.6.90.0. 0.04 .4 0.0. .4. 5004010 040.04. 4910...‘. 4") . .0114. 00 . .90” 44.49.840.043Q144. ”9 ..8 b4“. 0044040 .4 .004 I 0.4 . .3 4. 044...? .51. u.. . : 000.34.... £04.... . 00.40.... .04 00.9.4054 . 44.00.... . 0.0.0.4... 048.43.242.10. 4.34404 t. 0.. 2.04.0. - 00.04.00... 21.3. .0.40.00...... .00... ..0............ 0..0...4.0. ...... 1:5..110140 0.8403304 ....- .0 04 4:4... .0 .4. 4:14.... .0.... .... b.0404. .4....4..... 00. .4.. :8“... .045: 40.! .0...4040...4'4.4 44.00:... 900 450.01 .9.. 03:16.... ...44 9. .0.. .0. 01 .....0...:.... 49.1 00.000... 4:. 3 14001.44. 4.0 3.4 4. .4. 45.00.. 1.14:1... .40. 43 .0... ....SISIzi. .. ‘20.... 0: 4. 0. . . .40 .94 04044.. 40,. 04 9. .4404 0‘ 400 ‘ 1.'0'.'0.0.3 J ..04404"04..49\(4. 4094,49 409.0, :0... ..,...u gnu-444443.. .49...4..0n04.4..0.l.¢4n.4... tuuuvfl .wn404u40 ...0.9 ..4 4. 4 . . I. . .44.”..441004. ......0 4.0. .uVl4J.I4.4..0....4 Bryan“. ...u......4.910\ 9.."..9 4 . , . . 0 . . .. ..002’04..400.0.00 .000 O . . . . . . ’n‘u’ 0,040.... {44.004 0 ”3.0.0001-00'1 4.. 00404.. 0.4“9.40.u“"0.0.1.. 1.9”. .‘044‘500. 034 94. 9. O . 410“... . .00... .0.,l\.1w‘994.4.0.fi\. s . . . . .0. Z . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . I .- .. .4440: 409. 44‘ 0“,}. . 004.4. .0. 4 70. 0.0.. 440.. ...“!......4. .mmf .. “nu-4.4 .. .4. 4.4“. ...:fi. .9 ... 00...) 4.4 0.44.3994... 0.0 ..0. 040.00. 4.. ...0.—344...... . 04200.0 .. ... . 7 . . . . . .0400... .94 9.9 . 4 440.0uu4uNu4400b4n4‘00i . 0 0 .0.0 0 l..4'.4.00604.00005.1440410}... 11909440. .094 ..4. ““99. ..,)...0. 00.09.. . . . . 0.80.000“ 3.0.0.4444 \0 00.41.00 0 . 9 . 04. 0J0. 444.041.0040 9 .0440 0.! 09;.050000004 09 ’0.4 0000 460 . 4 10.044 0.40 . .4 4‘. 4000‘.0’9.‘.4 .. 0:490:99 009.410-. “Ci!" v.00l4040 .4.. . 4...... ..40404. . . .0....0!.4\..4.0J.0 .9... 4.449.444. 4.3.4.1601". 0.0 .0334. . 44. 2 004. 40041490104404 04J. {"434-440. .0 030004.044 2.44.. .4.an0. ...... 00.. 4. 45.4042... 0021440941020. ... .4 .0.."0‘0 44444:...- 844’0_,4‘4.... 42094. 4 9.9...14...§444‘9...M0W0. .019 .009 . . . 9.00.04. .40 4 ...... 40040144444f..0.4. .0041. 00400.. :4... 0 .. 0.0.3.1100. 4 ..0 909.44. ....00 00.0 40.9. . .44... 4 -..4... . ..9. 0. 0.... 0 ....0..4l..:..4 4440.. 4444 40 .3)...“ 54:003.... 9...“ 4 0. “n :0...0000.‘I.'.\0.0.a..440300.40.431.00...- 04.....1...I..00..04 04.... . . ... . 0.0.4:... ...-0904.409 44. 44. 4.4.4413}! . .0 4:44.144‘90 20.41%.- I0. ...4 4 .. ...49. 09.4.0.0 .‘4 04.00.414.044 0.0.4441- 94 . 0.012054004490440. 3.3.1.0.. 04.404 4:14:40. 04’ . .. . Q00 00 100000.000. 9,0,0 I! 4.00.0 4 'I‘. I 4.00.400‘00900040. . 0!.9.0..04. 040. . . . 4 .. . . , . 044.0004. ‘9 .44 0 4004,04 .9 . 4. .I.’ 40 ... . .99 "‘0.09 9149‘.‘. 94.4904 9-4’000090330 0 990‘! 00‘.‘ u . . 4 . . 940090 002300§4.'1..9. .044. . . 09,009,30000040’040 .0. 09.0 049404, .. . 4049.09u400‘4. 09 00040. .004 00.00 .4 0 n9 0. , . . .. 0 404.94.143.14’40’9 4.0.0.4400‘0 .404‘3’0400". . 0. 000.024.0040 400.44.004.41. 94440.0 00.14.09.420 04000003., . . .4400 400409. .29. ...-...0. 4 ,0.04..0 0. 00.04 . . . 3440.9 4..0..440..0 {1.1404040404444443 .....4..03.0400.'0.94I.404.9...4400. f '2”! .0. 040014090432300‘46’90444- .. 4 . 1‘ ..0n9 0.4. #4.. "u0.h11.0. 04‘. . 4.349 44 404.404‘.‘ 384440-309. 0 4.... 3440... 0000.009... 000.0 004044. ..4. 0,949.40.- 40 “00.4 0. 4404009000 000 .4.9... .0"? 10.9.9.3 9. 4 69 ‘_ .4.—4.041 ...-9.4.4.10. 0 . , , 0 . .0.-4‘00fiVLI40Q‘N‘49 44 O4".I‘O449.V0 0.: .0014: 0.4...4tv0. I- ..‘0..4..00.0t4‘ 00 0‘ 4-. .-. .649 0 0.349 0 {0‘04}? 409400004. {0..-0'0.O0I4 4 09 200.41. . I. 03,400.-. 4... 40400. 4440.09. 4 9. .‘Q ‘94.. 0 949.41 ... . 04.4.04 .4043... .00... 4. . . . . 40 .......0.0.4.20¢4.2v..4. . 0 . ...-00.0 .09.. 40009.4... 049...... 0.2004040400040300 ...-.0. . . . . 0000000004 . 04.....4099. . .. . . .04. 0.1.400 49 ..s .4.».k04400803 04.. ...I .449 1 4.0.4004..I_.0.\.404.00...0_ .394 0 ..0 .4. 0.4...- 0. :0. ..4 . . . . . . . 00.. 01:044.... 00.440... 000.340.00.040... . .. 300.404.0302 .. .. .0.. . ....490 . 0.04.... 4. 0. 4 ...0.. 0:40 .4.. , 4 . . . .. , 1.0 .24.. .....9 41.04.302.211: 04:00 .... 8.04.... 1.4..40442434. £1.43!- ..I U .0 I . 4 {J 0 4. 0 ...0.....4..0 ,99049030100 0.34.4441: .4 0004.044. ..44 . 43.4‘44904900020344910439 . 4 .4940. 4404...! 0. . 41.247.00.000 .4. 0090.24.04.54 04440 .. . . . .40'0. 009.9.44u..4004§0.0 .‘Q .0. 9 , . 4|.l. 94, 4 00. o . 0.4.4? 0.0040046 0. 0 - 4 . 09.....4440.049.4.4‘09 94431.9 4000 444.400..0.0,0....4' 00.09 0.090.. .4100... .9 0. 104040 .0 ’3'!.. 240“" 00.0. 10.4.. 4404...». 0 . 0.409 .3990! 4 .004. . 40 . . 4.40 .0 .4 .0. ...0.} .0.“..09nt40; 0.4.0.984‘.c...9440404.00.0...‘. . ....0n “444004.00..n4..!404.0u... , 00.0,...4..4..0.4. ....4444. 4‘, 41.00.044QI009940 . . . . 4,. .004 07‘... 00.! ,040 4.0M. 4. 0 I. . 0 “.... 004.!......0.0!4:4 4940490....4. ...04‘. 04. 41.00404!— I44...000040 4.4403. 13.00.040.304??? 0.400.! 440.904- 0.. .4 440...!00444.04.0 4 . . . 044 .0 . . 102.400.70.004 4..... .0 3.0.4 :14... .4... ......409044 4.. 0 .. 000'.‘ .9 40. 4.. 0.4 49.44. 909.0. .6 9 0 140.0. 4 44,09. 44-404. .. 3.0.0.0.... 0440.00190000049....J 00.. . 00.14444 90.00 34000.0 0 4.404. . 44100049044. .3 .0 40049 49... 4000 ...94‘004.’.0‘. 0.4.40.0: 0400400307... . . 94904 9.1 .00 .\4.¢0. .... 040...; 0.9090434. 0' ...0. .. .‘04'4. .94. 4.009.044... .0. 40.0.4 . .. 0 .0. . ..I .3104. 0 .0l09 94 00! .. .4 0'. 904.04.; ...!440. 4.. 9.Q..494944.0§40..04. 0.04 0.0.1 4. .4.. 00 9.0.0.0... ...‘0444041. .4.. 94. 0 0 ’v .4090 . 0 . .I 4 60H.4 0. ..0.‘ 400 09 3940‘. . 9-040... 400,0.004‘.00’94.0.09...I ”04...... .44” 0. . 404040.01.- 00.04 4 00 ..4 0.3..004fln3 .94.... . 0. 4”: 0444‘ 034400.000. 0. . 1.... 4 . . .. . . . . . . .. _ 10.14...) 4.0. 00. . .04 . 0.92.... 4.040.4u400...)4.0'. 0. ... 0.430.300 1.094... . ...-44 40. 4.. 4 3460 9. 4 40' .4 4'0 4 4.0.! 0‘0004 0 .4094. .0090. .000900 . 3'4: .54 .. . . . I. 044440. 00090040... ’0 0.4 009.4 ’90‘ 0 04.00.04.400. 0000.0“! .4400. . . 4040.04: ' .0 .. ... 44.4 40. ’r. .4 14094400.}, 0. O 4440‘0‘40,0-§40040\z9040“439 ‘09 0 1f. , . , .. . t 0,... 4.40.4010! 0.. -4.-4,000). O4 ......400f 20.. 4| ... .. 4., .90 I ....4I00 . 4.44 4.34.40..l4:‘4 . . . . . . 7.0.04.5... ..0...4...l4.4...:.00\0.1 4. .00. .94....4 0.04.0 ..40 0.404.048 000.. 0... .1 29.0.04 .04. .. 44‘!” I. 00.40. . . . . ...0..00400. 4 '04.- 4‘ .0‘ 4 0.90 1409 0. ...-40490.0 00:04 00 099.3004 000.0 t . . . .4 009090.444 0.40 40.. i 9.4.. .040 000.0 0.., 0 .000.0 494.00 .0 0.. .0 0.0.00.9. 0.14.9... 0.1.0.0300. 00.0. 00.04 004.0404 01.00.9009... ..‘06, ..00. .244: .40 40000.04 .4. 0409. 450...... . ...-004.0044. .0.. 0.. 0 000.00.000.10... . 0.. 0...... 0000 0' 404...... .44.:0 001.02.... .4 00. 0‘4 1 0040-08.! .. .4....00. .04. .0 31.4.44. ... . 4. 004.444 . 4020.49.44.49“... .... 004.. 24.. 5.1.9. 4.9.“. 4. ...401 $00.0 .004... .n4044u..... I. 3 . l0 .44....400 ... . . .0321... ...! .44. . ..4 0.. 4.200. ..2. 0 16. 4.0.. ..4 .9.! ..1 .0000. .90.)..400r0. .. 147001.904... 03.09.40... .0.. .0.. 4. 0. .40. 04... 00. _ . ., . . ...-4.. I. . .3111... .000... .... I... ...0. ‘0 0.... 0. ... 0... .. . 044124.. ... . .. . . ., .. 130.530... 2.3.! ...4. 4.9, 0.4.4 . .4.-4.42.0.0 ...}..‘IzI . .4340... 4.. 78.1.0.1... .14.}..u4140mrfl0 .709. .I 0. . .. 4.4. ., . . . . . . . .04.... 0.4.0.0001 .4 .4,. 4.049. .....0’....9.00. 409.‘ .49, 4.4. 04 ... 3.004....404: 4. . 9.4.4.0 02.44040... '0 0.444030000911044. .440. I0. 00. ...‘?I 4....0.104..0. .0.40..44 .... .... 4.0010... 19492003106042.33. 0.044 4 4.040.444.0034 ..0 £030.13.“ 1‘ . ... . A 0 .0! 4000 .. . . z . _ . . .. . . . . . .0400. 4. ....) 0.40 .0... 0... .4400 04.0 . ... u .0. .4... 00.40.107.00... 00 04.0. l4.4000!....4 0.... 0 0 ...0.... . 0.4.3.0404: 0.0.0.4.....04.40...04!0.. 000.0099: 0..-0104.20\.0..0.. 4.... ”“439.” 44094040 4 . . rP0 00.... .. . . .. . , . .. , . . . .. . 444.9440 0.. .v 0.0. . . 4.. .0494 .0 3400.44 ...400 .4. 400., 940... 0.9.9. 0......21. 004:... 4.3.0.4 .0... ...... 09.... 1:001:01... 0.....1..0040..4 00405 00340 ..0 0....1....0.4:I...y'039. 000 . ... ... 0.0.0.. 0 i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0 .... 400. . . $04.0 . 0.030.900. 4.09.4 1‘! ...I.... 000.940.!l. .400... 9.09.... Y 3004.04... 4.410301449490040. .04.. . 94' 409 . . ., , . . 4.0.4. 0. 400.. 400.019.... 0.004. 0 0.0 44144940 J. .9'0019r, ... 9‘00: awnnurg04’9ranuvdu ' . , . . . .. , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .0 .. 4'. 4 ... I 9 42.009 440. ...“..uo.0440 .... . . . . . . . .. . . , . . . . . .4410 .4 .. .3“! .flhuflufiflwmt: .4209. .4 3444.000... 4.14fl7..}.4s,494!4. 4.0040305440u4tu4n00000994 ihuqfigzx . . . . . . 4 . 00“ . 40.50... 0. I: 9 .. .40 0 0*..10999 .0440. .2001}... 0 . 00‘. If)“. .... 0. . . . .400 020...“..4. 00..1\J...b.04€h2. .49.! ....02040009... a 3.0.0 11.4.9400} t$zavzljoit40fi.lcilt0hyflh . 0t. . . ....0010 $1.30.... ....I. . . .04. , -....t -.....I... 15.1.4.0... ..0.3... .0. . ....0..0.100\Q..«.0.:1.0fl«::. 4 0. "$0003114uri043414’4...4 .0.? . (.0: . .4 ..004. 4.4.... 10.0.4004 00.030.030.00: 4. .94 0.. .. ‘540. 00.04.699.4324 ’4 1 . 9.0”“40440.9 "uh-1‘4. ..umq‘wmfik10uwv‘n0‘dt.swz ... . 0 . . 4 . . . . . . . 0 . .. 000. 3 0000\- .4. 0 4 0 0 0‘ .4. 14 .0 .4 09 70.10.4090 ,. . 0‘00 0| 404 .‘9 4. 0 .‘ 040’ .0 . 9.990 “0’4" 9. ‘ 449 4 0.0.49 4.4004 0001 z! . .. . .. . 4. . . . . a . 0 . , 40.1 . .4 00401440140001.4320. , K”. 004.... 0.0”.4h..44,.. 04 . _ .0 7 .9. . .. 1 . . ... 04 . . . . .4 .0.“... ““700“? .4..“940. F. .3004.” 0.00.19”. “40904.40“: . qu090 .4.....0...0,.40. 4’0. 131L403 40.0404 0.17.1310,“ “1.4. 34 . ‘9“ _ 0. 4 . ... .. I ...404” 44.. .4 . .04. 0.4.4.. 0" .....9.. . (3000.0. 0.1.44.0..0‘0: ...11...l! 4. .. ..440 4.300000440404004. 0 03: 9| .11000..4.. .. . . ., . . i0. .. {ff/00.195404 0.0 4; . . , , ... . . 0. 044..., .00.”? 00404 .0000. .4000...- 9.40. 4 3‘1! 2.9 4 .| 4 Tu ...0.. .0 59.. WUHMHJJ .0)..U40"00,.4.H9,.4” 4. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . 9....404. 4.00.. 0409.44.90.04 .0‘. 4494’ .2979. 00 .. . . . . .. . 0 ”950...: 94. 04. 90...... .09 03.0 .’0.94.. . 90. 0 .14409‘00.4.0044 .0 009...‘ 0.440400 .0....3941'0094449. 040.250 00914000..{4t4 4 0 , . . . . . . . . £30.41 .0... ...4040400... 044. ..0....0.04..0.0I . . . . . , . . . .. 0.4040.0.4.0004.04‘44494.0. 044.. 404 . .040390 .409 4...044.!.4v0.... 000.0 00.. 44.00 .. I‘O_‘.01,09...... .0 .45' 0“}40 .444,0.4..414909.!44 . . 09.0.00. .. , . . 10000on.0 4. 0. ’4 . 9.. ...?04. .0419?! Q. 004' 4 0 0. 44 0.0.0.. .1 ...4 .91....00900 ......04004. .0. I 0.. 4.09.. .. 20.900... 40\9004r.4.l. .I 00.09.4010..404.. - 000.40. . _ 0 _ 0 .1 0.0... . .0 . . 40! . 4 £004 ... .0 .00 .... 404 000.13.... 01.04040 444 0460.0 , u . . . 9..... .400 Q .‘004.4..040.404J.0.0. 10.0.0.4...0 :11.” . . 044... 4.6.7.... 04414.. 04 0. ,4? .40..l.\449.94. 314.40.049.01... .004}. .0.. 00. 0.. 01‘1"” 9.4 ..,.40 . . . 440. 000 4. 0 .004 _ ...4 l 3‘...- .. . . . . 0...... ...).001 00 04.0.0 .90. .. 43109.4... 0. 4.0, I. 10.0. .... .04. 4. 4.4.0.... 0... ...0. 44004 .00.. 00 40, 4. . _ 4.4 . ...! .4...4L1..4.0.03 , 00.4 .0 . . . . . . 4010...... 40 ....0. .. 0. 4 .4.)?!3191 . 4.90.9443). ... 0. 404‘ .00 .40. _ 9 0\.I :9..0. 1.000. 4.4004. 4. 4 4 .00. 0 v D .. . .. . . . . .. ... . .. . . . . .. . . . ... 340300007 0 4 . . , .. . . 400. .9404 4.90 300004.10. ‘0 ..90049. 9. . II. 1.9.... 040.944.040.90‘4..24I0‘..44" . 04‘4’ 9! c.0400. 90‘. 49‘\ ’0. .4. 01:44 I 0 . . ..4 7 3.0.0 .... . u , . . . , . ,. . .. . ...0.... 440......).‘ 0044474411.... .. 4.041000043310. 0 0.40.4.4 0.4.....0...... . . .... 0 4 ......4... .... .4 .0. .10.‘ 01...). .0, . 440.0... 0..... 14.1.1.0... 0.4.4.... .4. 0 . 0.490.}... «0.00 .n'.) 0090. . 4.0.0.04. '0 00.0.14. . .00 . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .00., ...4004. ..,-.4044. ... 0.. .400.) 4.9.0.300... ... .0.-.3100! .. 0 .... 24.0.9214. ...-5.1.3.0.. 0.. 40.44. 00.10.904.000...- 0‘ 44.94000. 01‘ .4 AI0| ..0’Wl‘3’..\0.¥00 .... 0,... .. ..Jfl...9.. ... . .0.. 0. 3!... .0.. J....0.... .0... 0 .02.... 400.10.00.04. ..0‘ 00:04.... ...4. 0 0. 00 .4. 440004.0.0.90.0...0. .. ......4fcl‘4... 0I$4£N0JJ0040.§ 0. . u ..h. 0 . .040 .4 040004 4‘4. 4 4..-9.0.0.4: . . . . 40.. 00.. 00 00400 ..00 .4! 0 .0 0.4,. .00. 409. .0444... \ ‘\09..4.§0 0040.9 40.0.0009?! .n... 4. 0.4 94“.”...93.” 400000.44'IIIH0 . . 0.0....” .. ..4 0 9.. 0. . _ . . I 000.. .00... .0. ... .... .. 014.000.40.004! ...00.. 04 .00 .....0 V... .0. .... ....0...‘ I 0. 0.4. .4 ...0.}. 4.. . .90 :144100‘0. . .0101... 00.0,...04409.I04.l. 0.. ....0.$04..I\4.4.0 9.4 4 444.40 In" .0 9.. )4. 40.444.000.009 ...: 2 . .... .T . r........... 0......0.. «.... x...............: . . , . 4 . . . . . , . . 3.3.1.. 2... 4.30. .... . . . .. ,. . .20 2.1.2.... ... ......2 . -..... s . .... ..-. ......233. ... 0,. ..............fi..“... ....0... 0.23.... ......0... . . . 0 0 : . ...0. . _ . . . , l 0 .00.s.~..0...,. . 0. 1... ... 0.0 1... ... .... . ...... ......30. . ...3. 2,. . 2;... . . . . . . . _ , ,. . - .. and...» .. z... . «an... .n .. .. .. ...: _ u 0.. .bhz ...... :0. 25:020.. 30...... ... 0.0.0?XI:0003.0.. .004 ... . ... 0 .00 . ... 0.01:...0.... . .4 ..4. I24. .. ..I. :5. z. 3r... .4. , . . . . . ... . . , . .4... .0. ... .. 0.. 0 . .0. . . .. ,. .0 . 4 . .. .... 9.. .0.“: 9.. .3004... ...: .... 0.\!. .400 I. 0.4:. .0 447.42.. .0 .0445..0.4.4(4...l!0.40.0004. 4- 0 O 9 II. ‘0." 4.00 4‘ 4000.40 9 0 990.. 0‘ 4.004 00‘ 04. ‘. 04404.4 4. 04 040. . . . 0 . 0‘94'4... 2.0.0 V. 4 .71. ..90‘ 99‘ 0': 0"!..9‘01...4, ’30 900430.. . 00. 91 ’ 0 0 0.9 .4 040 . 49.00 4 d 90.6 4 .46. . , . 0-04.4 ...4. 0 0‘ 0' 404. 09 9.90- . 00. 0194.04.40 .. 034.44 I P 0 0 .0000 . 9 .4. ’0. O . 9 0...,19900. 9 4‘00,’9' 04 , .....4 .0 .4 I00. . 0 .- . 140400.13." A... .410 0 4 40404 004. .4? 000.004 4...”..‘V0nfl0u0fiuuh434 “hung?" 0n4 Ind-fir!!!‘ .5409...- .0‘4..04094940I:.49.4)40.3. 9001‘ .4 4. 400‘ 4 .000. .0. 4.. 4040440044 4.. . 0 Q 4’00. .‘4949; I. .04.. 4.3. 0040. 0. 4‘009.’,’940 9.. \ 0. .0.. 0“0.~.“On. Q"~4100‘,"0904 0.}0 "Q4‘. .0, 4 _ . . 0. I09 409.. I00 4 0. 0. .9.-0... 0 2.3.1.344. , .0\0.9..0040.:...v0. 0.0.4 14 ..10... 4:05.; 90.00 4 9.0. 9.0 40.0... 0 10.0 0" .09....00. 4:449.0’0034.94‘:4'94 .000.00 021.44... 0 .. 0‘0. 94 4699.. 00444.07 . . . . .. . n. x. .4. 0- 000.99.40.40... ...0.}014.$. 0 409.40....014..." . . . 0..; 5.9..0900.§00§ 400 ‘4 ‘4‘. ‘00. LL34]. 3990. $0.. 100.00 409 {’3‘0200 u.) ’4 50“ . 4‘0049v4‘0 1.0.4‘79901044391049. 44.4.0.9...004‘0064 '4 ‘ .090“? . 0 no. 0 . ”40.14.00.301454 .3 . . . 4 .0.! 09.000.42.30‘\0...4..0.044 1.0440513. 51“; .0.. 4 , 0.24.1.0 .I . . . . . . . x 0.4.4.0??104“ 00.40.\0u4u0.\,.04h’9|94 L9 0.040.301: .4444 .451319501. ,|. 0.4 .0”. . . .. .. . .. . . .. , .. , . . . . . . , . . . , . . 4 . . . . . . , ,. . . 9.2....1... . ...-{49444040104441 44.044i00 4.40.4.0 04. \.40..40.....0000. 4. I3... 4 0.0.0. .50 . 7.3....4! I 9 .. . . _ . . . . .. . , . .. . . 4 . . . . . 4 . , . . . ...“... .. 4.50.0 1430.41.40.00094‘. ..104440' . 440400045. \ '00:... 104. ... 00.4. . 0 . . . . . . . . . . , . . 00.404 220.400.4300 40.... I R. 40904.. ‘0. 4 .0. 0.00009 . ..0.‘.00.‘l.990 4...... $4,501.04. §.g4li 040.!4444 3.4.4.99. 1.3.9,. . .0. . . , £00420.0.).0\4)\)I30...?\0 v ... .4 . .4.... .... 4'. . :4... ....44. . . . .. . . . . .. , 09040500.... .444 0. SaquVJ4.dr.H 4.00-400. . . .. .. . .. . . 4 .. . . . . . . . . . . . , . H . . . .. . , . . .4.. 309003090. 009090400. . 4, . § 0.'>l0:tI00.040 . . . . . 0 . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .44.", :4. 06.090190 0 0.... .4 0.. . . . . . . . , . . ,0 . . . .. . . . it... .0.. 09. 41“.. .0 '1.“ .ut‘l . D Q _ .4.. 0,... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , . . . . . . . , . 300.02.000.01. 0.11111. .‘r0.0$. 4004... 490040.04 0.04. . ...0 .....ll 00.. . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 4 , .. , . . ... . . ... . . .... 4. .zzi4 9..., 9: 9. .. .9 044. . _ . . . ... 0 . 0 \.".. . ... 0 . 040 0 30.90, V's-...“...4u904 " .145440044 409'! 00 0 00:00.40, 01‘... M40 .394... .01... ‘36.. ‘ 0. 0.00.... .0 .. I .0. 02"? 0".)‘0”. I004. . , . .E‘suéll0yi‘444 4.4. 4.0 2441,4107. . . . . . . . . 1 . . ., . .. . . .. . ., .. .. .. . .. , .,. . . . .. ... . . , 000.. 34,402... 0.4.’.49\i94440 43:40 0.4 . .4 . . . , . .. 4'0 0 4 0000.04.43‘443000'000‘: 0 . .0090. 4... . . . . . . .. .. ,. . . . . . . , .. , . . . . .... . .. . . ..4. 04.0.0.0.‘HJ590‘423400. 0 0 . 44 . L4 000. 0.9.0.140}. 00 40 4 ,..0.. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . , . , . . . .. . . . H . . . . . . . . ., . u. . . 0.4.00':0.‘Q"IO4.V44.000.0"0‘»..u40't404‘0h00kh0u0hh . 0 . . . .. . .. . , . 0 . . . . . . . .. . . .4 , 9 4 0 . 0.....04....04L0.0.. .,.00’. .... .1..| 4 .0490. .. .. . 4 . . . . ,. . . . . . ... .. , . . . . .. .., . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . ..00 .440 ..-0.... '00 4.. ..h\ .u..I.0W_...VI ..0 22-004.000.074 I04 . .00 ...0.. 4.4.. .0 . 10.00... 0.. . . . , . 0.00.! . (1.00.0.0 J‘.’ .000 ., 4.000 4 . : 04. 0.000.0‘I. . . 0.40.5. .\ 04400000...$000'0. 0 . > A. . 4. 4. .....9.~.0;.4.0.4.. . ... 0,0. 0.000 0002407040...00V.000.\I . . . . ., _, . . . . , , . _ . . , . 000 . . , , . .. . . .. . ., . . . . ... . . a , , , . .00. 0 .0.... ......u”. . H . . . . .. , . . . . . ... .. . . . . 0 . . . . .. 4.06 441.,40..‘.900. 4. .O.0 .90‘0. I- . 40' 9’94. . 9.099. 94. '0. r 1.... .. .4.,000004030 £944.04 . :134409094 V 00 0. .4.. ...: I ..400 09 040 00 9 00". ‘00 0 0. 04. 4.4 E014400;30,&0 .: .... ...... . . ......44. 90...... .4... ... . . . .. , , . . .. . .. _ . . ._. . . . . .. . . ..,“ . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ... 0...-..0. .. 4.0.04.4, ,. . . 0 . 1.4004. 0..\-0 ...Q 1:041, 0004?...00 4.00 4.... .. . a .94....... . 0....9. 0 .. . . .. . . . . ,, .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . ..., . . .. . 4.0.0.. . 0.1.00‘4, 00000.! ...4 42.4 I. '00 .....0 ..0). 0204:0400..." .0 49. 5h . . .u 2... . ... . . . . . : . . ., . . .. . . . .. .. . ., . , . . _ .,. . . . 00...... .. . 0.504.. 0 .. .. (0.....0..I9. ..20.0..4v0r \Ltvu... .0 ,.. .. . . . ,. .. . . . . . , . , . 4 .. . . r . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . , 0. .. . 7. 4. Q\.4'0...ll‘\‘ I0 I- 0.0., . ... . 0.. . , . . ._ ... _ . .. . .... . . n , .. . . . . .. . .. , . . _ . ,.. ... . . . . . . .. . . . .0.. 1.4.0.00»... ...,.:._....- ..n...42r...0r0..._.....70. 0...... 10...... . . . ,, . . . .. .. . . .. _ . . .. . . . . . . 0.44.04. 4.. 440 4.0.4.4 0 .0. . 0 001.! 00\00\.00.‘l 00 . . . . ., . .. . . . . . . I. ..00, .0.. 0....- . ...0. I 00.00......0|.l§..00$ 00010 . _ . . 04 . ,. . . 0 . .. . . .. ... . . . . . .. y . . , 4 ,0‘0 .904‘. 1‘ 0.0"” . .. 04404.0 4 4409.. .0.... .9.-:04. 0 0.x..0'...4..4.400.. 4.40 . 9.9 .440. 4.4494. 0 . , , .. , . . . ... . . . . . . ., . , o .. . . . , .. . . '4.IJI~§0.OHN,0IH.4 0‘0 .0.-\‘I .090z\ ' 0...... . 4. H4?.. .-. I. .0 0.0.0 4.04.4.0! 4. 4 .. .0 0 .. 00 {46004.00 004.3 . . _. . .. . . . 3.0.0 .... 0 K 22" .00 . . 4 .490. 4. I04... . 00. . . 004040 0 . . . 0‘00:- '0 ‘ ... .. . . . 4.. 4 .. 40 Q ..0 00 '0... A. ’00.... .4\\.I . IO . ..04 .4300 ‘0...0.9 1.9. 7 .‘0. 0 .- .4._.J.._....O. ...000..0.‘.0 ‘.. .. f 44 0‘0. 0 ~ 0 0 A 4'. 0 0 .0.. 4., .. .. .. 4 . , . ... ....0...44 090.. 940. ......‘u0... I . .. . 0 '- .0.“ 099 .44.40 049.0... . . . . . . ., . . . ..409 .. 4. 40h 0.4. . , . 090900. 4.0 0 4 0 v0 4 4 0 . I ., . . 4 4 44. .0 04000. 9.. 4.0.. . .... . 9. 0 0 . . 1.4.... . 4 ....4 .r. .9. 0400 .. .. 0000 ...44 0.0 1.. 44‘64.04. . 0 .0 00.000 .01... ‘0 4 .4 .0 4 . . , O 0 . ...0...- 9 .. . .4 I 0 . .0 O 0 . . . , . . . ,. . . .. . . ... 4 0 n o. 0 00.404.00.01... 4.00.0.0.0J.400.O..4009J0l¢..9441"04 4 urnw‘uv.fl.0§..l.0m§& . . II.— 0 4. . 4.4. .4 ’.004.4. 7.9.040. . .. 4... 4. 0...... .0 ... , 04 4 .0. ’0. 0.? 0. 1. 9 00009. 1. ...... s 9. 9. 0004.009 .4. .00 040 .4. ..«04.Iht.09000v.99.....|.044 0. 0. ".00”. 4 4 .. I. I4 . 0 Ir. 0 4. ‘0 I 4 4 . 9 0. .4 .00 . .0”: .10 00.. . 440-0.... .9.. .9, 444 . .40... d4 .0,» . 4.4 ,0 .40.! 0' 4 9 . 0.0 0004. ...04. ...".040 4444 .. ..00, 4 0.4.. 0 , 0.4,. .9 . ... 0 .... 4. 40. 5.040. .0.. . 0 00 rd ‘07000000Q 4 I0 I . 090 In _ 0. - 0 0 0 0.0 .0 .4.. 0 I4..|0. 0004 .4... 00 44 O 4. .. 4 7......4 0 .. .... 934.4 4.04 . ..4 4.0 ..4949 40. .0 4 .009... .4. -.. 099999.090”; ...0.. 10 s . s4. .0. O 00-- I , 0. _ . .. 0._0.44m~ 44. 4.. 4 ...,4 . 9.9,04....90.| .040. 1 . . . .. , 0.4 . . 0 .4014..- 4. .4 . 0 . . 94, . 00 .. , \ . 0 0 I .4 .. . 440004444 .6949. 0‘ . _ . 0 \ - . .. - 0000., . 4 Ill-II ‘00 'lll' 1 l I I III. I 0" {I ‘ " "3( C \\ ("D This is to certify that the dissertation entitled UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOSITY: A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF A PROCESS MODEL LINKING RELIGIOSITY TO RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES Ph.D presented by Kimberly K. McAdams has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in Psychology 1- m amp Major Professor’s Signature ‘3' ‘i - 10! 0 Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer _th3RARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 KIProj/Acd-PrelelRC/DateDueJndd UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOSITY: A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF A PROCESS MODEL LINKING RELIGIOSITY TO RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES By Kimberly K. McAdams A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Psychology 2010 ABSTRACT UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOSITY: A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF A PROCESS MODEL LINKING RELIGIOSITY TO RELATIONSHIP OUTCOMES By Kimberly K. McAdams Religion is an important part of life for a majority of Americans (Idler, Musick, Ellison, George, Krause, Ory, Pargament, Powell, Underwood, & Williams, 2003). In fact, most people in the United States have a religious affiliation (Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2008) as 85.7% of Americans reported identifying with a specific religion in 2004 (Dougherty, Johnson, & Polson, 2007). For believers, religion is very important to one’s way of life and helps to shape one’s core beliefs and values (Hijnler & Gencoz, 2005). Religion may also affect behavior (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Recent work even suggests that religion might also be linked to romantic relationship behavior or functioning (Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2001). According to one meta-analysis, 17 articles published by psychologists incorporated religion into studies of relationships (Mahoney et al., 2008). Across studies, religiosity appears to be associated with both increased relationship quality and decreased rates of divorce (Mahoney, Pargament, Jewell, Swank, Scott, Emery, & Rye, 1999). However, little is known about the precise mechanisms explaining this association. This was the overarching focus of my dissertation. In particular, there were three main goals of my dissertation. First, I evaluated the link between religiosity and relationship quality while addressing some of the limitations of past research. Second, I tested a process model that attempted to explain why religiosity is linked with relationship quality. Specifically, I tested several mediators of this relation - commitment, shared interests, conflict, and problem solving skills — as incorporated into an overarching process model. Finally, after establishing the mediators, I controlled for the personality traits of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the model in order to determine if the associations between religiosity and relationship variables were independent from associations with these personality traits. I controlled for the personality trait of self-control in the model because previous research has shown an association between self-control and religiosity and between self—control and romantic relationships (Arnett, 1998; McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Moreover, I also incorporated optimism and Negative Emotionality into the model because previous research has shown an association between each trait and both relationship quality (e. g. optimism: Assad, Donnellan, & Conger, 2007; Negative Emotionality: Donnellan, Assad, Robins, & Conger, 2007) and religiosity (e. g. optimism: Salsman, Brown, Brechting, & Carlson, 2005; Negative Emotionality: Saroglou, 2002). All in all, this study begins to explain why religiosity is linked to relationship quality by drawing on a theoretically informed process model. This document is primarily dedicated to Dr. Brent Donnellan. You have been such an incredible mentor and have prepared me well for life as an academic. I hope that I can successfully follow in your footsteps. Additionally, the topic of this dissertation is dedicated to both Bills. Uncle, I know that you have been watching over me and I hope I have made you proud. Mr. 0., you have given me the strength to continue when I did not think academia was meant for people like me. Although you may not know it, I would not have been able to finish this piece without both of you in my life. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to all of the people who have helped me with my dissertation: to Dr. Brent Donnellan for his help throughout the entire dissertation process, as well as throughout my entire graduate career; to Dr. Debby Kashy for providing extra assistance with data analysis; to Dr. Rich Lucas and Dr. Karen Wampler for serving on my dissertation committee; to Dr. Rand Conger and the other Family Transition Project researchers for providing me with data to investigate my ideas. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................. xviii CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 1 Overview of the Chapter ...................................................... 1 Religiosity as a Psychological Construct .................................... 1 Religion and Relationship Quality ........................................... 3 The Religiosity-Relationship Quality Model ............................... 4 Social Exchange Variables .................................................... 6 Social Interaction Variables .................................................. 9 Recap of the Model ............................................................ 12 Self-Control ..................................................................... 13 Optimism ........................................................................ 14 Negative Emotionality ......................................................... 15 Controlling for Personality Traits ............................................ 15 Limitations of Past Research ................................................. 16 The Present Study .............................................................. 18 CHAPTER 2 METHOD ................................................................................ 22 Sample ........................................................................... 22 Measures ........................................................................ 23 Measures: Independent Variables ............................................ 23 Measures: Mediating Variables .............................................. 26 Measures: Dependent Variable ............................................... 29 Measures: Demographic Variables to Control for in the Model 29 Procedure ........................................................................ 31 Analyses ......................................................................... 31 Overview of the Results Chapters ........................................... 33 CHAPTER 3 CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES ................................................. 36 Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Variables ............. 36 Investigating the Relationship Variable Mediators ........................ 37 Personal Investment .......... ' .................................................. 39 Other Potential Mediators ...................................................... 40 Discussion of Religiosity Facets .............................................. 43 Discussion of Previous Waves ................................................. 43 Summary ......................................................................... 43 Controlling for Personality Variables ........................................ 44 CHAPTER 3 CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES CONTINUED ................................. 36 Examining All Relationship Variables ........................................ 46 Overall Summary of the Chapter ............................................... 48 CHAPTER 4 CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES FOR THE RELIGIOUS DISSIMILARITY VARIABLES ...................................................................... 50 Religious Dissimilarity Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Variables .......................................................... 50 Controlling for Personality Variables .......................................... 53 Examining All Relationship Variables ........................................ 55 Overall Summary of the Chapter ............................................... 55 CHAPTER 5 LONGITUDINAL ANALYSES ........................................................ 58 Stacked APIM Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Variables .................................................................. 58 Investigating the Relationship Variable Mediators .......................... 59 Personal Investment .............................................................. 60 Other Potential Mediators ....................................................... 61 Discussion of Religiosity Facets ................................................ 62 Summary ........................................................................... 63 Controlling for Personality Variables .......................................... 63 Examining All Relationship Variables ........................................ 65 Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Analyses ......................................... 65 Investigating the Relationship Variable Mediators .......................... 66 Personal Investment .............................................................. 67 Other Potential Mediators ....................................................... 68 Discussion of Religiosity Facets ................................................ 69 Summary ........................................................................... 7O OverallSummaryoftheChapter................. .............................. 70 CHAPTER 6 LONGITUDINAL ANALYSES FOR THE RELIGIOUS DISSIMILARITY VARIABLES ..................................................................... 74 Religious Dissimilarity Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Other Variables .......................................................... 74 Controlling for Personality Variables .......................................... 77 Examining All Relationship Variables ........................................ 78 Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Analyses ......................................... 78 Overall Summary of the Chapter .............................................. 80 vii CHAPTER 7 OVERALL DISCUSSION ........................................................... 82 Aim 1: Religiosity and Relationship Quality .............................. 82 Aim 2: Potential Mediators .................................................. 88 Aim 3: Controlling for Personality Variables ............................. 92 Limitations and Future Directions .......................................... 93 Religiosity as a Construct ................................................... 93 Mediating Variables .......................................................... 96 Generalizability ................................................................ 98 Concluding Remarks .......................................................... 99 APPENDICES ........................................................................ 101 Appendix 1: Measures ....................................................... 101 Appendix 11: Tables .......................................................... 111 Appendix III: Figures ........................................................ 207 REFERENCES ....................................................................... 2 l 2 viii LIST OF TABLES Descriptive statistics for religiosity variables for the total sample for all years ............................................................................. 1 1 1 Descriptive statistics for religiosity variables for men and women .............. l 12 Cross-sectional correlations for the religiosity variables .......................... 1 13 Longitudinal correlations for the religiosity variables ............................. 1 14 Descriptive statistics for the relationship variables for the total sample for all years ............................................................................. 1 15 Descriptive statistics for the social exchange relationship variables for men and women ..................................................................... 1 16 Descriptive statistics for the social interaction and dependent relationship variables for men and women ............................................... 117 Cross-sectional correlations for the relationship variables ....................... 118 Longitudinal correlations for relationship variables .............................. 120 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables at Wave 14 ..................................................................... 121 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables and the social interaction relationship variables at Wave l4 ..................... 122 Tests of mediation for social exchange and social interaction variables at Wave l4 ......................................................................... 123 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for the relationship social exchange and social interaction variables on relationship quality at Wave 14 ............................................................................... 124 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for demographics at Wave 14 ................................. 125 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables and the social interaction relationship variables when controlling for demographics at Wave 14 ..................................................................... 126 ix Tests of mediation for social exchange and social interaction variables when controlling for demographics at Wave l4 ................................. 127 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control at Wave l4 ..................................... 128 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables and the social the social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control at Wave 14 ....................................................... 129 Tests of mediation for social exchange and social interaction variables when controlling for self-control at Wave l4 ..................................... 130 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for optimism at Wave 14 ........................................ 131 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables and the social interaction relationship variables when controlling for optimism at Wave l4 ......................................................... 132 Tests of mediation for social exchange and social interaction variables when controlling for optimism at Wave 14 ........................................ 133 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 ........................ 134 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables and the social interaction relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 ...................................................... 135 Tests of mediation for social exchange and social interaction variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality at Wave ............................ 136 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 ......................................................................... 137 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables and the social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 ......................... 138 Tests of mediation for social exchange and social interaction variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 ......................................................................... 139 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for the overall relationship composite variables at Wave 14 ............................................. 140 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables for Wave 14 .......................................... 141 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables for Wave 14 .......................................................... 142 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables for Wave 14 ......................................................... 143 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for demographics at Wave 14 ............... 144 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction relationship variables when controlling for demographics at Wave 14 ............... 145 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for demographics at Wave l4 ............... 146 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for demographics at Wave 14 ........................... 147 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control at Wave 14 .................. 148 Religious Dissimilarity (DI) Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control at Wave 14 149 xi Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control at Wave 14 .............................. 150 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for optimism at Wave 14 ..................... 151 Religious Dissimilarity (DI) Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for optimism at Wave 14 . . 152 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for optimism at Wave l4 ..................... 153 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 154 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 155 Tests of mediation for the Religious dissimilarity (DI) Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 ............... 156 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 .................................................... 157 Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality at Wave l4 .................................................... 158 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity (DI) Actor-Partner Interdependence Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality at Wave 14 ................................................... 159 xii Religious Dissimilarity Actor-Partner Interdependence Models and tests for the overall relationship composite variables at Wave 14 ............. 160 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables and the social exchange variables ............................................ 161 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction variables .................. 162 Tests of mediation for the Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables ............................... 163 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the relationship social exchange and social interaction variables on relationship quality 164 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables and the social exchange variables when controlling for demographics .................................................................. 165 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction variables when controlling for demographics ................................................ 166 Tests of mediation for the Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for demographics .................................................................. 167 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables and the social exchange variables when controlling for self-control .. 168 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction variables when controlling for self-control .................................................. 169 Tests of mediation for the Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control .................................................................... l 70 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables and the social exchange variables when controlling for optimism 171 xiii Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction variables when controlling for optimism ...................................................... 172 Tests of mediation for the Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for optimism ........................................................................ 173 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables and the social exchange variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality .................................................................... l 74 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality ...................................... 175 Tests of mediation for the Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality ........................................................ 176 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables and the social exchange variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality ...................................... 177 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality .. .. 178 Tests of mediation for the Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality ..................... 179 Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models and tests for the overall relationship composite variables ........................................... 180 Standardized Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange variables ....................................................................... 181 Standardized Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Multilevel Models for the religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social interaction variables ......................................................... 182 xiv Tests of mediation for the Standardized Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables ....... 183 Standardized Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Multilevel Models and tests for the overall relationship composite variables ............................... 184 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables .......................................................... 185 Religious dissimilarity statistics for the Religious dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables .................. 186 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables ....... 187 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for demographics ............... 188 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for demographics .......... 189 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for demographics ................................................. 190 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control .................. 191 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control .................. 192 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control .................................................................. 193 XV Religious Dissimilarity (DI) Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for optimism ..................... 194 Religious Dissimilarity (DI) Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for optimism ..................... 195 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for optimism ...................................................... 196 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality .. 197 Religious Dissimilarity (DI) Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality 198 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity (DI) Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for Negative Emotionality ................... 199 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality .................................................... 200 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality ................................................... 201 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables when controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality 202 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models and tests for the overall relationship composite variable ...................... 203 xvi Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Cross-Lagged Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables .............................................. 204 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange relationship variables ......................................................... 205 Tests of mediation for the Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models for religiosity variables, relationship quality, and the social exchange and social interaction relationship variables ...... 206 Religious Dissimilarity Standardized Longitudinal Multilevel Models and tests for the overall relationship composite variable ..................... 207 xvii LIST OF FIGURES Overall proposed model explaining the association between religiosity and relationship quality ........................................................... Actor-Partner Interdependence Model .............................................. Cross-sectional Actor-Partner Interdependence Model linking overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality ............... Stacked Actor-Partner Interdependence Model linking overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality ............................ Cross-lagged Actor-Partner Interdependence Model linking overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality xviii .. 207 .. 208 .. 209 ..210 211 Chapter I: Literature Review Overview of the Chapter The overall purpose of this chapter is to describe a model explaining the relation between religiosity and relationship quality (see Figure 1). Before explaining specific paths contained in the model, it is first necessary to explain the psychological construct of religiosity. From there, I discuss previous research that has shown an association between religiosity and relationship quality. Although the religiosity-relationship quality link has been observed in several studies, it is unclear why this relation exists. Therefore, I attempt to offer an explanation through my proposed model, which draws on both social exchange theory and social interaction approaches to relationships. According to the principles of social exchange theory, there are several costs and benefits to any relationship which determine whether or not an individual decides to remain in one’s current relationship or to abandon it. Moreover, because there are two people acting in a relationship, both partners in any relationship will influence relationship outcomes experienced by themselves and their partners because of their social interactions. Based on this framework, I predict that the relationship variables of commitment, shared interests, conflict, and problem solving skills are particularly important for understanding links between religiosity and relationship quality. From there, I discuss how the individual difference variables of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality fit into the model. After explaining the components of the proposed model, I briefly review some of the limitations of previous research before laying out the specific aims of my dissertation. Religiosity as a Psychological Construct Religiosity is a complex psychological construct. Although several different definitions of religiosity have been proposed, there are four main themes that are consistent across discussion with this construct (Peterson & Seligrnan, 2004). First, religiosity conveys a belief in a supernatural power. Second, religiosity is associated with a set of moral values and teachings. Third, religiosity incorporates attitudes and behaviors that are consistent with such moral values. Finally, religiosity conveys a sense of sacredness (i.e. worthiness of reverence; see Fincharn, Stanley, & Beach, 2007), for each of the aforementioned components (Peterson & Seligrnan, 2004). Tsang and McCullough (2003) note that even nonsacred goals can be achieved through the principles associated with one’s religion. For example, people high on religiosity who want to do well on a math test may recognize that honesty is important to their church’s moral teachings. Therefore, religious students would study hard to prepare for an exam instead of cheating in part because of their religious beliefs. In sum, I define religiosity as a belief in a higher power that motivates and affects the pursuit of certain goals and values. This definition of religiosity is multi-faceted and lends itself to multiple dimensions that can be included into assessments of religiosity (Peterson & Seligrnan, 2004; Tsang & McCullough, 2003). Peterson and Seligrnan recommend assessing three main aspects of religiosity: organizational, private, and subjective components. The organizational component refers to public displays of religiosity, such as attending church. The private component refers to displays of religiosity not observed by others, such as prayer in the home. The subjective component refers to how the individual uniquely experiences her or his religion. Similarly, Tsang and McCullough discuss two main dimensions of religiosity: the dispositional level and the operational level. The dispositional level is akin to assessing religiosity as a personality trait. Conceptualizing religiosity at the dispositional level reflects a belief that there are individual differences regarding religiosity that more or less fall along a normal distribution, with people of all different faiths falling at each point in the continuum. The operational level refers to how the individual experiences both private and public aspects of his or her religion, which includes such concepts as motivations for being religious and using religion in daily life (both publicly and privately). In this case, two individuals may score similarly at the dispositional level, but may outwardly express or experience their religious beliefs differently. Therefore, in this study, I inquired about the dispositional level to evaluate the extent to which an individual has the trait of religiosity (e. g. “In general, how important are religious or spiritual beliefs in your day-to-day life?”) as well as the operational level to understand how religiosity is experienced (e. g. “How much are your religious or spiritual beliefs a source of strength and comfort to you”). Religion and Relationship Quality One aspect of life in which religion seems to play an important role is in romantic relationships (Butler, Stout, & Gardner, 2002). In general, religiosity is associated with increased marital quality (r = .35 for women, r = .39 for men) and decreased divorce rates (Mahoney et al., 1999). Religiosity is also associated with marital adjustment and relationship quality (Shehan, Bock, & Lee, 1990), and couples who share similar religious viewpoints and similar faiths tend to report greater marital happiness and experience decreased risk of divorce compared to couples who disagree on matters of faith (Call & Heaton, 1997; Mahoney et al., 2001). Similarly, researchers have found evidence that increased religious activity is associated with increased relationship quality (Booth, Johnson, Branaman, & Sica, 1995; Wolfinger & Wilcox, 2008). It appears that religious practices are more important to relationship quality than membership in any particular denomination. In their meta-analysis of 94 studies on religion and family functioning, Mahoney et al. (2001) found that the effect of shared religious denomination on divorce was relatively weak and disappeared when controlling for church attendance. Thus, actual religious practices rather than religious affiliation seem to be more important when examining relationship quality. In support of this idea, relationship quality has been associated with frequent church attendance (Heaton & Pratt, 1990), and attending church at least twice a month was associated with the highest levels of reported marital happiness (Shehan et al., 1990). Moreover, parental religiosity appears to be directly related to the child’s religiosity in adulthood as well as indirectly related to the child’s later interactions with romantic partners because of the associations between parental religiosity and both adolescent religiosity and positive parenting during adolescence (Spilman, Neppl, Donnellan, & Conger, 2010). Therefore, one’s religiosity appears to be related to both one’s own and one’s child’s romantic relationship interpersonal processes. These associations likely exist because frequent church attendance is associated both with engaging in a shared activity and with reaffirmation of religious values (e.g. Mahoney et al., 1999). The Religiosity—Relationship Quality Model Although religiosity and relationship quality are related, it is unclear why this relation exists (Butler, et al., 2002; Mahoney et al., 2001; Sullivan, 2001). For example, Mahoney and colleagues explain that the “available empirical literature offers little insight about the plausibility or respective power of the various mechanisms that could tie religion to marital [relationships]” (Mahoney et al., 2001, p. 591). The current study therefore attempts to investigate potential mediators of this association by testing the model proposed in Figure l. The basic idea is that religiosity is related to relationship quality because of both social exchange and social interaction variables. Although there may be some overlap between these distinctions, I am conceptualizing these variables into two separate categories for simplicity. Social exchange variables refer to constructs that are associated with costs and benefits of remaining in the relationship. These variables include commitment to the relationship and having shared interests. Social interaction variables refer to constructs that reflect how partners act toward each other. These variables include problem solving skills and conflict within the relationship. Because the model draws on both perspectives, I will briefly discuss each approach starting with social exchange theory. Social exchange theory explains that when in a relationship, individuals weigh the costs and benefits of remaining in that relationship (McDonald, 1981). Individuals are likely to remain in relationships when benefits exceed costs or when costs are minimal. Individuals are also likely to remain in a relationship if they perceive few (if any) desirable partners outside of the relationship and if a lot of time and resources have been invested into the relationship. Part of the aforementioned costs and benefits depend on both one’s normative marital orientation, or the expectations one has for the marriage, and one’s normative marital role orientation, which are the expectations one has for the roles of each partner in the marriage (McDonald, 1981). If the marriage fits one’s expectations, then the individual will likely want to remain in the relationship because this is both a benefit to remaining in the relationship as well as a cost to leaving the relationship. However, if the marriage does not fit with one’s expectations, this is a relatively big cost which will make the relationship likely to dissolve. Both costs and benefits factor into whether or not the couple would remain intact. Indeed, the social exchange mediators of commitment and shared interests can be viewed as either increasing benefits of the relationship (shared interests) or costs to leaving the union (commitment). Social interaction approaches are important because they take into account the actions of both partners when assessing relationship outcomes. Social interaction approaches basically focus on how each partner in a dyad treats the other partner. For example, if an individual treats her or his partner with love and respect, this will be associated with increased relationship satisfaction. Because most religions teach behaviors such as love, respect, kindness, and forgiveness, it would follow that individuals higher on religiosity would engage in more actions that would be beneficial for the relationship than people who lacked this proscription for behavior. If the individual has been taught to treat others in a positive way, these behaviors may extend to romantic relationships behaviors. Now that social exchange theory and social interaction approaches have been explained, each specific mediator will be examined in more detail. Social Exchange Variables Commitment. Religion has been associated with increased commitment and decreased risk of divorce. Even when controlling for other variables such as demographic, marital, and family variables, religion is negatively associated with divorce (Mahoney et al., 2001). In particular, church attendance appears to act as a protective factor against the possibility of divorce (Brown, Orbuch, & Bauermeister, 2008; Call & Heaton, 1997; Mahoney et al., 2001; Sullivan, 2001) and this effect holds even after controlling for demographic variables like age at marriage, education, race/ethnicity, previous divorce, number of children, and whether the wife and/or husband worked (Call & Heaton, 1997). More frequent church attendance is also associated with having more commitment toward one’s relationship (Mahoney et al., 2008). This finding might reflect the fact that couples who attend church together are spending more time together and/or couples who attend church equally frequently may have similar values regarding religiosity that are not as apparent when only looking at denomination (Mahoney et al., 1999). In addition to church attendance, the psychological construct of religiosity is associated both with decreased divorce rates as well as decreased thoughts about and behaviors leading to divorce (Mahoney et al., 2001). In sum, it appears that religiosity is associated with increased commitment to the relationship as well as increased relationship stability. Shared interests. Another important benefit in a relationship is having a partner who shares similar interests. Having similar interests is a benefit to remaining in a relationship because partners are likely to agree on how they spend their leisure time, thereby reducing conflict. Although having shared interests may be construed as a social interaction variable, I am choosing to classify it as a social exchange variable. It is true that in order for an interest to be shared, both partners need to enjoy it to a similar extent, which would in turn affect how the couple interacts. This point highlights that defining a relationship construct as either a social exchange or a social interaction variable is sometimes tricky as a clear distinction is not always apparent. In this case, I am choosing to classify shared interests as a social exchange variable because of the importance of key interests to the individual. If an individual finds a partner who shares certain interests, this is a benefit to remaining in the relationship. Additionally, shared interests create a cost to leaving the relationship because it may be difficult to find another partner who also shares central interests. As more key interests are shared, the individual will receive more benefits to remaining in the relationship as well as more costs to leaving the relationship. Participating in religious activities with one’s spouse communicates that the couple has similar values. Not only is engaging in religious activities together associated with a decreased risk of divorce (Brown et al., 2008), but it is also associated with having fewer divorce-related thoughts and actions (Hiinler & Genciiz, 2005). Sharing in joint religious activities are related to marital functioning, but it is unclear why (Mahoney et al., 1999). Mahoney et al. offer several explanations. First, one theory poses that just sharing in any type of joint activity is beneficial for couples. However, Licther and Carmalt (2009) provided evidence against this explanation in that the positive effects of religiosity on relationships went above and beyond the effects of time spent together engaged in nonreligious activities. Second, sharing in religious activities helps the couple to both develop and discuss their values, which may create an increased sense of intimacy. Finally, sharing religious activities may help facilitate both internal and external support by fostering a sense of social support within the couple and also by creating ties to other members of the community through joint religious activities (Mahoney et al., 1999). Call and Heaton (1997) advocate the second explanation. They argue that having the same faith as one’s spouse creates a bond between the couple because partners share similar beliefs and values, which may in turn increase emotional intimacy and enhance feelings of commitment. Another thought is that spouses who share religious beliefs also tend to share similar values about marriage (Wilson & Musick, 1996), including ideologies about the acceptability of divorce. Social Interaction Variables Conflict. One cause of divorce is marital conflict (e. g. Christensen & Walczynski, 1997; but see Fincharn et al., 2007 on transformative processes), and religious individuals tend to report engaging in less conflict with their partners (Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Mahoney et al., 2001). Similarly, religious individuals engage in less negative behaviors with their partners, and have children who engage in less negative behaviors toward their partners (Spilman et al., 2010). There are a few different theories explaining why religious individuals may engage in less conflict. First, it is possible that religious individuals may tolerate more negative behaviors or interactions before engaging in conflict than less religious individuals because they have learned to try to take the moral high road through church teachings (i.e. being less judgmental). Second, because previous research has shown that some personality traits act as “enduring vulnerabilities” that cause individual to negatively deal with conflict and stress (Kamey & Bradbury, 1995, p. 23), it is possible that low religiosity is one such vulnerability. People who are lower on religiosity may respond more strongly to stressors as opposed to people higher on religiosity. On the other hand, high religiosity could be construed as an “enduring resource” (Assad et al., 2007, p. 285) that may help the individual cope in stressful situations and avoid intense conflict. In fact, previous research has shown that religious people have better communication skills (Mahoney et al., 2001). Religion may help couples to work through their conflict as religion may promote a sense of future together in that many religions emphasize that marital unions persists through death (Lambert & Dollahite, 2008). This belief may cause religious individuals to view their marriages as sacred, which would then facilitate respect between partners and cause partners to act in ways to elevate their relationships, such as by using prayer. Couples may benefit from incorporating prayer into their lives because prayer can be used as a method to address problems both as individuals and as a couple (Butler et al., 2002). Likewise, engaging in joint prayer may help prevent hostility toward one’s partner, create an avenue for couples to ask for forgiveness fiom their partners, and serve as a means to resolve relationship conflicts (Mahoney etal., 2001 ). Indeed, religious individuals tend to pray about conflict in their relationships or about how to prevent future conflicts from occurring (Butler, 2002). This action in turn may help the couple to resolve their issues or change the way in which they interact. Butler et al. (2002 used a mail survey to investigate the phenomenon of religious people using prayer to address conflict. They found that most people use prayer to some extent when facing conflict. The researchers also found that the act of praying during conflict has several benefits, such as improving one’s mood during the conflict while also opening an avenue for reconciliation. Furthermore, praying may help the couple to actively problem solve and successfully address their conflict because prayer was also associated with increased prosocial interaction, increased communication and commitment, and empathy for one’s partner (Butler et al., 2002). Although prayer appears to be important, other methods of 10 conflict-resolution, as well as behavior during conflict, may help explain why religiosity is associated with relationship quality. One such conflict-resolution tool obtained through religious practices may be that one’s faith provides ways to enhance and support relationships through church teachings of morals and values, as well as through relationship enhancing classes (Mahoney et al., 2001). For example, the Catholic Church requires all engaged couples to complete 9 months of premarital coursework before they can wed, including one course on problem solving skills and dealing with conflict so that couples have the tools necessary to deal with any negative issues that arise during the course of their marriage. This marital preparation may also show incompatible couples that they should not marry and, therefore, help select out couples who would be especially prone to divorce. Identifying these couples before they marry may also help explain the lower divorce rate observed among Catholics (e. g. Lehrer, 1996). Problem solving skills. Religiosity has also been associated with resolving problems (Beach et al., 2008; Lambert & Dollahite, 2006). Although there are diverse ways to approach problems, the literature focuses mainly on communication. Communication reflects a more constructive way of addressing the problem by discussing it with one’s partner; therefore, communication should be positively associated with relationship quality. Indeed, Giblin (1993) explains that the three most important marital coping skills are communication, conflict resolution, and commitment. The previous section discussed conflict and conflict resolution, but without communication, there would be no avenue to resolve the conflict. In fact, lack of 11 communication contributes to problems in many, if not most, relationships (Crocker, 1984). One reason why religiosity is associated with improved communication in couples may be due to the experience that religious individuals have with communication through prayer. Crocker (1984) explains that there are 5 types of prayer that should act as models for communicating with another person, which include confession, petition, praise, thanksgiving, and contemplation. Additionally, Crocker explains four ways to engage in ineffective communication, which include talking about the other person when the individual should be talking about oneself, talking about oneself when the individual should be talking about the other person, being silent when one should be talking, and talking when one should be silent. Crocker argues that these problems can be circumvented if individuals treat communication like it is a prayer. By engaging in joint prayer, hostility toward one’s partner may be reduced while also creating an avenue for forgiveness (Mahoney et al., 2001). Recap of the Model To simplify, the proposed model suggests that religiosity will be positively related to commitment, shared interests, and problem solving skills and that religiosity will be negatively associated with conflict. Additionally, commitment, shared interests, and problem solving skills will each be positively related to relationship quality whereas conflict will be negatively related to relationship quality. Each of these constructs represents an important relationship process that is potentially associated with both religiosity and relationship quality. Thus, this suite of variables should partially mediate the observed religiosity/relationship quality relation. 12 Although the associations between religiosity and relationship variables alone would be interesting, there are complicating factors. Quite simply, it is possible that there may be personality differences linked with religiosity that could provide third- variable explanations for any observed connection between religiosity to relationships. There are a lot of reasons besides religious incompatibility why people divorce (Christensen & Barber, 1967), and it may be that people with certain personality traits are at an increased risk for dissatisfying relationships (e.g. Kamey & Bradbury, 1995). Therefore, although other such personality traits may be related to religiosity, the final aim of this study is to test the model controlling for the personality traits of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality. Self-Control McCullough and Willoughby (2009) explain that religious people live longer even when controlling for confounding variables. Religious people likely live longer because religiosity is associated with engaging in healthy behaviors as well as with lower levels of depression. McCullough and Willoughby go on to explain that the reason for this association is because religiosity is associated with both self-regulation and self-control. Self-regulation refers to the process discussed by Scheier and Carver (1988) in which one compares her or his current state to one’s desired state for a given goal. If there is a discrepancy between one’s current and desired states, the individual will engage in behaviors to reduce this difference. Not only do religious people appear to use this self- regulation process more effectively than others, but they also tend to engage in self- control to reach their desired end state more efficiently than others (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Self-control refers to being able to force oneself to respond to a 13 situation by doing something other than what comes naturally (i.e. continuing to work on one’s dissertation instead of going to sleep). Religion and self-control are likely related because many religions teach self-control and restraint by promising hopes of a better afterlife if one sacrifices during one’s earthly life. However, it is unclear if religion causes people to have more self-control, if people high on self-control are drawn to religion, or if both factors are at work. One thing is certain: if an individual is higher on self-control regardless of the reason why, she or he will be less likely to engage in behaviors that are detrimental to a satisfying relationship (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). It is necessary to investigate if there is something unique about religiosity that is driving the association with relationship quality, or if the components of religiosity that are related to self-control are also shared with the observed association. Optimism Previous research has shown optimism to be associated with both religiosity and romantic relationship outcomes. For example, Salsman and colleagues (2005) found that intrinsic religiosity (i.e. personal fulfillment from one’s religiosity) was associated with optimism, whereas extrinsic religiosity (i.e. using religion to fulfill other motives like spending time with fi-iends) was not. Therefore, optimism may be associated with the dispositional and operational facets of religiosity assessed in the present investigation. Other researchers have found that optimism is related to increased relationship satisfaction (e. g. Assad et al., 2007; Srivastava, McGonigal, Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2006). Because evidence suggests that optimism is associated with both religiosity and relationship quality it is important to control for this variable in the current study to 14 ensure that religiosity is related to relationship outcomes above and beyond the effects of optimism. Negative Emotionality Previous research has shown that Negative Emotionality is associated with decreased relationship satisfaction (e. g. Donnellan et al., 2007). In fact, Negative Emotionality or Neuroticism is perhaps the best documented personality predictor of relationship quality in the literature (Kamey & Bradbury, 1995; Heller, Watson, & Hies, 2004). Moreover, some research suggests that Negative Emotionality may be associated with one facet of religiosity. Although Negative Emotionality has not been associated with overall religiosity or other facets of religiosity, a meta-analysis by Saroglou (2002) suggests that lower Negative Emotionality may be associated with increased operational religiosity (i.e. open and mature religiosity, as classified by Saroglou). Therefore, it is important to control for Negative Emotionality in the model linking religiosity to relationship quality in order to ensure that the observed religiosity effects are not solely due to associations with Negative Emotionality. Controlling for Personality Traits Because previous research has found religiosity is associated with the personality traits of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality (McCullough & Willoughby, 2 009; Salsman et al., 2005; Saroglou, 2002), it is necessary to control for each of these variables. However, it is important to note that incorporating all four constructs into the model is a very conservative test of my hypothesis about religiosity. Indeed, if effects for religiosity to the relationship variables persist even when controlling for all three Personality traits, observed results would bolster the case that religiosity is uniquely 15 related to romantic relationship outcomes. The potential gain of this assessment is to obtain a stronger case for the independent effect of religiosity on romantic relationship outcomes, whereas the potential downside is finding null results using this conservative approach. Indeed, some have proposed that religiosity actually creates personality differences (e.g. McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). Limitations of Past Research Because the study of religion has only recently been applied to the realm of relationship research, it makes sense that there are some methodological limitations in the existent literature. The current study attempts to address three of these issues. First, most religiosity data has only been obtained from one partner. Second, the most fi'equent approach to assessing religiosity has been to categorize individuals into religious denominations. Finally, a related issue is that couple religious similarity has mainly been categorized based on denomination homogeneity. Couple data. One limitation of current religion/relationship research is that few (if any) studies account for both spouses’ religious involvement. Research typically collects data from only one partner, even though more information about the relationship can be obtained by measuring both partners (Call & Heaton, 1997 ; Lehrer, 1996; Mahoney et al., 2001; Mahoney et al., 2008). It is important to look at the religious beliefs of both partners in a dyad in order to assess couple outcomes, and to examine to “’11 at extent couples share their religious beliefs and how they prioritize religion (Malloney et al., 2001). It is also necessary to incorporate dyadic data analytic teCI‘llliques to assess both actor and partner effects in order to determine if an individual’s :- 61 lgiosity affects one’s own, as well as one’s partner’s, relationship outcomes (see Kashy l6 & Kenny, 2000). Therefore, the proposed study will include both members of each dyad in the analyses. Denomination. Another key issue is that religious studies should go beyond mere denomination (Call & Heaton, 1997). Past research has mainly only considered religious identification when examining the effects of religion on relationship outcomes (Williams & Lawler, 2001). Single items inquiring about religious denomination are the most common way in which religion is assessed in the literature (Mahoney et al., 2001; Mahoney et al., 2008). Even when researchers attempt to go beyond this one item, the variables measured are often dichotomous (i.e. do you attend church, yes or no; see Mahoney et al., 2008). Furthermore, when researchers conceptualize religiosity beyond denomination, they typically only look at one aspect of religiosity. McConahay and Hough (1973) explain that most studies have defined religion in one of a few different ways: favorability toward religion, religious affiliation, church practice, religious cognitive styles, or as motivation toward religion. However, it is important to look at multiple dimensions of religion in the same study (McConahay & Hough), and to use continuous measures to assess religiosity (Mahoney et al., 2001). Therefore, the proposed study examines religiosity by taking a psychological perspective on the construct by using a continuous measure of religiosity in addition to incorporating church attendance. Homogeneity. A related issue is that past research dichotomizes couples into heterogeneous or homogenous couples, even though it is likely that differences between couples fall more along the lines of a normal distribution (Mahoney et al., 2001). Many Studies classify a couple as religiously homogenous if both partners share the same 17 religious denomination (Mahoney et al., 2008). However, religiosity should be treated as a continuous variable because there is a wide degree of variability in religiosity with people of the same denomination. Thus, it is important to assess similarity on such continuous, psychological variables. The Present Study Based on the previous research, there are three major aims that are investigated in the dissertation. First, there are several limitations with previous research assessing the relation between religiosity and romantic relationships that need to be addressed before we can determine if there is in fact such a relation. Second, assuming this relation persists, it is necessary to test for mediators of the relation. Finally, because there may be other factors influencing relationship outcomes, it is important to examine personality traits in addition to religiosity. For each of these aims, I treat religiosity as a continuous psychological variable that investigates one’s personal conceptualization of religion. Previous research has mostly relied on either religious denomination or frequency of church attendance to assess religiosity and I employ a more multi-faceted and psychological approach in my dissertation. Similarly, each aim is investigated using data obtained from both partners. Most previous studies on religiosity involving couples and romantic relationships have either relied on using one partner’s data or have used less than optimal partner data (i.e. aVel‘ages, correlations, sum totals). Instead, this study incorporates the Actor Partner mterdependence Model to investigate both partners’ religiosity scores on relationship Vari ables in order to use a more sophisticated tool to better understand what is occurring | i 1 thin the couple as a unit. 18 Overall, the main purpose of this investigation is to gain a better understanding of the importance of religiosity in romantic relationships as well as to determine some factors that may be associated with religion/romantic relationship outcomes. This is important to do as interfaith marriages are becoming more and more common in American society and because religious heterogeneity appears to be related to divorce and decreased relationship quality (e. g. Myers, 2006). Specific aims. Aim 1: Replicate and extend previous findings showing a relation between religiosity and romantic relationship quality. Although previous research has shown a relation between religiosity and relationship quality using different variations of these variables, there are still many limitations in the research that need to be addressed in a single study. For example, most of these studies have been cross-sectional in nature. The current study attempts to replicate the cross-sectional findings as well as investigate the relation between these variables longitudinally because it is quite possible that long-term effects of religiosity on relationship quality are different from the short- term effects. This analysis will therefore help prevent retrospective report biases from altering results. Aim 1 gives rise to 2 hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a: Religiosity will be related to relationship quality cross- sectionally. Hypothesis 1b: Religiosity will be related to relationship quality Ion gitudinally. Aim 2: To examine the ability of commitment, shared interests, conflict, and problem solving skills to mediate the relation between religiosity and relationship quality. Previous research has shown a relation between religiosity and each of these relationship 19 variables. Therefore, it is possible that each variable may act as a mediator in the religiosity/relationship quality relation. By investigating these associations, we will gain a clearer understanding of why religiosity is associated with relationship quality. Aim 2 gives rise to 4 main hypotheses for each individual variable (commitment, shared interests, conflict, and problem solving skills): Hypothesis 2a: Religiosity will be related to each of the relationship variables cross-sectionally. Hypothesis 2b: Each of the relationship variables will be related to relationship quality cross-sectionally. Hypothesis 2c: Each relationship variable will partially mediate the religiosity/ relationship quality relation cross-sectionally. Hypothesis 2d: The relations discussed in Hypotheses 2a-2c will persist for the longitudinal model. Aim 3: To examine the ability of religiosity to predict relationship quality when controlling for personality traits. Although previous research has found associations between religiosity, relationship quality, self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality, few studies have examined the relation between religiosity, personality trait variables, and relationship variables in the same investigation. If these trait variables are in fact related to either religiosity and/or relationship quality, it would be necessary to determine if the results from Aims 1 and 2 still hold controlling for these traits. Aim 3 leads to 2 main hypotheses: Hypothesis 3a: The results from Aim 1 will persist after controlling for the personality traits of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality. 20 Hypothesis 3b: The results from Aim 2 will persist after controlling for the personality traits of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality. 21 Chapter 2: Method Sample The participants in this investigation were obtained fi'om a larger sample designed to study the transition fiom adolescence to early adulthood, the Family Transitions Project (FTP), which is described in more detail by Conger and Conger (2002). The FTP started in 1994 (Wave 1) and followed a community sample of over 500 focal participants that had previously participated in the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP) and the Iowa Single Parent Project (SPP). Participants were about 18 years old in 1994. The ethnic/racial background is predominately European American and is reflective of the demographics of rural Iowa. Although romantic partners participated from 1995 onward, sufficient data from married or cohabiting partners are available from the 2003, 2005, and 2007 assessments (N = 318, 331, and 363 couples respectively). Couples had been together for an average of 3.72 years (SD = 2.31), 4.97 years (SD = 2.72), and 5.90 years (SD = 3.48) respectively. Cross-sectional data were assessed for each of these waves. Participants were included in the cross-sectional analyses of this study if they were currently married or living with their partners at the wave of assessment (i.e. only people who indicated they were married or cohabiting with their partner in the year 2003 were included in the 2003 cross-sectional analysis). Nine hundred and ten participants completed at least one wave of data collection (N = 455 couples). Participants were included in the longitudinal analyses if they had complete data from 2003 to 2007 (N = 502, or 251 couples). Data was classified as complete if b0 th partners from the couple had completed at least one religiosity measure and the rel ationship quality measure for all waves. 22 Measures A complete list of items for each measure is reported in Appendix 1. Measures: Independent Variables Religiosity. Religiosity was assessed with several survey items that captured three facets of the construct: dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance. All items were obtained from the Family Transitions Project (Conger, unpublished). Descriptive statistics for religiosity measures are reported in Table 1 for the overall sample and gender differences are reported in Table 2. Cross-sectional correlations for the religiosity measures are reported in Table 3 and longitudinal correlations are reported in Table 4. Dispositional religiosity. Dispositional religiosity was assessed using two items. The first item, “In general, how important are religious or spiritual beliefs in your day-to- day life?” was assessed using a 4-point scale ranging from “Very Important” to “ Not at all important.” The second item, “Do you consider yourself to be religious?” was assessed using a 5-point scale ranging fiom “Against religion” to “Deeply religious.” Scores from each item were first standardized and then averaged to create the individual’s dispositional religiosity score given that the items were strongly correlated. For example, the average correlation between items was .72 at Wave 14. Operational religiosity. Operational religiosity was assessed using two items. me first item, “How much do your religious or spiritual beliefs help you handle troubles or problems in your life?” was assessed using a 4-point scale ranging from “Quite a bit” to “Not at all.” The second item, “How much are your religious or spiritual beliefs a 80111-08 of strength and comfort to you?” was assessed using a 4-point scale ranging from 23 “No source of strength or comfort” to “A great source of strength and comfort.” These items were standardized and then averaged to create operational religiosity scores for each individual given that the items were strongly correlated. For example, the average correlation between items was .82 at Wave 14. Church attendance. Church attendance was assessed using the item “On average, how often do you attend church or religious services?” This item was assessed using a 5- point scale ranging from “More than once a week” to “Never.” Additionally, this item was standardized in order to be incorporated into the overall religiosity measure. Overall religiosity scores. Empirically, the aforementioned religiosity measures seem to measure one dimension. When all variables (dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance) were incorporated into an exploratory factor analysis, 1 dominant factor emerged at each wave. Across all waves, the first eigenvalue accounted for at least 54% of the variance. Furthermore, the religiosity items yielded a reliable composite across all waves (e.g., alphas range from .92 to .94 for men; .92 to .94 for women, and was .93 for the overall sample for each wave). Therefore, it seemed appropriate to incorporate all of the religiosity variables into one variable measuring overall religiosity for the primary analyses. Religious dissimilarity. Religious dissimilarity refers to the degree to which partners differ on a given variable. Religious dissimilarity was computed for each religiosity variable (overall religiosity, dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance). In order to calculate these variables, I computed a difference score between husbands and wives for each item in the religiosity scale (recall that some items use 4-point scales whereas others use 5-point scales). I then squared the difference 24 before standardizing the items. I then created a composite for each religious dissimilarity measure for each religiosity variable which was than re-standardized. This final standardized composite was the dyadic variable used for all analyses. The religious dissimilarity variable assessed to what extent partners differed on religiosity. Self-Control. In order to assess self-control, I used the Constraint scale of the Iowa Personality Questionnaire (Donnellan, Conger, & Burzette, 2005). Participants rated 12 items on a 5-point scale ranging from “I am not at all like this” to “I am extremely high on this trait.” Each item was coded so it reflected higher amounts of constraint. Example items include “I am careful, I think before I act,” “I am extremely strict. I believe in rules and discipline,” and “I avoid thrills and adventures.” Items were then averaged to create the individual’s self-control score (Wave 14: M = 3.46, SD = .41 , a = .67). The average longitudinal correlation was calculated by averaging the correlation between self-control scores at Waves 10 and 12, the correlation between self- control scores at Waves 12 and 14, and the correlation between self-control scores at Waves 10 and 14. This calculation yielded an average longitudinal correlation of .72. Optimism. Optimism was assessed using the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT- R; Scheier et al., 1994). The LOT-R includes 6 items assessed on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree). The measure used in the current study includes 5 of the 6 LOT-R items. Items were coded to reflect a higher degree of optimism. Sample items included “In uncertain times, I usually expect the best” and “I am Optimistic about my future.” Items were then averaged to create the individual’s self- control score (Wave 14: M = 3.68, SD = .60, a = .81). The average longitudinal correlation was .65. 25 Negative Emotionality. Negative Emotionality was assessed using the Negative Emotionality scale of the IPQ (IPQ; Donnellan et al., 2005). Participants rated 15 items on a 5-point scale ranging from “I am not at all like this” to “I am extremely high on this trait.” Each item was coded so it reflected higher amounts of Negative Emotionality. Example items include “I worry a great deal” and “I am not at all tense, nervous, or wonied” (reverse coded). Items were then averaged to create the individual’s Negative Emotionality score(Wave 14: M = 2.57, SD = .46, a = .80). The average longitudinal correlation was .70. Measures: Mediating Variables Commitment. Commitment was assessed using 3 different measures, all of which were obtained from the Family Transitions Project (Conger, unpublished). These measures include a 2-item personal investment measure, a measure of relationship instability, and a measure assessing marital alternatives. Commitment variables were individually assessed. Descriptive statistics for commitment measures (and all other relationship measures) are reported in Table 5 for the overall sample and gender differences are reported in Table 6 and 7 (for social exchange and social interaction Variables respectively). Cross-sectional correlations for the relationship variable measures are reported in Table 8 and longitudinal correlations are reported in Table 9. Personal investment. The two items used to assess personal investment included “How much do you want your relationship with your partner to continue and be a success?” and “How hard are you willing to work to make your relationship a success?” The items were assessed on 5-point scales and averaged to create a personal investment score. 26 Relationship instability. Relationship instability was assessed using a measure to assess marital distress (Booth, Johnson, & Edwards, 1983). This is a 5-item measure that asks participants how frequently they had thoughts of ending their relationships using a 4-point scale (1 = Yes, within the last 3 months, 5 = Not in the last year). The analyses used in the current study only incorporated 4 of the 5 relationship instability items because both the factor analysis and reliability assessments improved when the item asking if “you and your partner talked about consulting an attorney about a possible separation or divorce” was omitted. Items were coded to reflect a higher degree of relationship instability and were averaged to create a relationship instability score. Sample items included “Has the thought of separating or getting a divorce crossed your mind?” and “Have you discussed separation or divorce from your partner with a close fiiend?” Marital alternatives. Marital alternatives were assessed using the Marital Alternatives Measure (Conger, unpublished). This is an ll-item measure that asks participants questions about how their life would be if their relationship ended using a 5- point scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree). The analyses used in the current study only incorporated 9 of the 11 marital alternatives items because both the factor analysis and reliability assessments improved when the items asking if “You would be able to take care of yourself” and “You could support yourself at your present level” were omitted. Items were coded to reflect a higher degree of perceived well-being if the relationship ended and were averaged to create a marital alternatives score. Sample items included “You could get a better partner” (reverse coded) and “Your life would be ruined.” 27 Shared Interests. Shared interests were assessed using the marital involvement scale from the Family Transitions Project (Conger, unpublished), which is a 24-item measure that assesses how frequently one engages in activities with one’s partner. The analyses used in the current study only incorporated 22 of the 24 shared interest items for two reasons. The item “How often do you and your partner get involved in community, church, or school activities?” was omitted because it asked about religious involvement, which may have confounded the results. The item “How often do you and your partner work together in a family farm or non-farm business?” was also omitted because this action improved the factor analysis assessment. Participants rated each item on a 4-point scale ranging from “Never” to “Often.” Example items include “How often do you and your partner talk about work or school” and “How often do you and your partner play sports together like softball, tennis, volleyball, etc.” Items were averaged to create a shared interest score. Conflict. Participants indicated to what extent their partners engaged in 22 behaviors toward them (BARS; Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004) over the past month, 13 of which were negative. Participants rated each item using a 7-point scale ranging from “Always” to “Never.” Sample items include, “Shout or yell at him/her because you were mad at him/her” and “Criticize you or your ideas.” This measure was coded so that higher scores reflected more negative interactions and items were averaged to create a conflict score. Problem Solving. The 7-item Cooperative Problem Solving Measure (Assad et al., 2007) was used to measure perceptions of the cooperative problem solving ability of one’s partner. Participants rated each item on a 7-point scale ranging from “Always” to 28 “Never” and items were coded so that they reflected higher amounts of cooperative problem solving. Items were averaged to create a problem solving score. Example items include “How often does your partner consider your ideas about solving the problem (reverse scored)” and “How often does your partner blame you for the problem.” Measures: Dependent Variable Relationship Quality. Five items from the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983) were used to assess relationship quality. Participants rated these items on 5-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Example items include “We have a good relationship” and “My relationship with my partner makes me happy.” Descriptive statistics for the QMI are reported in Table 5 for the overall sample and gender differences are reported in Table 7. Cross-sectional correlations for the QMI are reported in Table 8 and longitudinal correlations are reported in Table 9. Measures: Demographic Variables to Control for in the Model Demographic variables were incorporated into the model after the initial assessments were conducted. These variables all have the potential to be associated with religiosity and relationship variables, so it is necessary to incorporate them as controls in the present investigation. Demographic variables include both variables assessed during the adult cross-sectional assessments (income, children, and premarital cohabitation) and variables assessed when the target participant was an adolescent during Wave 1 of the study (relationship with one’s parents and adolescent religiosity). Income. Income is assessed using yearly income for both partners (Wave 14: M = $49,154, SD = $64,244). 29 Children. Both partners were asked if they were parents (Yes or No) at all waves (Wave 14: 64.4% of participants were parents). Additionally, targets were asked at Wave 10 how many children they had (Wave 10: M= 1.01, SD = 1.14). Premarital cohabitation. Participants were asked if they had cohabited with their partners prior to marriage (Yes or No). This assessment was only conducted at Wave 14 (Wave 14: 48.6% reported cohabiting before marriage). Relationship with one ’s parents in adolescence. Relationships with one’s parents were assessed using the target reports of the BARS scale (Donnellan et al., 2004) for each parent obtained from the target during adolescence in 1994 (Wave 1). The BARS measure assessed perceptions of positive and negative behavior that the parent directed toward the adolescent and is the same BARS used to assess conflict behaviors in one’s romantic relationship. Target’s perceptions of parental BARS during adolescence serves as an indicator of family atmosphere during adolescence for the focal participant in the study, although this data was not collected for partners. Scores were obtained for the target participant reporting on both his or her mother (Wave 1: M = 2.50, SD = .91 , a = .95) and his or her father. Items were then averaged to create the individual’s self- control score (Wave 1: M = 2.63, SD = .92, a = .95). Parental scores were significantly correlated (r = .42). Religiosity during adolescence. Initial religiosity reported during adolescence (at Wave 1 in 1994) for targets was incorporated as a moderator into the model after the initial mediation effects had been investigated. Items were similar to those items obtained in later waves used for the religiosity analyses in the current study except that only 1 dispositional religiosity item and only 1 operational religiosity item were collected. 30 Therefore, the composite variable for overall religiosity consisted of 3 items: 1 for each facet. The type of adolescent religiosity used in each assessment corresponded to the religiosity variable used as the independent variable. Adolescent data was not collected for partners. . Procedure Couples were visited at home by trained research staff and each partner completed a series of questionnaires and interviews about their relationship and personal lives separately from their spouse. All individuals were paid approximately $10 per hour of participation (see Conger & Conger, 2002 for a more detailed description of the procedure). Analyses Descriptive statistics. Means, standard deviations, and alphas for the overall sample as well as separate analyses for men and women were calculated. Additionally, d-metric effect sizes, t-tests, and correlations were computed to evaluate gender differences. Correlations were also assessed between the variables of the study (i.e. religiosity and relationship variables were all correlated) and are reported in tables at the end of the dissertation. Cross-Sectional APIM. Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to investigate whether the two partners’ predictors related to each of their outcomes while taking the lack of independence between partner reports into account (e.g., Kashy & Snyder, 1995; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). To address this issue, the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; e.g., Kashy & Kenny, 2000, p. 461 to 466; Kenny et al., 2006; Olsen & Kenny, 2006) and extensions of this modeling approach were used for analyses in order 31 to separately estimate actor and partner effects for dyadic data. Actor effects measure the influence of the person’s predictor variable (i.e. own religiosity) on the person’s outcome variable (i.e. own relationship quality), whereas partner eflects assess the influence of the person’s predictor variable (i.e. own religiosity) on her or his partner’s outcome variable (i.e. partner’s relationship quality). To serve as an initial test of my hypotheses, a series of cross-sectional analyses were conducted that followed the general APIM presented in Figure 2. I conducted these analyses separately for each year (2003, 2005, and 2007) for each religiosity variable as a first step. This was necessary because not every couple completed each wave of data collection and I wanted to first determine if there was a robust pattern of cross-sectional associations. After investigating the direct effect, I tested the ability of each of the proposed mediators to separately mediate the association between religiosity and relationship quality. These mediating variables include both social exchange variables (commitment and shared interests) and social interaction variables (conflict and cooperative problem solving) for both men and women (see Figure 3). Likewise, I used this general fiamework to test for couple similarity effects on religiosity. In order to do this, I incorporated the couple-level religious dissimilarity variables for religiosity into the APIM model that already accounted for the actor and partner effects associated with religiosity. Longitudinal Analyses. Following these extensive cross-sectional analyses, I conducted longitudinal analyses on those couples who had complete data from 2003 to 2007 (N = 502 participants or 251 couples). Data was considered complete if both partners had answered at least one religiosity measure and the quality of marriage index 32 for each year. I made this restriction to maximize sample size issues. 1 first conducted stacked APIM analyses, which are akin to the cross-sectional analyses but use each wave as a pooled replication to capitalize on the benefits of aggregation (see Kashy & Donnellan, in press). Following, these analyses, I used more traditional, lagged longitudinal approaches in order to predict dependent variables at Time T+l (i.e., relationship quality and the set of proposed mediators) from religiosity at Time T. For example, I tested whether religiosity assessed in 2003 predicted Relationship Quality in 2005 controlling for Relationship Quality in 2003. These analyses may not prove fi'uitful given the high degree of stability in relationship constructs for couples in on-going relationships (e.g., Donnellan et al., 2004; Humbad, Donnellan, Iacono, & Burt, 2010; see Kashy & Donnellan, in press for a discussion of this issue). Nonetheless, I conducted an extensive set of these analyses using multilevel modeling approaches for testing the longitudinal APIM as outlined in Kashy and Donnellan (in press). Overview of the Results Chapters Because the number of variables incorporated into this dissertation lends itself to several analyses, the results will be easier to digest if broken up into multiple chapters. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the cross-sectional results and Chapters 5 and 6 investigate the longitudinal results. Finally, Chapter 7 concludes the dissertation with an overall discussion. Within each chapter, a complete investigation of overall religiosity is discussed. However, because the number of results may be overwhelming for the reader, only those results for dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance that 33 differ from the overall religiosity results are discussed in the text. Complete results for each variable are displayed in tables at the end of the dissertation. Each chapter has a slightly different focuses. The results chapters begin with Chapter 3, which investigates the cross-sectional results for analyses involving the regular religiosity variables. Chapter 4 proceeds by examining the religious dissimilarity variables cross-sectionally. Chapter 5 discusses the longitudinal results for the regular religiosity variables. Chapter 6 investigates the religious dissimilarity variables longitudinally. Both of the cross-sectional chapters focus on Wave 14, but briefly explain any differences observed in earlier waves. Similarly, the longitudinal chapters explain how results differed when controlling for the previous year’s relationship quality. For simplicity, complete results for Waves 10 and 12 as well as for the longitudinal results controlling for past relationship quality are reported in tables in separate Appendices for each chapter. A similar layout is followed for Chapters 3 through 6. First, the results obtained when religiosity was the only independent variable in the models are investigated. Brief explanations of the results for each potential mediator are then discussed. Each chapter first tests the original model, and then investigates the same model when incorporating demographic variables (income, children, premarital cohabitation, relationship with parents in adolescence, and adolescent religiosity). From there, a series of models controlling for personality traits (self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality) are examined. Complete results for each separate personality trait (self-control, optimism, or Negative Emotionality as the only control variable) appear in tables at the end of the dissertation, although they are not discussed in the text. Next, an investigation of a 34 composite relationship variable (a variable encompassing all of the relationship mediators) concludes the reporting of results. Finally, the chapter ends with a brief summary of the results. This layout is repeated for the cross-sectional chapters (3: cross- sectional religiosity variables; 4: cross-sectional religious dissimilarity variables) and longitudinal chapters (5: longitudinal religiosity variables; 6: longitudinal religious dissimilarity variables). 35 Chapter 3: Cross-Sectional Analyses This chapter focuses on the cross-sectional analyses. Because a large number of analyses were conducted, the main focus of this chapter is be on overall religiosity, which in this case refers to the overarching variable composed of the average of the standardized variables of dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance (see Ch. 2 for a review of the measures and constructs). F urtherrnore, because results were similar across time points, I discuss the results for Wave 14 in detail for each section because this is the most recent wave of data collection. Tables presenting the Wave 14 results are presented in Appendix 11. Tables displaying the Wave 10 and 12 results are available upon request from the author'. Moreover, because there was no evidence to suggest that gender moderated the association between overall religiosity (or the other religiosity variables) and the relationship variables, gender will not be discussed further. Finally, all reported values were statistically significant at p < .05 unless otherwise noted. Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Variables Overall Religiosity and Relationship Quality. Complete results for Wave 14 are presented in Tables 10 through 12 and results for the other waves are reported in Tables A-l through A-6. Statistically significant actor effects and marginally significant partner effects were observed at Wave 14. These results indicate that individuals higher in religiosity reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction. Likewise, these results suggest that individuals higher in religiosity also had partners who reported higher levels (if relationship satisfaction. However, the effects sizes for these analyses were generally quite modest. Furthermore, actor effects held even when controlling for the demographic ' The author can be reached at kimberlymcadams@boisestate.edu. 36 variables of income, children, premarital cohabitation, family atmosphere during adolescence, and adolescent religiosity (see Tables 14 through 16 for Wave 14 and Tables A—8 through A-13 for Waves 10 and 12). Investigating the Relationship Variable Mediators The results of the initial APIM analyses suggest that there is an actor effect for religiosity and point to hints of a partner effect. The analyses in this subsection evaluated whether there is a cross-sectional connection between religiosity, the various mediating variables, and relationship quality. Each mediator (personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving) was investigated in a separate model. An example cross-sectional process model incorporating personal investment as the mediating variable is displayed in Figure 3. I only tested this model if there was evidence for an association between religiosity and the mediator. As a result, mediational analyses were conducted for actor personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict and cooperative problem solving and for partner personal investment. For each model, I tested whether the proposed mediators were empirically associated with relationship quality using a series of APIM analyses. Results for the APIM analyses testing the relation between the relationship variables and relationship quality are presented in Table 13 (assessments for Waves 10 and 12 are displayed in Table A-7). This table presents information fiom Wave 14 for both actor and partner effects. For each mediational model using the APIM, actor and partner effects were examined using the same type of analyses. Actor tests of mediation investigated the 37 ability of the actor relationship variable to mediate the association between actor religiosity and actor relationship quality (an actor-actor indirect effect). An example actor effect is the ability of women’s personal investment to mediate the association between women’s religiosity and the women’s relationship quality. Partner tests of mediation investigated the ability of the partner relationship variable to mediate the association between partner religiosity and partner relationship quality (a partner-partner indirect effect). An example partner effect is the ability of women’s personal investment to mediate the association between men’s religiosity and men’s relationship quality. In other words, this assessment incorporates the relation between men’s religiosity and women’s personal investment, as well as the link between women’s personal investment and men’s relationship quality. For simplicity, actor effects and partner effects reported in the text refer to actor-actor indirect effects and partner-partner indirect effects respectively. For each APIM assessment tested in this dissertation, actor and partner effects were examined using the same type of analyses. Actor tests of mediation investigated the ability of the actor relationship variable to mediate the association between actor religiosity and actor relationship quality (an actor-actor indirect effect). An example actor effect is the ability of women’s personal investment to mediate the association between women’s religiosity and the women’s relationship quality. Partner tests of mediation investigated the ability of the partner relationship variable to mediate the association between partner religiosity and partner relationship quality (a partner-partner indirect effect). An example partner effect is the ability of women’s personal investment to mediate the association between men’s religiosity and men’s relationship quality. For 38 simplicity, actor effects and partner effects reported in the text refer to actor-actor indirect effects and partner-partner indirect effects respectively. In these analyses, both actor and partner effects emerged for all waves for personal investment, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving. Moreover, although actor effects emerged for relationship instability across all waves, partner effects were not observed at Wave 14. Therefore, mediation was not tested for partner relationship instability at Wave 14. Because the results are extensive and largely follow the same underlying logic, I give an in-depth description of the personal investment results and then provide brief descriptions of results for the other mediating variables, although all results for potential mediators at Wave 14 are reported in Tables 10 through 12. Personal Investment Overall Religiosity and Personal Investment. As a reminder, personal investment was conceptualized as a social exchange variable that assessed the extent to which an individual wanted his or her relationship to succeed and how hard she or he was willing to work at one’s relationship. Both actor and marginal partner effects emerged for this analysis. These results indicate that individuals who were higher on overall religiosity were more committed to their romantic relationships, and had partners who were more committed to their relationships, than those individuals who were lower on overall religiosity. Results are reported in Table 10. Personal Investment and Relationship Quality. These results for the relation between personal investment and relationship quality are the same for each subsequent analysis involving cross-sectional personal investment. Significant actor and partner 39 effects were observed (see Table 13). The significant actor effect indicates that people who reported being more personally invested in their relationships were also more satisfied in their relationships, and the significant partner effect indicates that individuals whose partners were more personally invested in the relationship also reported higher relationship satisfaction. Full Process Model for Overall Religiosity. The last set of models tested the full hypothesized process model linking overall religiosity to relationship quality via self- reports of personal investment for both men and women. The results for the full initial process models are reported in Table 12. Moreover, Figure 3 demonstrates the mediation model incorporating overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality, and is illustrative for all mediation models in this report. The actor effect for overall religiosity predicting relationship quality was reduced in the full model compared to the unmediated relation between overall religiosity and relationship quality, although this value was still significantly different from zero. Therefore, there was evidence of partial mediation for actor effects because, even though the observed values were different fi'om zero, they differed from the unmediated model. Likewise, the partner effect of overall religiosity for the full model was reduced when compared to the parameters in the unmediated model, although the indirect value was significantly different from zero. Other Potential Mediators The other mediating variables I evaluated include relationship instability (i.e. how frequently the individual contemplated or took action toward separating from one’s partner), marital alternatives (i.e. positive perceptions about life without one’s partner), marital involvement (i.e. frequency of spending time with one’s partner), conflict (i.e. 40 perceptions of one’s partner engaging in negative behaVior toward the individual), and cooperative problem solving (i.e. perceptions of one’s partner engaging in positive behaviors toward the individual when faced with a problem). I used a similar analytic approach described for the personal investment variable to investigate these potential mediators, which are discussed concisely in the text. Complete results are reported in Tables 10 through 12. Actor overall religiosity was significantly associated with marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving. Significant effects were not observed for actor overall religiosity with relationship instability. Therefore, it appears that individuals who were higher on religiosity tended to report increased marital involvement and cooperative problem solving, as well as decreased marital alternatives and conflict. In addition to personal investment serving as a mediator, evidence suggests that marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving each partially mediated the association between actor overall religiosity and relationship quality, as shown in Table 12. On the other hand, significant partner effects were not observed for overall religiosity and any of the potential mediators (relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving). Therefore, it appears that one’s religiosity score is not associated with partner perceptions of any of these relationship outcomes. It is also important to underscore the fact that for the conflict and cooperative problem solving assessments, individuals reported on their perceptions of their partners. The actor effect for these variables investigates if one’s religiosity is associated with how the individual reports on his or her partner’s behavior. In other words, this assess if the 41 individual’s religiosity is associated with the individual’s perceptions of his or her partner. The partner effects for conflict and cooperative problem solving investigate if one’s partner’s religiosity is associated with how the individual reports on the partner’s behavior. This assessment basically investigated if one’s partner’s religiosity was associated with how the individual perceived one’s partner. These results are particularly interesting because the partner assessments do not share method variance given that reports of the independent and dependent variables are coming from two different people. In summary, actor overall religiosity was associated with both social exchange and social interaction relationship variables. The only variable that was not associated with actor religiosity was relationship instability. Furthermore, every relationship variable (besides relationship instability) partially mediated the association between actor overall religiosity and relationship quality. These findings illustrate that part of the reason why religiosity is associated with relationship quality is because one’s religiosity is related to both social exchange and social interaction variables. On the other hand, because partner overall religiosity was only associated with relationship quality and marginally associated with personal investment, partner effects do not appear to be as important in these data because partner effects were not obtained for most of the relationship variables. Partner overall religiosity was only associated with the single social exchange variable of personal investment. Therefore, it appears that social exchange and social interaction variables explain why actor overall religiosity is associated with relationship quality in the short-term, although only one social exchange variable explained the association between partner overall religiosity and relationship quality. 42 Discussion ofReligiosity Facets Similar results were obtained for most of the religiosity facets compared to the overall composite at Wave 14 (see Tables 10 through 12). The only interesting finding was that partner dispositional and operational religiosity were associated with personal investment, marital alternatives (operational religiosity only), and cooperative problem solving, whereas partner church attendance was not associated with any relationship variables. Therefore, using overall religiosity cross-sectionally appears to be sufficient when assessing actor religiosity and relationship outcomes, but that it may be beneficial to examine the partner facets of dispositional and operational religiosity. Discussion of Previous Waves Likewise, findings were generally robust across waves (Waves 10, 12, and 14) although there were some slight variations (see Tables A-l through A-6). These results suggest that social exchange and social interaction variables robustly mediate the association between actor overall religiosity and relationship quality, and that the social exchange variable of relationship instability mediates the association between partner overall religiosity and relationship instability. Summary When investigating the association between overall religiosity and relationship variables, there was consistent evidence for statistically significant actor effects. In particular, actor effects for overall religiosity emerged for relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, perceptions of partner negative behavior (conflict), and perceptions of partner cooperative problem solving. Furthermore, each of the relationship variables was found to mediate the 43 association between actor overall religiosity and actor relationship quality. Although there were a few slight deviations during single waves, trends for actor effects were robust. Furthermore, actor effects generally persisted regardless of how religiosity was measured. Findings regarding partner effects were less consistent. Robust partner effects were only observed for relationship quality and relationship instability. However, the ability of partner relationship instability to mediate the association between overall religiosity and relationship quality was not robust. Finally, it appears that the religiosity facets of partner dispositional and partner operational religiosity were associated with more relationship outcomes than was partner church attendance. These findings make sense to the extent that the internal facets of religiosity may be more closely associated with attitudes and values about romantic relationships than with the behavioral measure of church attendance, which does not necessarily tap into an individual’s beliefs. If one’s partner highly values the relationship, this value would likely manifest itself in how the partner treats the individual, which would likely increase the individual’s own relationship satisfaction as well as be associated with other relationship variables. Controlling for Personality Variables In this next section, the results for the analyses controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same model are discussed. It is important to control for each of these traits because they have been associated with religiosity (e. g. self-control: McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; optimism: Salsman et al. 2005; Negative Emotionality: Saroglou, 2002) and/or relationship quality (e. g. optimism: Assad et al., 2007; Negative Emotionality: Donnellan et al., 2007). Complete results for analyses 44 separately controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality are displayed in Tables 17 through 19, 20 through 22, and 23 through 25 respectively (and Wave 10 and 12 results are reported in Tables A-l 0 through A-19, A-20 through A-25, and A-26 through A-31 respectively), although they are not discussed in the text because results were similar when controlling for each traitz. Self-Control, Optimism, and Negative Emotionality. Complete results for Wave 14 are reported in Tables 26 through 28. When controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same analysis, neither actor nor partner effects were significantly associated with relationship quality. Therefore, mediation could not be tested for these analyses. Similarly to the initial analyses, actor effects persisted for personal investment and marital alternatives, although actor effects did not persist for marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving. Additionally, partner effects were no longer observed for personal investment. Religiosity Facets. When controlling for all traits, similar results were obtained for each of the religiosity facets compared to overall religiosity (results are displayed in Tables 26 through 28). Each facet was only associated with actor personal investment and actor marital alternatives. Therefore, when controlling for multiple personality variables, it does not appear to be necessary to separately assess religiosity facets. Previous Waves. When controlling for all personality traits, although there were a few differences between waves, results obtained at Waves 10 and 12 were fairly similar 2 Significant results were obtained at multiple waves between overall religiosity and self-control regarding relationship quality, personal investment, and marital alternatives; between overall religiosity and optimism regarding relationship quality, personal investment, marital alternatives, and conflict; and between overall religiosity and Negative Emotionality regarding relationship quality, personal investment, marital alternatives, marital involvement, and conflict. Each religiosity facet was consistently associated with actor personal investment and actor marital alternatives when controlling for each trait separately. 45 to the Wave 14 findings (results for Waves 10 and 12 are reported in Tables A-32 through A-3 7). Summary. In sum, actor effects held for personal investment and marital alternatives when controlling for all personality traits. Significant findings were observed at multiple waves and were associated with each religiosity facet. Therefore, it appears that social exchange variables are robustly associated with actor overall religiosity and the religiosity facets even when controlling for personality traits. Examining All Relationship Variables In this next section, I examine the cross-sectional results of the model including all of the relationship variables in the same analysis. I first attempted to investigate each of the potential mediators in the same analysis by using a structural equation model that incorporated all mediating variables into one overarching, unobserved relationship mediator variable3 . However, even though results provided evidence for mediation", model fit was poor5 (perhaps due to measurement issues). Likewise, structural equation results are not reported in the text in subsequent chapters because fit was equally poor for each model, although results for the structural equation models are available upon request. 3 A factor analysis of all of the relationship variables reflected one overarching factor (factor loadings ranged from an absolute value of .63 to .88 for Wave 14). Results were similar for each wave. Even when attempting to force two factors to emerge, each relationship variable loaded on the fust factor above .6. 4 Mediation was tested using a structural equation modeling framework in which I compared the fit of the model without direct paths from overall religiosity to relationship quality to a model that included those paths. If I was able to drop the direct paths without significantly impairing overall model fit, then I concluded that there was evidence of full mediation (see Donnellan et al., 2007). In other words, I assessed mediation by comparing the indices of fit of the full model (including direct actor and partner paths) to the indices of fit of the reduced model (lacking direct actor and partner paths; see Preacher & Hayes, 2004). 5 The fit of the full model was poor when incorporating all paths, including the covariance between actor and partner independent variables and error terms for mediation and dependent variables (X2 = 677.42, df = 93, CMIN/df= 7.28; RMSEA = .12; AIC = 795.42). Model fit was slightly improved for some of the indices of fit (X2 = 680.92, df= 95, CMIN/df= 7.17, RMSEA = .12; AIC = 794.92) when examining the indirect model, although the model still fit poorly. Because the overall fit of the model was not significantly reduced for all waves, and was actually slightly improved when the direct paths were dropped, the results suggest that the relationship variables may mediate the association between overall religiosity and relationship quality. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the poor model fit. 46 Instead, these chapters only discuss analyses investigating the composite relationship variable (similar to the series of analyses reported below). Because the structural equation model fit was poor, I tested the overall model encompassing all variables using a series of APIM assessments. In order to do this, I first standardized each of the relationship variables (except relationship quality). Next, because some variables were negatively associated with relationship quality whereas others were positively associated with relationship quality, I multiplied the Z-scores for relationship instability, marital alternatives, and conflict by -1. A composite relationship variable was then created by taking the mean of the standardized romantic relationship variables. This was done for each wave for both actor and partner composite variables. Finally, each of these composite variables was then standardized. Results for each of the APIM models for Wave 14 are displayed in Table 29. When including the composite variable into the analyses, actor effects were observed for each religiosity variable (overall religiosity, dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance) at Wave 14. Actor effects were also observed for each religiosity variable at Waves 10 and 12 (with the exception of church attendance at Wave 12; see Tables A-38 and A-39). Additionally, partner effects were obtained for dispositional and operational religiosity at Wave 14. Although partner effects were obtained for each religiosity variable at Wave 12, partner effects were not observed at Wave 10. Furthermore, there was robust evidence for partial partner mediation. Whereas the actor composite only mediated the association between operational religiosity and relationship quality at Wave l2, evidence for partial mediation was obtained for each eligible partner assessment (all religiosity variables at Wave 12 and dispositional and operational religiosity at Wave 14). Therefore, it appears that the 47 actor facets are interchangeable when looking at direct effects and that there was little evidence for actor mediation. Moreover, partner dispositional and partner operational religiosity appear to have more robust associations with the composite variable than either overall religiosity or church attendance. Overall Summary of the Chapter It appears that religiosity is associated with relationship variables, at least regarding actor effects. In the discussion below, only those analyses that were robust across waves (meaning significant results were obtained for 2 or more waves) are reported. When only religiosity was assessed (without control variables), actor effects were significantly associated with relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving. Evidence suggests that each of the relationship variables mediated the association between actor overall religiosity and relationship quality. Each religiosity facet was associated with each relationship variable in the original assessment for Wave 14 (except for actor church attendance on relationship quality). Partner effects were less consistent. Robust partner effects were only obtained for relationship quality and relationship instability. Evidence for mediation was not robust for relationship instability. Furthermore, the facets of dispositional and operational religiosity (the more personal facets) appeared to be more closely related to relationship quality than the more outwardly observable variable of church attendance. In other words, it appears that facets of religiosity, and not just the overall composite, should be investigated when examining partner effects. 48 When controlling for the personality traits of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same model, actor overall religiosity was robustly related to personal investment and marital alternatives across waves, as was each religiosity facet at Wave 14. Therefore, there is strong evidence suggesting that actor religiosity is associated with the social exchange variables of personal investment and marital alternatives above and beyond the effects of personality; these effects persisted regardless of how religiosity was assessed. Across each model, actor overall religiosity was robustly associated with personal investment and marital alternatives. These results suggest that religiosity is generally associated with relationship outcomes even when controlling for other variables. Effects were more robust for those variables that can be construed as social exchange variables (i.e. personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement). Furthermore, when conceptualizing religiosity as consisting of three unique facets, it appears that the more personal facets of dispositional and operational religiosity are consistently associated with relationship outcomes beyond personal investment and marital alternatives. 49 Chapter 4: Cross-Sectional Analyses for the Religious Dissimilarity Variables This chapter focuses on the cross-sectional religious dissimilarity analyses. A religious dissimilarity basically refers to couple similarity. In this case, the religious dissimilarity captures couple differences for religiosity. As stated in Ch. 2, in order to test for couple dissimilarity effects, I computed a difference score between husbands and wives for each item in the religiosity scale. Next, I squared the difference and then standardized the items. Then, I created a composite score which was re-standardized. These couple-level variables were incorporated into the original APIM models that already included the actor and partner religiosity effects. In other words, this series of analyses examines if couple dissimilarity effects are associated with relationship outcomes above and beyond those effects of actor and partner religiosity. Although actor and partner effects are available from the author, the discussion in the text focuses on religious dissimilarity. Religious Dissimilarity Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Variables Relationship Quality. Results for all religious dissimilarity effects are reported in Tables 30 through 32 and actor and partner effects are listed in Tables A-40 and A-41 (available from the author). The religious dissimilarity (DI) for overall religiosity was significantly associated with relationship quality above and beyond actor and partner religiosity. These results indicate that husband and wives who reported a larger difference on overall religiosity were less satisfied with their relationships. Results held when controlling for demographics (see Tables 33 through 35 for Wave 14 religious dissimilarity effects; Tables A-42 and 43 for Wave 14 actor and partner effects; Tables 50 A-59 through A-64 for Wave 10 and 12 religious dissimilarity effects; Tables A-9l through A-94 for Wave 10 and 12 actor and partner effects). Mediators. The results of the initial APIM analyses suggest that larger partner differences on overall religiosity are negatively associated with relationship quality. The next set of analyses evaluated whether there was a cross-sectional association between religious dissimilarity for overall religiosity, the mediating variables, and relationship quality. Each mediator (personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving) was investigated in a separate model. Mediation was tested regarding both actor and partner effects (e. g. the ability of actor personal investment to mediate the association between the religious dissimilarity for overall religiosity and actor relationship quality, as well as the ability of partner personal investment to mediate the association between overall religiosity religious dissimilarity and partner relationship quality). Furthermore, mediation was only tested if there was an association between religiosity and the mediator. The results for the APIM analyses testing the relation between the relationship variables and relationship quality are presented in Table 11 and are the same as those values discussed in Ch. 3. To reiterate, all variables were significantly associated with relationship quality with the exception of partner relationship instability at Wave 14. All religious dissimilarity results are reported in Tables 30 through 32. Significant religious dissimilarity effects for overall religiosity at Wave 14 were only observed for relationship instability and marital involvement. Therefore, it appears that couples who differ on overall religiosity to a greater extent experience more relationship instability and tend to spend less time together. Evidence also suggests that both actor 51 and partner marital involvement and actor relationship instability partially mediate the association between the religious dissimilarity for overall religiosity and relationship quality. Religiosity Facets. Several differences between the results obtained for the religious dissimilarity effects for overall religiosity and the results obtained regarding the religiosity facets during Wave 14 emerged (see Tables 30 through 32). For example, although significant overall religiosity dissimilarity effects were obtained, effects were not observed for either dispositional or operational religious dissimilarity on marital involvement or for operational religious dissimilarity on relationship quality or relationship instability. Moreover, although effects were not observed for overall religiosity, church attendance dissimilarity was related to personal investment and conflict. Likewise, each of these actor and partner variables partially mediated the association between church attendance dissimilarity and relationship quality. It therefore appears that church attendance dissimilarity may be more strongly associated with relationship outcomes compared to the other religiosity variables. In other words, couples who differ on their frequency of church attendance are (likely to have more negative and fewer positive romantic relationship outcomes. Previous Waves. When examining overall religiosity religious dissimilarity effects for the previous years, results for Waves 10 and 12 were generally similar to findings observed for Wave 14 (see Tables A-53 through A-58 for religious dissimilarity effects and Tables A-9l through 94 for actor and partner effects). The only differences were that during both Waves 10 and 12, dispositional religious dissimilarity was not 52 associated with relationship instability, operational religious dissimilarity was associated with marital involvement, and church attendance dissimilarity was associated with marital alternatives. Summary. When investigating the association between religious dissimilarity for overall religiosity and relationship variables, several significant effects emerged above and beyond the effects for actor and partner religiosity. Effects were observed for relationship quality, relationship instability, and marital involvement at Wave 14, as was evidence for mediation. These effects were robust at multiple waves. Furthermore, an investigation of the religiosity facet dissimilarities suggest that partner differences on church attendance may be more important to assess when investigating relationship variables than either the other facets or the overall religiosity composite. Controlling for Personality Variables In this next section, the results for the analyses controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same assessment are discussed. Religious dissimilarity results for analyses separately controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality during Wave 14 are displayed in Tables 36 through 38, 39 through 41, and 42 through 44 respectively (actor and partner effects are displayed in Tables A-44 and 45, A-46 and A-47, A-48 and A49; Wave 10 and 12 religious dissimilarity effects are listed in Tables A-65 through 70, A-7l through A-76, and A-77 through A-82; Wave 10 and 12 actor and partner effects are reported in Tables A-99 through A-102, A-103 through A-lO6, and A-107 through A-l 10 respectively), although they are not reported in the text because results were similar when controlling for each of these variables". 6 Robust significant results were obtained at multiple waves between overall religious dissimilarity and self-control regarding relationship quality, relationship instability, and marital involvement; between 53 Self—Control, Optimism, and Negative Emotionality. Religious dissimilarity results for Wave 14 are reported in Tables 45 through 47 (actor and partner effects are listed in Tables A-50 and A-51). When controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same analysis, religious dissimilarity effects remained associated with relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, and marital involvement. Evidence for mediation was observed for actor relationship instability and for actor and partner personal investment and marital involvement. Religiosity Facets. When controlling for all traits, several differences were observed between the results obtained for overall religiosity dissimilarity and the results obtained for the religiosity facet dissimilarity variables during Wave 14 (see Tables 45 through 47). Although overall religious dissimilarity effects were obtained, dispositional religious dissimilarity was not associated with personal investment or marital involvement, or for operational religiosity dissimilarity regarding relationship quality, personal investment, or relationship instability. Previous Waves. The Wave 10 and 12 results were fairly similar to results obtained at Wave 14 (see Tables A-83 through A-88 for Wave 10 and 12 religious dissimilarity effects; Tables A-l 11 through A-l 14 for Wave 10 and 12 actor and partner effects). Summary. When controlling for personality traits, religious dissimilarity effects were robust for relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, and marital involvement. It appears that religious dissimilarity effects are driven mainly by overall religious dissimilarity and optimism regarding relationship quality, relationship instability, and marital involvement; and between overall religious dissimilarity and Negative Emotionality regarding relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, and marital involvement. Church attendance was consistently associated with more relationship variables than any other facet. 54 partner differences on church attendance. When investigating both personality traits and relationship outcomes, it may be sufficient to assess church attendance. Examining All Relationship Variables I tested the overall model investigating all relationship variables simultaneously by using a series of APIM assessments following the procedure discussed in Ch. 3. Religious dissimilarity results for each of the APIM models at Wave 14 are displayed in Table 48 (actor and partner results are displayed in Table A-52). The composite variable analyses yielded marginally significant results for overall religiosity dissimilarity at Wave 14, and effects were observed at Waves 10 and 12 (see Tables A-89 and A-9O for religious dissimilarity effects and Tables A-115 and A-116 for actor and partner effects). Evidence for partial mediation was obtained for the actor and partner relationship composite variables at Waves 12 and 14. Moreover, church attendance dissimilarity was the only religiosity facet that was significantly associated with the composite relationship variable at Wave 14. Evidence for partial mediation was obtained for the actor composite variable regarding church attendance. Therefore, the associations for the composite variable appear to mirror what was observed when examining each relationship variable separately: church attendance dissimilarity was cross-sectionally associated with relationship outcomes to a greater extent than the other religiosity facets. Overall Summary of the Chapter It appears that religious dissimilarity for religiosity is associated with a few relationship variables cross-sectionally. In the discussion below, only those analyses that were robust across waves (meaning significant results were obtained for 2 or more waves) are delineated. Because each possible test for mediation yielded evidence for partial mediation, these effects are not discussed in detail for each assessment. 55 In the original assessment (without control variables), religious dissimilarity effects were associated with relationship quality, relationship instability, and marital involvement such that couples who were more dissimilar to each other on overall religiosity were less satisfied, had increased relationship instability, and spent less time together than couples who were similar on overall religiosity. Furthermore, church attendance dissimilarity was associated with each of the original variables in addition to personal investment, marital alternatives, and conflict. Therefore, it appears that short- term partner differences on church attendance are more closely related to romantic relationship outcomes than any other religious dissimilarity variable. When all personality traits (self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality) were controlled for in the model, overall religiosity dissimilarity was robustly related to relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, and marital involvement. Additionally, church attendance dissimilarity was the only dissimilarity variable that was associated with each of these relationship constructs. Similar patterns were observed when examining the relationship composite score: church attendance dissimilarity was the only facet at Wave 14 that was associated with this variable. Across analyses, it appears that overall religiosity dissimilarity is associated with relationship outcomes, and the facet of church attendance appears to be driving this association. Across each model, overall religiosity dissimilarity was only robustly associated with relationship quality and the social exchange variables of relationship instability and marital involvement, whereas church attendance dissimilarity was robustly associated with these variables in addition to the social exchange variable of personal investment. Likewise, conflict was associated with church attendance dissimilarity when personality 56 was omitted from the model. Therefore, it appears that partner differences in overall religiosity are associated with decreased relationship quality and marital involvement, as well as with increased relationship instability. These effects are likely driven by church attendance differences. Partners who differ on church attendance are also likely to report decreased personal investment, as well as to perceive their partners as engaging in more negative behaviors. Therefore, partner differences regarding church attendance may be more essential to understanding relationship outcomes than other religious dissimilarity religiosity variables. 57 Chapter 5: Longitudinal Analyses This chapter focuses on the longitudinal analyses. In order to be included in these analyses, partners had to have at least completed the religiosity measures and relationship quality measures for 2003, 2005, and 2007 (N = 502 participants, or 251 couples). Because a large'number of analysis were conducted, the main focus of this chapter is on overall religiosity, which in this case refers to the overarching variable composed of an average of the standardized variables of dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance. I first discuss the basic model investigating overall religiosity, relationship quality, and possible mediators. This stacked APIM model is a more robust method for testing cross-sectional results. Next, any different results that were obtained when investigating the religiosity facets are discussed before I investigate the model controlling for personality traits. From there, I assess the longitudinal results using a cross-lagged design. In these models, current relationship quality is predicted from the previous wave’s religiosity and the previous wave’s relationship quality while controlling for the previous wave’s relationship quality. When these analyses were extended to address issues of mediation, current levels of relationship quality and the mediators are predicted fi'om the previous wave’s religiosity when controlling for the previous wave’s relationship quality. I elected to use the current mediators instead of the previous wave’s mediators because I wanted to focus on the ability of religiosity to predict relationship outcomes. Tables are reported in Appendix II. Stacked APIM Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Variables For each multilevel model in this section, actor and partner religiosity were treated as the upper-level predictors and yearly relationship variables were treated as the 58 outcome variables. Results are reported in Tables 49 through 51 and an example stacked APIM model is depicted in Figure 4. Additionally, significant associations between potential actor and partner mediators and relationship quality were observed (see Table 52). Therefore, this association was not a limiting factor for investigating mediation. Overall Religiosity and Relationship Quality. Both actor and partner effects were observed for this analysis. These results suggest that there is both an association between the individual’s overall religiosity and the individual’s relationship satisfaction, as well as between the individual’s overall religiosity and her or his partner’s relationship satisfaction. Results are displayed in Tables 49 through 51. When controlling for demographic variables, partner religiosity remained an important predicator of relationship quality. The results of the initial stacked APIM model suggest that the partner effect for overall religiosity remains after controlling for demographic variables although the actor effect does not. This result may have occurred for two reasons. First, it possible that partner effects may become more pronounced over the long-term as partners learn more about each other’s beliefs and values, which in turn may affect relationship outcomes. Second, it is possible that because one’s own religiosity is fairly stable fi'om adolescence to adulthood, this association may have eliminated the actor effects. Complete results are reported in Tables 53 through 55. Investigating the Relationship Variable Mediators The results of the initial model suggest there are both actor and partner effects for religiosity. The analyses in this subsection evaluated whether there is an association between religiosity, the mediating variables, and relationship quality using the stacked APIM assessment. Each mediator (personal investment, relationship instability, marital 59 alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving) was investigated in a separate model. An example stacked APIM process model incorporating personal investment as the mediating variable is displayed in Figure 4. For each model, I tested whether the proposed mediator was empirically associated with relationship quality using a series of stacked APIM models. Results for these analyses testing the relation between the relationship variables and relationship quality are presented in Table 52. This table presents information for both actor and partner effects. In these analyses, actor effects emerged for all variables (personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and problem solving) and partner effects were obtained for relationship instability and cooperative problem solving. Moreover, evidence for partial mediation was obtained for each of these variables. Because the results are extensive, I give an in-depth description of the personal investment results so the reader can comprehend the steps taken to test for actor and partner associations as well as understand how mediation was tested. Brief descriptions of results are reported for the other mediating variables, although all longitudinal results for potential mediators are reported in Tables 49 through 51. Personal Investment Overall Religiosity and Personal Investment. Although actor effects were observed for this analysis, partner effects were not. These results suggest that there is an association between the individual’s overall religiosity and the individual’s personal investment across waves. Results are displayed in Table 49. 60 Personal Investment and Relationship Quality. Both actor and partner effects were observed for this analysis. These results suggest that there is both a longitudinal association between the individual’s personal investment and the individual’s yearly relationship satisfaction, as well as between the individual’s personal investment and her or his partner’s relationship satisfaction. Results are displayed in Table 52. Full Process Model for Overall Religiosity. The last model tested the full hypothesized process model linking overall religiosity to relationship quality via self- reports of personal investment for both men and women. The results for the full initial process model are reported in Table 51. Moreover, Figure 4 demonstrates the mediation model incorporating overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality, and is illustrative for all mediation models in this section of the chapter. Actor overall religiosity effects predicting relationship quality were reduced in the firll model compared to the unmediated relation between overall religiosity and relationship quality. Therefore, there was evidence of partial mediation for actor effects because even though the observed value was different from zero, it was reduced compared to the unmediated model. Other Potential Mediators I used a similar analytic approach described for the personal investment variable to investigate the potential mediators of relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving, which are discussed concisely in the text. Complete results are reported in Tables 49 through 51. Actor overall religiosity was significantly associated with relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving. 61 Therefore, it appears that individuals who were higher on religiosity tended to report increased marital involvement and cooperative problem solving, as well as decreased relationship instability, marital alternatives and conflict. In addition to personal involvement serving as a mediator, evidence suggests that relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving each partially mediated the association between actor overall religiosity and relationship quality, as shown in Table 51. Significant partner effects were only observed for the potential mediators of relationship instability and cooperative problem solving. Evidence for partial mediation was obtained for each of these variables. Therefore, it appears that one’s religiosity score is associated with one’s partner perceptions of relationship instability and one’s partner’s perceptions of the individual’s cooperative problem solving behavior. In summary, actor overall religiosity was associated with both social exchange and social interaction relationship variables. Furthermore, every relationship variable partially mediated the association between actor overall religiosity and relationship quality. Additionally, partner religiosity was associated with the social exchange variable of relationship instability as well as with the social interaction variable of cooperative problem solving. Evidence for partner partial mediation was obtained in each case. These findings illustrate that part of the reason why religiosity is associated with relationship quality is because one’s religiosity, as well as one’s partner’s religiosity, is related to both social exchange and social interaction variables. Discussion of Religiosity Facets 62 Results were generally similar to the overall religiosity assessments when investigating the religiosity facets (see Tables 49 through 52). The main difference was that, when investigating partner effects, it appears that operational religiosity is associated with more relationship variables than either dispositional religiosity or church attendance. Therefore, it appears that although the religiosity facets may be interchangeable when assessing actor effects, the more personal, internal facet of operational religiosity may be the most important component when investigating partner effects. Summary The longitudinal results between overall religiosity and the relationship variables were similar to the cross-sectional results. Actor effects for overall religiosity emerged for relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, perceptions of partner negative behavior, and perceptions of partner cooperative problem solving. Likewise, partner effects were observed for relationship quality, relationship instability, and perceptions of actor cooperative problem solving. Furthermore, there was evidence for mediation for each of these relationship variables. Moreover, although actor effects persisted regardless of how religiosity was defined, results varied for the partner religiosity facets. Partner operational religiosity was related to more relationship variables than any other measure of religiosity, whereas partner church attendance was not associated with any relationship variables Controlling for Personality Variables In this next section, the results for the analyses controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same assessment are discussed. Complete 63 results for analyses separately controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality are displayed in Tables 56 through 58, 59 through 61, and 62 through 64 respectively. However, these assessments are not reported in the text because they were fairly similar7. Self-Control, Optimism, and Negative Emotionality. Complete stacked APIM results are reported in Tables 65 through 67. When controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same analysis, neither actor nor partner effects were significantly associated with relationship quality. Therefore, mediation could not be tested for these analyses. Moreover, similar to the initial analyses, actor effects persisted for personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement although actor effects did not persist for relationship instability, conflict, or cooperative problem solving. Partner effects were not observed for any variable. Religiosity Facets. When controlling for all traits, similar results were obtained for each of the religiosity facets compared to overall religiosity (results are displayed in Table 31). Summary. Actor effects held for personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement when controlling for all personality traits. Significant were obtained for each religiosity facet. Therefore, it appears that social exchange variables are robustly associated with actor overall religiosity and the religiosity facets even when 7 Significant results were obtained between actor overall religiosity and both self-control and optimism regarding relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, and conflict; and between actor overall religiosity and Negative Emotionality regarding relationship quality, personal investment, marital alternatives, marital involvement, and conflict. Likewise, significant partner effects were observed between overall religiosity and self-control regarding relationship quality, relationship instability, and cooperative problem solving; and between partner overall religiosity and both optimism and Negative Emotionality regarding relationship instability. Finally, although actor facets yielded fairly similar results, it appears that operational religiosity was the most important partner facet when controlling for personality traits. 64 controlling for personality traits, although this is not the case for social interaction variables. Examining All Relationship Variables I tested the overall model encompassing all variables by using a series of stacked APIMs similar to the procedure discussed in Ch. 3. Results for each of theses models are displayed in Table 68. The composite variable analyses yielded significant actor and partner effects for all religiosity facets except for partner church attendance. Evidence for partial mediation was obtained for the actor composite for operational religiosity and church attendance and for the partner composite for overall, dispositional, and operational religiosity. All effects persisted when controlling for past year’s relationship quality, although actor mediation was no longer observed for operational religiosity. Therefore, the associations for the composite variable appear to reflect the trend observed when examining each relationship variable separately in that actor effects were observed for each religiosity facet. However, although partner effects were not observed for many variables when investigating each construct separately, it appears that the partner effects are significant when aggregating the relationship variables for all religiosity facets except for church attendance. This is similar to the initial analysis in that partner church attendance was the only variable that was not associated with any relationship outcomes. Cross-Logged Longitudinal Analyses For each multilevel model in this section, the previous wave’s actor and partner religiosity were treated as the upper-level predictors and yearly relationship variables were treated as the outcome variables. Additionally, each assessment controlled for the previous wave’s relationship quality. Results are reported in Tables 69 through 72 and an example cross-lagged longitudinal model is depicted in Figure 5. 65 Overall Religiosity and Relationship Quality. Partner previous wave overall religiosity was significantly associated with current relationship quality, although previous actor overall religiosity was not. These results suggest that there is an association between the individual’s previous overall religiosity and her or his partner’s relationship satisfaction. Results are displayed in Table 70. Investigating the Relationship Variable Mediators The results of the initial model suggest there are partner effects for previous wave’s religiosity when predicting current levels of relationship quality. The analyses in this subsection evaluated whether there is an association between previous religiosity and the current social exchange and social interaction variables, and if current relationship variables mediated the association between past partner religiosity and current relationship quality using cross-lagged APIM assessments. Each mediator (personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving, as well as the relationship composite variable) was investigated in a separate model. An example cross-lagged APIM process model incorporating personal investment as the mediating variable is displayed in Figure 5 and the results for these analyses testing the relation between the past religiosity and the current relationship variables are presented in Tables 69 through 72. This table presents information for both actor and partner effects. In these analyses, actor effects for previous wave’s religiosity emerged for the social exchange variables of personal investment, marital alternatives and marital involvement, as well as for the composite relationship variable. Partner effects for previous wave’s religiosity were obtained for the social exchange variables of personal investment and relationship instability, for the 66 social interaction variable of cooperative problem solving, and for the overall composite. Moreover, evidence for partial mediation for the partner variable was obtained for each of these variables (it was not possible to test for actor mediation because actor religiosity for the previous wave was not associated with the current wave’s relationship quality. Given that the results are extensive, I will present an in-depth description of the personal investment results so the reader can comprehend the steps taken to test for actor and partner associations as well as to more clearly understand how mediation was tested. Brief descriptions of results are reported for the other mediating variables, although all longitudinal results for potential mediators are reported in Tables 69 through 72. Personal Investment Overall Religiosity and Personal Investment. Actor and partner effects were observed for this analysis. These results suggest that there is an association between the individual’s previous overall religiosity and the individual’s current personal investment, as well as between the individual’s previous overall religiosity and one’s partner’s current personal investment longitudinally. Results are displayed in Table 69. Personal Investment and Relationship Quality. Both actor and partner effects were observed for this analysis, and are the same results as were reported for the stacked APIM assessment. These statistical effects suggest that there is both an association between the individual’s current personal investment and the individual’s current relationship satisfaction, as well as between the individual’s current personal investment and her or his partner’s current relationship satisfaction. Results are displayed in Table 52. 67 Full Process Model for Overall Religiosity. The last model tested the full hypothesized process model linking previous overall religiosity to current relationship quality via self-reports of current personal investment for both men and women. The results for the full initial process model are reported in Table 71. Moreover, Figure 5 demonstrates the mediation model incorporating previous overall religiosity, current personal investment, and current relationship quality, and is illustrative for all mediation models in this section of the chapter. Although it was not possible to test for actor mediation, the association between previous partner overall religiosity and current relationship quality was reduced in the full model compared to the unmediated relation between previous partner overall religiosity and current relationship quality. Therefore, there was evidence of partial mediation for partner effects because even though the observed values were different from zero, they were reduced compared to the unmediated model. Other Potential Mediators I used a similar analytic approach described for the personal investment variable to investigate the potential mediators of relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving, as well as the composite relationship variable, which are discussed concisely in the text. Complete results are reported in Tables 69 through 72. Previous actor overall religiosity was significantly associated with current marital alternatives, marital involvement, and the relationship composite variable. Therefore, it appears that individuals who were higher on religiosity during the previous wave of assessment tended to report decreased marital alternatives, increased marital involvement, 68 and a higher relationship composite score at the current wave of assessment, as shown in Tables 69 through 72. Previous partner overall religiosity was significantly associated with current relationship instability, cooperative problem solving, and the relationship composite variable. Evidence for partial mediation was obtained for each of these variables. Therefore, it appears that having a higher previous religiosity score is associated with one’s partner having lower perceptions of relationship instability, the partner having more positive perceptions of the individual’s cooperative problem solving behavior, and one’s partner having a higher relationship composite score. In summary, the previous wave’s actor overall religiosity was only associated with current social exchange variables, whereas partner previous overall religiosity was associated with both current social exchange and current social interaction variables. Furthermore, every eligible relationship variable partially mediated the association between past partner overall religiosity and current relationship quality. These findings illustrate that part of the reason why religiosity is associated with relationship quality is because one’s previous religiosity is related to current social exchange variables and because one’s partner’s previous religiosity, is related to both current social exchange and social interaction variables. Discussion of Religiosity Facets Results were generally similar to the overall religiosity assessments when investigating the religiosity facets for the previous wave (see Tables 69 through 72). The main difference was that past actor and partner dispositional and operational religiosity were associated with more relationship variables than the facet of church attendance. 69 Therefore, it appears that over time, church attendance is not as important to understanding the association between religiosity and relationship quality when compared to the more internal, or personal facets. Summary The longitudinal results between overall religiosity and the relationship variables were similar to the cross-sectional results in that actor effects emerged for the social exchange variables of personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement when predicting current relationship outcomes from the previous wave’s religiosity. However, although actor effects were observed cross-sectionally for overall religiosity when predicting relationship quality, relationship instability, perceptions of partner negative behavior, and perceptions of partner cooperative problem solving, these associations were not observed over time. On the other hand, additional partner effects were observed over time. In addition to partner religiosity being associated with relationship quality, relationship instability, and perceptions of actor cooperative problem solving, previous partner religiosity was also predictive of current personal investment. Furthermore, there was evidence for partial mediation for each of these relationship variables. Moreover, past actor and partner religiosity were predictive of more relationship outcomes than church attendance. Therefore, it appears to be more important to investigate the more internal, or personal facets of religiosity for longitudinal assessments. Overall Summary for the Chapter It appears that religiosity is associated with relationship variables longitudinally. First, when investigating the basic stacked APIM (without control variables), actor 70 effects was obtained for relationship quality, personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, and conflict. In addition, evidence suggests that each of the relationship variables mediated the association between actor overall religiosity and relationship quality in the original analyses, although only relationship instability continued to mediate this association when controlling for past year’s relationship quality. Each religiosity facet was associated with each of the aforementioned relationship variables in the original assessment. However, when investigating the predictive analyses, although past actor religiosity was associated with personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement, and it was not possible to test for mediation. Therefore, it appears that actor effects may be more important cross-sectionally than longitudinally. Furthermore, actor social exchange variables remained associated with religiosity in the longitudinal assessment, although this was not the case for social interaction variables. Finally, it appears that actor and partner dispositional and operational religiosity may be more important to understanding the longitudinal association between religiosity and relationship variables than the facet of church attendance. Partner effects consistently emerged for religiosity when predicting relationship quality, relationship instability, and cooperative problem solving in both the stacked cross-sectional analyses as well as for the longitudinal assessment. Evidence for partner partial mediation was obtained for both assessments for both variables. It also appears that the religiosity facets of dispositional and operational religiosity were driving the association between overall religiosity and relationship instability and that operational religiosity was driving the association between overall religiosity and cooperative 7l problem solving. Therefore, the internal (or personal) religiosity facets were more strongly associated with relationship variables than the outwardly observable variable of church attendance. When controlling for all personality traits (self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality) in the same model, actor effects persisted for personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement. These effects persisted when controlling for past relationship quality. Each religiosity facet was associated with each aforementioned actor variable. However, partner effects were not observed for religiosity and any of the relationship variables when controlling for each personality trait in the same analysis. In this series of assessments, actor effects for religiosity were consistently observed for the social exchange variables of personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement, and partner effects were robustly related relationship quality, as well as to the social exchange variable of relationship instability and the social interaction variable of cooperative problem solving. Additionally, it appears that whereas most religiosity facets were generally associated with significant actor effects for both social exchange and social interaction variables, past actor dispositional and operational religiosity were associated with more current relationship variables than church attendance. On the other hand, partner dispositional and operational religiosity (the internal, personal facets) may be more closely associated with relationship outcomes than church attendance. This finding may have occurred because individuals may more easily recognize how their partners use their faith daily after having been exposed to these behavior patterns over time. It is therefore likely that these behaviors in turn may more 72 noticeably affect relationship outcomes than when partners were oblivious to each other’s dispositional and operational religiosity when they first became a couple. 73 Chapter 6: Longitudinal Analyses for the Religious Dissimilarity Variables This chapter examines the longitudinal religious dissimilarity analyses. A religious dissimilarity basically refers to couple differences (see Ch. 4 for an explanation of how this was calculated). As stated in the previous chapter, the 251 couples (502 participants) who had completed the religiosity measures and relationship quality measures for 2003, 2005, and 2007 were included in these analyses. Because a large number of analyses were conducted, the main focus of this chapter is on overall religiosity dissimilarity (which are reported in Tables in Appendix II), although actor and partner effects for these assessments are reported in tables in Appendix V, and are available upon request. The format of this chapter is similar to that of the previous chapter. Analyses for the original overall religiosity assessments are first presented before investigating the religiosity facets in each subsection. From there, cross-lagged analyses are conducted for the basic assessments (without controlling for any other variables). The cross-lagged assessments investigate if previous wave’s religious dissimilarity is associated with current relationship quality over and above the effects of the past year’s relationship quality as well as actor and partner religiosity effects (tables for religious dissimilarity are presented in Appendix II, and actor and partner effects are available upon request). Finally, a summary of the results concludes each subsection. Religious Dissimilarity Religiosity Results without Controlling for Other Variables Relationship Quality. Results for all religious dissimilarity effects are reported in Tables 73 through 75 in Appendix II and actor and partner effects are listed in Tables A- 117 and A-118 from the author. Overall religiosity dissimilarity (DI) was significantly associated with relationship quality above and beyond actor and partner religiosity. These 74 results indicate that partners who reported a larger difference on overall religiosity were less satisfied with their relationships over time. Results held even when controlling for demographic variables (see Tables 76 through 78 for religious dissimilarity effects; Tables A-l 19 and A-120 for actor and partner effects). Mediators. The results of the initial multilevel model analysis suggest that overall religiosity dissimilarity is negatively associated with relationship quality. The next set of analyses evaluated whether there was a longitudinal association between overall religiosity dissimilarity, the mediating variables, and relationship quality. Each mediator (personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving) was investigated in a separate model. Moreover, mediation was tested for both actor and partner effects (e. g. the ability of actor personal investment to mediate the association between the religious dissimilarity for overall religiosity and relationship quality, as well as the ability of partner personal investment to mediate the association between the overall religiosity religious dissimilarity and relationship quality). If there was not an association between religiosity and the mediator, additional analyses were not pursued. The results for the multilevel model analyses testing the relation between the relationship variables and relationship quality are presented in Table 26 and are the same as those values discussed in Ch. 5. To reiterate, all variables were significantly associated with relationship quality. All religious dissimilarity results are reported in Tables 69 through 71. Significant results were only observed regarding overall religiosity dissimilarity for marital involvement. Therefore, it appears that couples who to a greater extent differ on overall religiosity tend to spend less time together. Evidence for both actor and partner 75 relationship variables to partially mediate the association between religious dissimilarity overall religiosity and marital involvement was observed. Religiosity Facets. Several differences between the results obtained for the stacked APIM overall religiosity dissimilarity effects and the results obtained regarding the religiosity facets dissimilarity effects emerged (see Tables 73 through 75). For example, although significant overall religiosity dissimilarity effects were obtained for relationship quality and marital involvement, effects were not obtained for dispositional religiosity dissimilarity. Moreover, although effects were not observed for overall religiosity dissimilarity, church attendance dissimilarity was associated with personal investment, relationship instability, and marital alternatives. Each of these variables mediated the association between the church attendance dissimilarity and relationship quality (for both actor and partner effects). It therefore appears that church attendance dissimilarity may be more strongly associated with relationship outcomes compared to the other religiosity variables. In other words, partners who differ on their frequency of church attendance are likely to have more negative and fewer positive romantic relationship outcomes. Summary. When investigating the longitudinal association between overall religiosity dissimilarity and the relationship variables, several effects emerged above and beyond the effects for actor and partner religiosity. Religious dissimilarity effects were obtained for relationship quality and marital involvement. Furthermore, marital involvement was found to mediate the association between overall religiosity dissimilarity and relationship quality. Additionally, although operational religiosity dissimilarity was associated with both of these variables, church attendance dissimilarity 76 was associated with personal investment, relationship instability, and marital alternatives. It therefore appears that religious dissimilarity is associated with social exchange variables, and that the most important variable to assess in the stacked APIM assessment appears to be church attendance dissimilarity. Controlling for Personality Variables The results for the analyses controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same model are discussed in this section. Religious dissimilarity results for models separately assessing self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality are displayed in Tables 79 through 81, 82 through 84, and 85 through 87 respectively (actor and partner results are displayed in Tables A-121 and A-122, A-123 and A-124, and A-125 and A-126). Because results for the single trait analyses were fairly similars, the discussion below focuses on the analyses including all traits in the same model. Self-Control, Optimism, and Negative Emotionality. Religious dissimilarity results are reported in Tables 88 through 90 (actor and partner effects are listed in Tables A-127 and A-128). When controlling for self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality in the same model, religious dissimilarity effects remained associated with relationship quality and marital involvement. Evidence for partial mediation was observed in this case. Religiosity Facets. When controlling for all traits, one difference was observed between the results obtained for overall religiosity dissimilarity and the results obtained 8 Significant results were obtained for overall religiosity dissimilarity and both self-control and optimism regarding relationship quality and marital involvement; as well as between overall religiosity dissimilarity and Negative Emotionality regarding relationship quality, relationship instability, marital alternatives, and marital involvement. Finally, operational religiosity dissimilarity and church attendance were associated with relationship quality and marital involvement, and church attendance was associated with personal investment when controlling for any of the personality traits. 77 for the religiosity facet dissimilarities (see Tables 88 through 90). Although each variable was associated with relationship quality and marital involvement, church attendance dissimilarity was the only variable to be associated with personal investment. Summary. When controlling for all personality traits, overall religiosity dissimilarity remained associated with relationship quality and marital involvement. Additionally, church attendance dissimilarity appears to be the religiosity facet most closely associated with relationship outcomes. Finally, all possible tests of mediation reflected evidence for partial mediation. Examining All Relationship Variables I tested the overall model encompassing all variables by using a series of multilevel model assessments following a procedure similar to the one discussed in Ch.3. Religious dissimilarity results for each of the multilevel models are displayed in Table 91 (actor and partner results are displayed in Table A-129). Overall religiosity dissimilarity was not significantly associated with the composite relationship variable. However, operational religiosity dissimilarity and church attendance dissimilarity were significantly associated with the composite relationship variable. Evidence for partial mediation was obtained for the composite variable in each possible case. Therefore, it may be better to investigate the religiosity facets of operational religiosity and church attendance than overall religiosity dissimilarity when examining an overarching relationship variable using a stacked APIM procedure. Cross-Logged Longitudinal Analyses For each multilevel model in this section, the past overall religiosity dissimilarity was treated as the upper-level predictor and the current relationship variables were treated as the outcome variables. Additionally, each assessment controlled for the previous 78 wave’s relationship quality as well as for actor and partner effects. Results are reported in Tables 92 through 95 (actor and partner effects are reported in Tables A-130 through A-132). Overall Religiosity and Relationship Quality. Past overall religiosity dissimilarity was not associated with current relationship quality. Similar results were observed for each religiosity facet. ,Therefore, it was not possible to test for mediation for the cross- lagged dissimilarity assessments. Results are displayed in Table 93. Mediators. Although past religious dissimilarity was not associated with current relationship quality, it is still possible that religious dissimilarity is linked to the other relationship variables. The analyses in this subsection evaluated whether there was an association between previous religiosity and the current social exchange and social interaction variables. Each mediator (personal investment, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving, as well as the relationship composite variable) was investigated in a separate model. For each model, I tested whether the proposed mediator was empirically associated with religiosity using a series of cross-lagged models. Results for these analyses are presented in Tables 92 through 95. In these analyses, past overall religiosity dissimilarity was not associated with any relationship variables. Therefore, it appears that previous couple differences on overall religiosity are not as important to the longitudinal model as actor and partner effects. Religiosity Facets. Results were generally similar to the overall religiosity dissimilarity assessments when investigating the religiosity facet dissimilarities for the previous wave (see Tables 92 through 95). Only two differences emerged. First, 79 operational religiosity dissimilarity was associated with the current social exchange variable of marital involvement. Second, past church attendance dissimilarity was associated with the current social exchange variables of personal investment and marital involvement in addition to the social interaction variable of conflict. Likewise, church attendance dissimilarity was associated with having a lower overall relationship composite score. Therefore, it appears that partner differences on church attendance from previous waves are associated with more future relationship outcomes than any other religious dissimilarity variable. Summary. Although previous partner differences on overall religiosity were not associated with current relationship variables, it appears that the religiosity dissimilarity facet of previous church attendance was associated with more current relationship variables than any other religiosity dissimilarity variable. It appears that partner who A differ on church attendance are less personally invested in the relationship, spend less time together, and engage in more conflict than individuals who are more similar to each other in this respect. Overall Summary of the Chapter Overall religiosity dissimilarity was robustly associated with relationship quality and marital involvement. This finding suggests that there is a very strong negative association between partner differences on overall religiosity and the amount of time partners spend together. Although individual facet dissimilarity associations varied across the different assessments, church attendance dissimilarity was robustly related to personal investment and marital involvement. In addition, operational religiosity dissimilarity was robustly 80 related to marital involvement. It appears that partner differences regarding both the internal component of operational religiosity and the external component of church attendance are associated with relationship outcomes, although partner differences regarding church attendance may be related to more relationship variables than partner differences regarding the other religiosity facets. These results were observed whether data was assessed using stacked models that were reflective of an aggregated cross- sectional analysis or using cross-lagged analyses that were reflective of longitudinal, predictive analyses. 81 Chapter 7: Overall Discussion Researchers are just beginning to study the associations between religiosity and romantic relationships (Mahoney et al., 2001; 2008). Although religiosity has been associated with relationship quality (e. g. Mahoney et al., 1999), relatively little research has investigated the processes linking religiosity with relationship quality. Similarly, researchers have yet to investigate religiosity, personality traits, and relationship variables in the same study even though personality variables such as self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality are associated with both religiosity and romantic relationships (e. g. Amett, 1998; Assad et al., 2007; Karney & Bradbury, 1995; McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; Salsman et al., 2005; Saroglou, 2002). Therefore, there were three main goals of the current study. First, I aimed to replicate and extend the work of previous researchers by conceptualizing religiosity as a multi-faceted continuous variable when examining both cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between religiosity and relationship quality. Second, I investigated the association of religiosity with several other relationship variables (personal involvement, relationship instability, marital alternatives, marital involvement, conflict, and cooperative problem solving). After investigating these associations, I tested the ability of these variables to mediate the association between religiosity and relationship quality. Finally, I repeated the analyses when controlling for the personality variables of self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality. This last step was necessary in order to determine if the observed effects from the first two aims were independent from effects associated with general personality traits. Discussions of each aim are delineated below. Aim 1 : Religiosity and Relationship Quality 82 Overall religiosity. Although previous research has reported an association between religiosity and relationship quality (e. g. Booth et al., 1995; Butler et a1, 2002; Call & Heaton, 1997; Mahoney et al., 1999; Mahoney et al., 2001; Shehan et al. 1990; Wolfinger & Wilcox, 2008), there have been several limitations to this research that were addressed in the current study. For example, whereas previous research has been mostly cross-sectional in nature, the current study assessed the relation between religiosity and relationship quality at three different time points. Likewise, the current study follows the suggestions posed by several researchers advocating the use of data obtained from both partners since previous research has mainly only collected data from one partner (e. g. Call & Heaton, 1997; Kashy & Kenny, 2000; Lehrer, 1996; Mahoney et al., 2001; Mahoney et al., 2008). The current study incorporated data obtained from both partners and investigated both actor and partner effects using a series of APIM and multilevel analyses. Likewise, the current study conceptualized religiosity as a multi-faceted psychological construct. Previous researchers have identified the need to investigate religiosity beyond denomination and church attendance (e. g. Williams & Lawler, 2001). Although much of the previous work investigating religiosity has used only single-item categorical measures (i.e. denomination, church attendance; see Williams & Lawler, 2001), many researchers advocate using a continuous measure with more items (e. g. Call & Heaton, 1997; Mahoney et al., 2001) and more than one dimension of religiosity (McConahay & Hough, 1973; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Tsang & McCullough, 2003). These earlier approaches have been problematic because only using denomination or church attendance reduces religiosity to a categorical variable that does not account for 83 the range of individual differences. Even individuals of the same faith may differ to the extent to which they personally value and use their faith. On the other hand, it is possible that individuals of two different faiths may equally value and/or utilize their religion. The current study therefore conceptualized overall religiosity as a three-faceted continuous variable being comprised of dispositional religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance, drawing on the dispositional and operational religiosity constructs posed by Tsang and McCullough (2003). To review, dispositional religiosity treats religiosity as a personality variable by examining how important religiosity is to the individual, whereas operational religiosity examines how the individual experiences her or his faith (see Tsang & McCullough, 2003). Church attendance was similar to previous studies examining church attendance in terms of how frequently an individual attends religious services. Each facet is important to investigate as each taps into a different component of religiosity. The first two facets, dispositional and operational religiosity, are more internally experienced facets that investigate how much one likes, and is interested in, religion and to what extent one uses or thinks about religion in daily life. Neither facet may be apparent to outside observers. On the other hand, the facet of church attendance is observable to others, although it does not convey personal devotion to or use of one’s faith. The current study used five continuous items to assess three facets of religiosity in addition to an overall religiosity composite. This framework was beneficial because religiosity was conceptualized as including both internal components, as well a component that was easily observable by others. Additionally, I was able to compare the results of the current study to results obtained in earlier studies by incorporating church attendance. 84 Overall religiosity. The current study replicated and extended the findings of previous research as religiosity was found to be associated with relationship quality at each wave of data collection (2003, 2005, and 2007) as well as over time using a longitudinal analysis (i.e. previous religiosity was related to current relationship quality). These results illustrate that religiosity is robustly associated with relationship quality. However, whereas actor effects are more important cross-sectionally, partner effects become more important over the long-term. These results make sense because although individuals may be more aware of their own religiosity at any given point, partner religiosity may become more apparent after the individual has spent more time with his or her partner. Additionally, I investigated whether the difference between couple scores on religiosity was important to understanding relationship satisfaction above and beyond the effects of actor and partner religiosity effects. Couple similarity effects for overall religiosity were associated with relationship quality cross-sectionally during 2005 and 2007, as well as when looking at the stacked cross-sectional model. However, when controlling for previous relationship quality, previous partner dissimilarity on religiosity was not associated with relationship quality. Given the high degree of relationship stability, it is perhaps not surprising that significant effects were not observed in the longitudinal model (see e. g., Kashy & Donnellan, in press). Results suggest that if there is a larger difference between partner scores on overall religiosity, individuals tend to report involvement in less satisfying relationships, at least in the short-term. Religious dissimilarity effects may have occurred either because having similar religious beliefs may serve as an “enduring resource” (Assad et al., 2007, p. 285) that may enhance or 85 protect a couple’s relationship and/or because the lack of consistency between partners may serve as an “enduring vulnerability” (Kamey & Bradbury, 1995, p. 23) that creates discord in the relationship. In fact, Call and Heaton (1997) explain that having the same faith as one’s partner may be associated with increased emotional intimacy and marital stability. On the other hand, if partners do not have similar values and beliefs, this may cause tension in the relationship. Wilson and Musick (1996) pose that individuals with similar religious beliefs tend to share similar ideas about marriage. Therefore, it would follow that partners who differ on religiosity may also disagree on how they view marriage, which would then lead to decreased relationship satisfaction. Regardless of the reason, similarity for religiosity appears to affect perceptions of relationship quality. Religiosity facets. Results indicate that actor dispositional religiosity and actor operational religiosity may be more robustly associated with relationship quality than church attendance. Although (to my knowledge) the facets of dispositional and operational religiosity have not previously been examined in association with romantic relationship variables, the initial church attendance findings replicated previous research showing a cross—sectional association between church attendance and relationship quality (e. g. Heaton & Pratt, 1990; Shehan et al., 1990). However, these findings were not robust when controlling for other variables associated with relationship quality. Moreover, partner effects were obtained for dispositional and operational religiosity during 2005 and 2007 in addition to the longitudinal analysis. Cross—sectional effects were no longer significant when controlling for demogaphics, although effects persisted when controlling for demographics and/or previous relationship quality longitudinally. Similarly to the overall religiosity results, actor effects for the religiosity 86 facets-of dispositional and operational religiosity appear to be more important cross- sectionally, whereas partner effects for these facets become more important longitudinally. This is logical, particularly because the individual may not be aware of one’s partner’s religiosity scores until the couple has been together for several years. Interestingly, it appears that the facets of dispositional and operational religiosity are robustly related to relationship quality whereas this is not the case for church attendance. This finding might indicate that the internal feelings and thoughts one has about one’s faith might be more important to understanding relationship outcomes than church attendance. Internal feelings and thoughts about one’s faith are likely more closely associated with the internal feelings and thoughts about one’s relationship, which may occur for a few reasons. First, an individual may have a certain disposition that colors how she or he interprets all avenues of life (this idea is why personality variables were controlled for in Aim 3). Because church attendance is an observed behavior, this construct might not be as closely related to relationship quality as it would be to an observable relationship behavior (i.e. divorce, a numeric count of affectionate behaviors, etc.). Finally, the theory I personally advocate is that the internal religiosity facets are more personally relevant to one’s romantic relationship; one’s faith is associated with one’s values and beliefs, which can also be extended to one’s relationship (see Wilson & Musick, 1996). This last explanation is sensible because, not only were effects for dispositional and operational religiosity more robust across waves compared to church attendance, but effects were also stronger in magnitude. Additionally, religious dissimilarity effects were calculated for each religiosity facet. Couple similarity for church attendance was the only facet with a robust 87 association with relationship quality across all waves independent of actor and partner effects. These effects even persisted when controlling for demographic control variables. However, couple dissimilarity effects for each facet were not associated with relationship quality longitudinally. These nonsignificant results are perhaps not surprising due to the high degree of stability for relationship satisfaction. Although dispositional and operational religiosity seem to be more central to the equation regarding actor and partner assessments, church attendance appeared to be the most important facet when assessing religious dissimilarity. Therefore, partner differences in the frequency of church attendance may affect relationship outcomes to a greater extent than partner differences regarding the other facets. This may be because it is a lot easier to notice discrepancies in observable religious behavior than differences regarding the internal components of religiosity. Dispositional and operational religiosity are more abstract constructs, and it may take more time and effort to notice to what extent one differs from one’s partner on these facets. In short, dissimilarity on church attendance is a concrete difference between partners in a relationship that may prove to generate difficulties for the couple. On the other hand, another explanation is that partner differences on religiosity were reflective of other potential problems, either in the relationship, or in the individual. For example, previous research has shown an association between decreased church attendance and increased alcohol use in depressed individuals (Bowie, Ensminger, & Roberston, 2006). Therefore, it is possible that differences on church attendance may serve as a marker for other problems that would in turn negatively affect romantic relationship satisfaction. Aim 2: Potential Mediators 88 After illustrating that religiosity was associated with romantic relationship outcomes, it was possible to investigate what was driving this association. The proposed model drew on both social exchange theory and social interaction approaches. Basically, I hypothesized that religiosity would be associated with relationship quality because religiosity is related to both costs and benefits one perceives to staying in a relationship, as well as with how partners treat each other in a relationship. Social exchange variables included commitment (assessed using personal investment, relationship instability, and marital alternatives measures) and shared interests (assessed using marital involvement). Social interaction variables included conflict and cooperative problem solving. Because previous research has found each of these relationship variables to be associated with religiosity (e. g. commitment: Mahoney et al., 2008; shared interests: Brown et al., 2008; Hiinler & Gencoz, 2005; Lichter & Carmalt, 2009; conflict: Curtis & Ellision, 2002; Mahoney et al., 2001; problem solving: Beach et al., 2008; Lambert & Dollahite, 2006; see Crocker, 1984 on communication), it is possible that theses variables may mediate the association between religiosity and relationship quality. Overall religiosity. Results replicated and extended previous research in that actor overall religiosity was significantly associated with each relationship variable cross- sectionally and was associated with personal investment, marital alternatives, and marital involvement longitudinally. Evidence for mediation was observed in each case cross- sectionally. Interestingly, different variables were significant for partner effects compared to actor effects. Two social exchange (personal investment and relationship instability) and one social interaction (cooperative problem solving) variable were significantly associated with partner effects. Although associations with the social exchange variable 89 were observed cross-sectionally and longitudinally, relations with the social interaction variable only emerged longitudinally. Therefore, individuals may learn how their partners respond to problems over time, and that problem solving ability may have more of an effect on relationship quality once a pattern has been established. When the relationship variables were collapsed into one overarching composite variable, similar effects were observed compared to the initial assessments. This finding is consistent with previous research illustrating that positive and negative constructs converge into one overarching composite variable that yields similar results compared to when variables were investigated separately (see Park, Garber, Ciesla, & Ellis, 2008 on family environment variables). Actor overall religiosity was associated with the composite variable both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, but partner overall religiosity was only associated with the composite variable longitudinally. This finding reiterates the previously made point that although one’s own religiosity may affect relationship outcomes both in the short-term and the long-term, partner religiosity may not be as readily apparent in the short-term. Therefore, partner religiosity effects may not have an effect on relationship outcomes until the couple has had ample time together. The associations between each relationship variable and couple dissimilarity effects for overall religiosity were also assessed. Overall, it appears that couple dissimilarity on religiosity is associated with the social exchange variable of marital involvement above and beyond the effects of actor and partner religiosity both cross- sectionally and longitudinally. This is logical because partner differences on religiosity may reflect that partners have different interests and values. Not only is it likely that partners spend less time together because one is attending church activities while the 90 other is not, but it also appears that the couple does not spend as much time engaged in other activities, which may be a result of dissimilar beliefs and preferences. Moreover, although marital involvement remained associated with overall religious similarity longitudinally, no other variables did. This is not surprising given the high degree of relationship quality stability and these assessments controlled for previous relationship quality. Furthermore, when both social exchange and social interaction variables are collapsed into one overarching composite variable, couple dissimilarity on overall religiosity was not associated with relationship outcomes. In sum, it appears that religiosity is related to both social exchange and social interaction variables. Across all analyses (actor, partner, and couple dissimilarity assessments), social exchange variables were related to religiosity both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, and social interaction variables were associated with religiosity longitudinally. These findings make sense because, although religiosity is associated with one’s behavior (Crocker, 1984; Curtis & Ellision, 2002; Mahoney et al., 2001), it may take time for behavioral patterns in response to conflict or problems to emerge in any given romantic relationship as couples go through the trials and tribulations of life and thus face stressors to their relationship. Religiosity facets. The religiosity facets of dispositional and operational religiosity appear to be more reflective of actor and partner effects whereas church attendance seems more reflective of religious dissimilarity effects. General patterns were similar regardless of whether each relationship variable was assessed separately or whether all relationship variables were incorporated into a composite variable. Simply put, improved relationship outcomes were associated with actor and partner dispositional 91 religiosity, actor and partner operational religiosity, and church attendance couple dissimilarity. It generally appears that one’s own, and one’s partner’s, value of and personal practice of one’s faith are associated with improved relationship perceptions and interactions, and that couple similarity on church attendance is associated with improved relationship perceptions and interactions. Although results were significant for the composite variable, and although there is a lot of overlap between social exchange and social interaction variables empirically, somewhat different results were observed for each relationship variable when investigated separately. When construing relationship variables as separate constructs, actor effects robustly emerged for social exchange variables cross-sectionme and longitudinally (except for actor church attendance on marital involvement). Additionally, past actor dispositional and operational religiosity were related to the social interaction variable of current relationship conflict. Therefore, it appears that actor dispositional and operational religiosity are related to more relationship outcomes than actor church attendance. Moreover, both partner dispositional and partner operational religiosity were associated with relationship instability and problem solving cross-sectionally and with these variables in addition to personal investment and marital alternatives longitudinally. These variables were different from the variables obtained for actor effects. Finally, social exchange (personal involvement, marital involvement) and social interaction (problem solving) variables were related to the couple similarity for church attendance cross-sectionally and the social exchange variables of personal investment and marital involvement longitudinally. Aim 3: Controlling for Personality Variables 92 When controlling for all traits (self-control, optimism, and Negative Emotionality), it appears that both actor and religious dissimilarity effects are associated with social exchange variables cross-sectionally. Even though religiosity and certain personality variables may be correlated (e. g. self-control: McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; optimism: Salsman et al., 2005; Negative Emotionality: Saroglou, 2002), and even though these personality traits are also associated with relationship variables (e. g. optimism: Assad et al., 2007; Srivastava et al., 2006; Negative Emotionality: Donnellan et al., 2007; Heller et al., 2004; Kamey & Bradbury, 1995), religiosity is related to relationship outcomes above and beyond these associations for actor and couple similarity effects cross-sectionally, both when examining unique waves of data collection and when investigating a stacked model. Therefore, the effects of overall religiosity on relationship outcomes appear to be relatively independent of other personality traits associated with both religiosity and relationship quality. Limitations and Future Directions Although the current investigation addressed several issues that were noted as limitations in previous studies on religiosity and romantic relationships, there are still several limitations, caveats, and qualifications of the current study that must be addressed in order to improve future research. Issues discussed below investigate religiosity as a construct, additional potential mediators, and the current study’s generalizability. Religiosity as a Construct The current study addressed the concerns of previous researchers explaining the need to investigate religiosity as a psychological construct (e. g. Williams & Lawler, 2001) by conceptualizing overall religiosity as being comprised of dispositional 93 religiosity, operational religiosity, and church attendance. This framework incorporated the Tsang and McCullough (2003) constructs of dispositional and operational religiosity. This method was beneficial because religiosity was conceptualized as including both internal components, as well a component that was easily observable by others. Although this conceptualization was an important first step, the construct of religiosity should be improved in firture research. First, it is likely that there are other facets of religiosity that should be incorporated into the construct. For example, Peterson and Seligrnan (2004) discuss the organizational component of religiosity. The organizational component includes church attendance, as well as other publicly observed religious actions. Incorporating this facet would also address the issue in the current study that more measures were used to assess the internal, subjective components of religiosity than those components observable by others (4 items vs. 1 item). Therefore, increased similarity between the overall religiosity composite and dispositional and operational religiosity may have been observed because each of these facets contributed more to the overall religiosity variable than did church attendance. Similarly, the construct of spirituality should also be separately assessed in future studies. Previously, spirituality and religiosity were thought to be interchangeable. However, a need to clearly articulate these constructs has emerged as a growing number of people are starting to classify themselves as spiritual but not religious (Tsang & McCullough, 2003). Although both constructs convey belief in a higher power, spirituality refers primarily to one’s private relationship with that higher power whereas religiosity adds the belief in a specific church doctrine and the practice of specific church rituals (Peterson & Seligrnan, 2004). Moreover, people who are spiritual but not 94 religious typically do not rely on religious values to achieve secular goals (Tsang & McCullough, 2003). Because spirituality is basically religiosity without belonging to a specific church or practicing a specific faith, one can be spiritual without being religious. Likewise, if the individual blindly follows church dogma without feeling personally connected to the faith, she or he can be religious without necessarily being spiritual (Peterson & Seligrnan, 2004). However, it is unclear if this distinction is as salient in the lives of everyday individuals as some researchers suggest. Differentiating between spirituality and religiosity may be more important for certain populations than others (e.g. see Master et al.’s (2009) article regarding potential differences between college students and non-college student adults, p. 107). It might well be the case that the constructs of religiosity and spirituality are fairly interchangeable for individuals who practice their faith regularly, but that spirituality may be more important for individuals who do not belong to a certain religion or who were never exposed to religion early in life. In the current study, I was able to compare religiosity to spirituality using the items “Do you consider yourself to be religious” and “Do you consider yourself to be spiritual” (although the spirituality item was not a main variable for the current study). These items were strongly correlated at each wave (r = .75 in 2003; r = .73 in 2005; r = .72 in 2007). At a glance, it appears that there is not much difference between religiosity and spirituality in this non-college student, adult sample. However, I do not think the current study was adequately able to address this question because these were 1- item assessments that did not inquire about the actual differences between the two constructs. If there is a psychological distinction between religiosity and spirituality, it is important for researcher to further refine our measures in order to more adequately assess 95 this difference. Because religiosity but not spirituality is construed as impacting both secular and non-secular aspects of life, future research should attempt to separately investigate these constructs when investigating relationship outcomes. Mediating Variables The current study offered the first exploratory model for why religiosity is associated with relationship quality using social exchange and social interaction variables. The model incorporated the social exchanges variables of commitment and shared interests and the social interaction variables of conflict and problem solving. However, it is possible that other variables mediate the association between religiosity and relationship quality. Some potential mediating variables that have been associated with both religiosity and relationship quality are values, infidelity, sexual satisfaction, and aggression. Shared values. In addition to assessing shared interests, it is also important to assess shared values. It is possible that one’s faith is associated with having certain values, which in turn affect one’s romantic relationship (e. g. Call & Heaton, 1997). Religiosity may be associated with certain values that may also affect relationship quality, such as beliefs about marriage (Wilson & Musick, 1996), parenting (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993; Mahoney et al., 2001), and attitudes toward abortion (Adarnczyk & Felson, 2008). For example, having different attitudes toward abortion may cause a problem if the couple is faced with an unplanned pregnancy or complications during pregnancy. Infidelity. Because infidelity is the most common cause for marital dissolution (Whisman, Gordon, & Chatav, 2007), and because religious individuals report that they engage in fewer incidents of infidelity (Mahoney et al., 2001), this relationship variable 96 may partially explain why religious individuals are less likely to divorce. Religiosity may act as a protective factor against infidelity, as evidenced by the finding that religious individuals report engaging in fewer acts of infidelity compared to nonreligious people9 (Whisman et al., 2007), even when they are not satisfied with their current relationships (F incharn & Beach, 2010). Moreover, infidelity should be assessed by using both self- and partner-reports of infidelity as well as attitudes toward infidelity. Including the attitudes measure is necessary because individuals may not be willing to report actual infidelity (or it may not occur frequently) and because previous research has found religiosity to be associated with having more negative attitudes toward infidelity (Burdette, Ellison, Sherkat, & Gore, 2007). Sexual satisfaction. Mixed results have been observed regarding whether or not religiosity and sexual satisfaction are related (e. g. Mahoney et al., 2008; Young et al., 1998), and we may be better able to observe an association by examining religiosity as a psychological construct. Regardless of whether or not there is an association between religiosity and sexual satisfaction, sexual satisfaction is correlated with relationship satisfaction (e. g. Schwartz & Young, 2009). Therefore, if sexual satisfaction is in fact related to religiosity, it may be an important mediator to incorporate into the model, or perhaps investigate as an outcome variable in the model. Aggression. Similarly, mixed results have been obtained regarding the association between religiosity and aggession. Conceptually, either a positive or a negative association between religiosity and aggession would make sense. Some 9 This may be because religious individuals tend to view fidelity in one of two ways. First, irnfidelity may be viewed as prohibited based on moral values. Second, religious couples may believe in the sacredness of their marriage and attempt to act in ways to preserve that sacredness, such as by remaining faithful (Mahoney et al., 2001). 97 researchers argue that the patriarchal natural of religion teaches that it is acceptable for husbands to beat their wives and that is acceptable to use corporal punishment toward children (Brinkerhoff, Grandin, & Lupri, 1992; Ellison, Bartowski, & Anderson, 1999). On the other hand, religion teaches values like love and forgiveness, which would make violence less likely to occur (Brinkerhoff et al., 1992; Ellison et al., 1999). Brinkerhoff et al. (1992) found that men tended to be more abusive when they had no religious affiliation and women were more abusive when they were religiously conservative. Moreover, other researchers observed that violence in relationships is more likely if partners differ on religious affiliation (e. g. Ellison et al., 1999; Mahoney et al., 2008). Therefore, aggession should be incorporated into the model conceptualizing religiosity as a multi-faceted psychological variable in order to determine if facets of religiosity are associated with aggession and/or if partner differences on religiosity are associated with aggession. Generalizability In addition to including more relationship variables into the model, it is also necessary to examine more diverse populations. The results of the current study are based on a mostly Christian, European-American sample fi'om the Midwest region of the United States. Although I believe results should be similar across denominations, ethnic goups, and regions, these analyses should be retested using more diverse samples. Likewise, each of the couples participating in this study was either married or had been cohabiting for a long time (for the longitudinal sample), thereby displaying a high degee of commitment. Future research should investigate dating relationships to determine if effects are similar when relationships first form, and if these associations are dependent 98 on age and relationship goals of the individual. Additionally, it would be interesting to investigate religiosity and relationship variables in dating couples longitudinally to determine 1) at what point in the relationship religiosity becomes associated with relationship outcomes and 2) if religiosity is predictive of what dating couples eventually marry, cohabit, or break-up. Similarly, although the current study was a good first step as little longitudinal data has been collected on this topic, couple religiosity and relationship data should be collected at more than three time points in order to gain a clearer idea about the life-trajectory of these variables. Concluding Remarks In sum, future research should continue to investigate the association between religiosity and romantic relationships as there is still much to examine. The current study explored the ability of the proposed social exchange (commitment and shared interests) and social interaction (conflict and cooperative problem solving) variables to explain the relation between religiosity and relationship quality. The analyses replicated and extended past research showing an association between church attendance and relationship quality by illustrating this effect exists for additional facets of religiosity both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Results generally held even when controlling for demogaphic or personality variables. Furthermore, it appears that social exchange variables may play a larger role than the social interaction variables. Moreover, the religiosity facets of dispositional and operational religiosity were more strongly associated with significant actor and partner effects, whereas the facet of church attendance generally was associated with significant religious dissimilarity effects. Whereas dispositional and operational religiosity are associated with both one’s own and 99 one’s partner’s relationship outcomes, couple differences regarding church attendance are generally more important to romantic relationships than whether or not partners actually attend church services. All in all, the current study yielded four main bottom line messages. First, the psychological construct of religiosity is associated with romantic relationship outcomes above and beyond other associated constructs (demogaphics and personality) and should therefore be incorporated into the study of romantic relationships. This is true both cross- sectionally and longitudinally. Second, although empirically there is a lot of overlap between social exchange and social interaction variables, social exchange variables appear to be more important to the model cross-sectionally and longitudinally than social interaction variables. Third, the religiosity facets of dispositional and operational religiosity appear to be more closely associated with actor and partner effects whereas the facet of church attendance appears to be more closely associated with couple religious dissimilarity effects. In other words, the personal components of religiosity are more closely associated with one’s own and one’s partner’s relationship satisfaction, whereas partner differences on church attendance (and not individual attendance) affect relationship satisfaction. Finally, although the current study made some progess in religiosity-relationship research, future studies should attempt to refine the construct of religiosity as well as continue to investigate other potential models and mediators in order to more fully understand how religiosity is related to experiences in romantic relationships. 100 Appendix 1: Measures The following measures were completed by participants from the Family Transitions Project and were used to assess the hypotheses laid out in the Aims of the dissertation. Religiosity (Conger, unpublished) 1. In general, how important are religious or spiritual beliefs in your day-to-day life? Very important 1 Fairly important 2 Not too important3 Not at all important 4 2. How much do your religious or spiritual beliefs help you handle troubles or problems in your life? Do they help... Quite a bit 1 Some 2 A little bit 3 Not at all 4 3. How much are your religious or spiritual beliefs a source of strength and comfort to you? Are your religious or spiritual beliefs... No source of strength or comfort 1 A small source of strength or comfort 2 A moderate source of strength or comfort 3 A geat source of strength or comfort 4 4. Do you consider yourself to be... Deeply religious Fairly religious Only slightly religious Not at all religious Against religion Un-h-UJNH 101 5. Do you consider yourself to be... Deeply spiritual l Fairly spiritual 2 Only slightly spiritual 3 Not at all spiritual 4 Against spirituality 5 6. On average, how often do you attend church or religious services? More than once a week 1 About once a week 2 l to 3 times a month 3 Less than once a month 4 Never 5 Self-Control and Negative Emotionality Donnellan, Conger, & Burzette, B. G. (2005) Iowa Personality Questionnaire (IPQ; referred to as "MPQ ” in earlier waves)) Please compare yo_urs_elf with other people of youflge and sex on each of the following traits or characteristics. For each trait, circle a number from 1 to 5 using the following rating scale: I am not I am average I am about I am above I am extremely at all like on this trait. average on average on high on this this trait. this trait. this trait. 1 2 3 4 5 1. I am not I am at all happy About extremely happy and cheerful. average and cheerful. 2. I am not I am a natural a leader About leader; others at all. average defer to me. 3. I am not at all tense About I am extremely tense, nervous or worried. average nervous or worried. 4. I am careful, I am extremely I think About impulsive, I act before I act. average without thinking. 5. I believe that people I do not believe that 102 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. often make things difficult for me. I want people to think I’m a nice person. I have no imagination at all. I am not at all enthusiastic. I am not interested in or excited by life. I value having a good reputation in the community. I am not at all ambitious. I am not at all sociable. I like being alone. I am not at all tough. I do not take advantage of others. I am not at all interested in good manners, proper behavior. I worry a geat deal. I stay mad at people when they do something I don’t like. I do not feel poorly treated by others at all. I am not at all adventurous. I prefer safe activities. I usually finish one activity before starting another. I carry a gudge. I try to About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About 103 people make things difficult for me. I don’t care what people think of me. I have a rich imagination. I am extremely enthusiastic. I am interested in and excited about life. I do not particularly bare about my reputation In the community. I am extremely ambitious, strive for perfection. I am extremely sociable. I like being with people. I am extremely tough. I take advantage of others. I am extremely high on good manners, proper behavior. I don’t worry very much. I forgive people when they do something I don’t like. I feel others treat me very poorly and unfairly. I am extremely adventurous. I take risks. I usually don’t finish an activity before I start another one. I am extremely conciliatory. I turn “the 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. get even. I am not at all responsive to beautiful sights or sounds. I am not at all suspicious. I do not feel exploited. I am not at all hardworking. I remain calm, even in difficult situations. I prefer to work out problems alone. I am not at all level-headed, sensible, or orderly. I am not at all safety conscious. I do not feel unlucky at all. I sometimes enjoy teasing or fiightening others. I avoid thrills and adventures. I am not at all strict. I am flexible about rules. I am not at all affectionate I do not respect my parents or their ideas. I never have anything nice to look forward to. average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average. About average. About average About average About average. About average 104 other check.” I am extremely responsive to beautiful sights or sounds. I am extremely suspicious. I feel exploited by others. I am extremely hardworking. I am easily upset about things. I always seek support from others when faced with problems. I am extremely level-headed, sensible, or orderly. I am extremely safety-conscious, avoid risks. I feel extremely urnlucky, poorly treated. I could never enjoy teasing or frightening others. I seek thrills and adventures. I am extremely strict. I believe in rules and discipline. I am extremely affectionate. I value close personal relationships. I always respect and admire my parents and their ideas. I always have something nice to look forward to. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. I am not at all aggessive. I am not at all even-tempered. I tend to be moody and emotionally unstable. I am not at all persuasive or convincing to others. I believe people are nice to me only when they want something. I am not at all optimistic. I don’t plan for the future at all. I don’t daydream At all. I often give up on a task when it is hard to do. I am not at all sensitive. My feelings are not easily hurt. I am often ready to hit people when I’m angy at them. I am not at all socially visible. 1 would rather not be the center of attention. I am not at all persevering. I do not like a challenge. I believe that children owe their parents love and gatitude. About average About average About average About average About average. About average About average About average About average About average About average About average About average 105 I am extremely aggessive, always ready for a fight. I am extremely even-tempered. I am emotionally stable. I am extremely persuasive, convincing to others. I believe people are nice to me just to be nice. I am extremely optimistic. I see the bright side of things. I plan carefully for the future. I daydream, get lost in My own thoughts. I rarely give up on a task even when it is hard to do. I am extremely sensitiv‘ My feelings are easily hurt. Even when I’m angy, I wouldn’t hit someone. I am extremely socially visible. I enjoy being in the spotlight. I am extremely persevering. I like a challenge. I do mt believe that children owe their parents love and gatitude. Optimism The Life-Orientation Test (Revised) Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, (1994). 1. In uncertain times, I usually expect the best. 2. If something can go wrong for me it will. 3. I am always optimistic about my future. 4. I hardly ever expect things to go my way. 5. I rarely count on good things to happen to me. 6. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad. Commitment: Personal Investment Conger, unpublished 1. How much do you want your relationship with your partner to continue and be a success? I want desperately for our relationship to succeed I want very much for relationship to succeed It would be nice if our relationship succeed I’m not sure I want our relationship to succeed I don’t want our relationship to succeed MbMN—‘l 2. How hard are you willing to work to make your relationship a success? I would go to any length to see that it succeeds I will work hard to see that it succeeds I will only do my fair share to see that it succeeds I am not willing to work to make it succeed I have given up trying to make it succeed M-IXWNfl Commitment: Relationship Instability Booth, Johnson, & Edwards (1983) Sometimes couples experience serious problems in their relationship and have thoughts Of ending their relationship. Please circle the answer that best describes your most recent experience. Yes, within the last 3 months ............... 1 Yes, within the last 6 months ............... 2 Yes, within the last year ....................... 3 Not in the last year .............................. 4 106 Have you or your partner seriously suggested the idea of ending your relationship or getting a divorce Have you discussed separation or divorce from your partner with a close friend Even people who get along quite well with their partner sometimes wonder whether their relationship is working out. Have you thought your relationship might be in trouble Have you and your partrner talked about consulting an attorney about a possible separation or divorce Has the thought of separating or getting a divorce crossed your mind Commitment: Marital Alternatives Conger, unpublished If your relationship with your partner ended, would you agree or disagee that... Fame-E715? r69 em 9‘!» Strongly agee ............................................. l Agee ........................................................... 2 Neutral or mixed ......................................... 3 Disagee ...................................................... 4 Strongly disagee ........................................ 5 You could get a better partner You could get another partner as good as she/he is You would be quite satisfied without a partrner You would be sad but get over it quickly You would be able to live as well as you do now You would be able to take care of yourself You would be better off economically Your prospects for a happy future would be bleak There are many other men/women you could be happy with You could support yourself at your present level Your life would be ruined 107 Marital Involvement Scale (Shared Interests) 9’ ?‘gfiFrEflrtQ'PS’Psr-‘F'r-r'P‘Wr-hSDP-PP‘ Conger, unpublished How often do Lou and your gartner... Often ........................................................... 1 Sometimes ................................................... 2 Rarely .......................................................... 3 Never ........................................................... 4 Spend time together on a hobby such as crafts, antiques, collecting things, building or repairing things, or something else Go camping, hiking, fishing, or hunting together Exercise together by walking, jogging, biking, playing sports, etc. Get involved together in community, church, or school activities Do household chores or yardwork together Socialize together with fiiends Take time to go out by yourselves, just the two of you Take overnight trips for pleasure by yourselves, just the two of you Work together in a family farm or non-farm business Do some other enjoyable activity together Talk about politics, famous people, or events in the news Talk about work or school Talk about your relationship with one another Talk about fiiends Exchange gifts or cards Cuddle, hug, and kiss Hold hands Engage in heavy petting Make love or have sexual intercourse Play sports together like softball, tennis, volleyball, golf, etc. Talk about your personal problems Talk about family members Talk about sad or bad things that have happened to you Talk about good thing that have happened to you 108 Conflict Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant (2004) During the past month when you and your partner have spent time talking or doing things together, how often did your partner... Always ......................................................... 1 Almost always ............................................. 2 Fairly often .................................................. 3 About half the time ...................................... 4 Not too often ................................................ 5 Almost never ................................................ 6 Never ........................................................... 7 . Get angy at you . Ask you for your opinion about an important matter . Listen carefully to your point of view . Let you know she/he really cares about you . Criticize you or your ideas . Shout or yell at you because she/he was mad at you . Act loving and affectionate toward you . Ignore you when you tried to talk to him/her . Give you a lecture about how you should behave 10. Let you know that she/he appreciates you, your ideas or the things you do 11. Help you do something that was important to you 12. Boss you around a lot 13. Have a good laugh with you about something that was funny 14. Hit, push, gab or shove you 15. Not listen to you but do all of the talking himself/herself l6. Argue with you whenever you disageed about something 17. Act supportive and understanding toward you 18. Insult or swear at you 19. Tell you she/he is right and you are wrong about things 20. Call you bad names 21. Threaten to hurt you by hitting you with his or her fist, an object, or something else 22. Tell you she/he loves you \OWQQUIAWNH Problem Solving Assad, Donnellan, & Conger (2007) Now think about what usually happens when you and your partner have a problem to solve. Think about what you do. When the two of you have a problem to solve, how often does Lour partner... 109 Always ........................................................ 1 Almost always ............................................. 2 Fairly often .................................................. 3 About half the time ...................................... 4 Not too often ................................................ 5 Almost never ................................................ 6 Never ........................................................... 7 1. Listen to your partner’s ideas about how to solve the problem 2. Criticize your partner’s ideas for solving the problem 3. Show a real interest in helping to solve the problem 4. Refuse, even after discussion, to work out a solution to the problem 5. Blame your partner for the problem 6. Consider your partner’s ideas for solving the problem 7. Insist that your partner agees to your solution to the problem Relationship Quality Norton (1983) How would you rate your relationship with your partner? Strongly agree ............................................. I Agree ........................................................... 2 Neutral or mixed ......................................... 3 Disagree ...................................................... 4 Strongly disagree ........................................ 5 1. We have a good relationship 2. My relationship with my partner is very stable 3. Our relationship is strong 4. My relationship with my partner makes me happy 5. I really feel like part of a team with my partner 110 Appendix 11: Tables Table 1 Descriptive statistics for religiosity variables for the total sample for all years. Wave 10 Wave 12 Wave 14 __Variable M 52 a M £12 a M SQ a Overall Religiosity ‘ .01 .86 .93 .00 .86 .94 .00 .86 .94 Dispositional Religiosity .01 .93 .86 .00 .93 .86 .00 .93 .86 Operational Religiosity .01 .95 .90 .00 .95 .90 .00 .95 .92 Church Attendance .00 1.00 -- .00 1.00 -- .00 1.00 -- Note: Means and standard deviations are not exactly .00 or 1.00 respectively for Overall Religiosity, Dispositional Religiosity, or Operational Religiosity because these variables consist of at least items that were standardized before averaged. 111 Table 2. Descriptive statistics for religiosity variables for men and women. Men Women Gender Diffggm __Variable M .52 a M 52 a r .4 Overall Religiosity Wave 10 -.12 .87 .94 .17 .82 .93 .60* -.34* Wave 12 -.ll .87 .94 .14 .84 .93 .53* -.29* Wave 14 -.ll .88 .94 .12 .83 .94 .53* -.27* Dispositional Religiosity Wave 10 -.14 .94 .83 .15 .88 .87 .54* -.32* Wave 12 -.13 .95 .83 .13 .90 .87 .48* -.28* Wave l4 -.12 .96 .86 .11 .89 .87 .45* -.25* Operational Religiosity Wave 10 -.17 .94 .89 .17 .93 .89 .47* -.36* Wave 12 -.16 .95 .89 .15 .93 .90 .39* -.33* Wave 14 -.14 .98 .92 .12 .91 .92 .37* -.28* Church Attendance Wave 10 -.02 .99 -- .05 .99 -- .78* -.07 Wave 12 -.02 .98 -- .06 1.02 -- .73* -.08 Wave 14 -.03 .99 -- .05 1.01 -- .79* -.08 Note: Effect sizes were calculated so that positive numbers indicate the men scored higher than women. The correlation ris the correlation between men and women’s scores. * p < .05 for correlations. * indicates the effect size is small regarding Cohen’s d. 112 Table 3 Cross-sectional correlations for the religiosity variables. Variable Wave 10 Religiosity Variables 1. Overall Religiosity 2. Dispositional Religiosity 3. Operational Religiosity 4. Church Attendance Wave 12 Religiosity Variables 1. Overall Religiosity 2. Dispositional Religiosity 3. Operational Religiosity 4. Church Attendance Wave 14 Religiosity Variables 1. Overall Religiosity 2. Dispositional Religiosity 3. Operational Religiosity 4. Church Attendance IL») l-k Note: *p < .05. 113 Table 4 Longitudinal correlations for the religiosity variables. Variable Wave 10 & Wave [0 & Wave 12 & All Waves 12 M M 5 Overall Religiosity .85* .81 * .87* .84* Dispositional Religiosity .80* .77* .85* .81 * Operational Religiosity .79* .75* .80* .78* Church Attendance .75* .71 * .77* .74* Note: *p < .05. All Waves r refers to the average correlation between Waves 10 and 12, Waves 10 and 14, and Waves 12 and 14. 114 Table 5 Descriptive statistics for the relationship variables for the total sample for all years. Wave 10 Wave 12 Wave 14 ___Variable M £2 a M Q a M 5.0. a Social Exchange Variables Personal Investment 4.60 .56 .83 4.55 .61 .84 4.55 .56 .79 Relationship Instability .37 .73 .91 .45 .78 .90 .39 .74 .90 Marital Alternatives 2.42 .75 .83 2.45 .72 .86 2.46 .73 .87 Marital Involvement 3.03 .43 .91 2.97 .43 .90 2.93 .44 .90 Social Interaction Variables Conflict 2.01 .72 .95 2.09 .76 .95 2.09 .76 .95 Problem Solving 5.85 .90 .91 5.74 .96 .91 5.76 .92 .91 Dependent Variable Relationship Quality 4.40 .71 .94 4.31 .74 .97 4.34 .73 .97 Note: Targets reported on behaviors of their partners for the conflict and problem solving measures. 115 Table 6 Descriptive statistics for the social exchange relationship variables for men and women. Social Exchange Variable M Personal Investment Wave 10 4.65 Wave 12 4.58 Wave 14 4.57 Relationship Instability Wave 10 .30 Wave 12 3.97 Wave 14 .31 Marital Alternatives Wave 10 2.47 Wave 12 2.49 Wave 14 2.49 Marital Involvement Wave 10 3.02 Wave 12 2.96 Wave 14 2.90 Men SQ .55 .58 .53 .63 .85 .65 .71 .61 .69 .44 .44 .43 l9 .85 .85 .78 .89 .75 .91 .85 .86 .87 .91 .91 .92 A! 4.59 4.53 4.52 .43 3.90 .46 2.36 2.41 2.44 3.04 2.99 2.95 Women S_D .57 .64 .59 .80 .84 .81 .78 .76 .76 .42 .41 .44 Q .82 .83 .79 .91 .83 .90 .89 .85 .87 .90 .89 .89 Quart: Ilflfeuausa r 51 .15* .11 .14* .08 .18* .09 .63* ans .42* .08 .65* 420* .30* .15 .21* .12 .15* .07 .53* 405 .56* 407 .53* 412 Note: Effect sizes were calculated so that positive numbers indicate the men scored higher than women. The correlation ris the correlation of men and women’s scores. * p < .05. * indicates the effect size is small regarding Cohen’s d. 116 Table 7 Descriptive statistics for the social interaction and dependent relationship variables for men and women. m Women Gender _D_iffem___nge_§ SociJal Interaction Varia_bl_e M SD g M SD g 5 Q Conflict Wave 10 2.13 .74 .95 1.88 .69 .95 .56 .35* Wave 12 2.19 .75 .95 1.98 .76 .95 .54* .28* Wave 14 2.19 .75 .96 1.99 .74 .95 .58* .27* Problem Solving Wave 10 5.72 .92 .90 5.99 .86 .91 .48* -.30* Wave 12 5.68 .91 .91 5.81 1.01 .91 .46* -.14 Wave 14 5.67 .91 .91 5.85 .93 .90 .50* -.20* Dependent Vang]; Relationship Quality Wave 10 4.39 .66 .96 4.41 .75 .97 .49* -.02 Wave 12 4.31 .71 .97 4.32 .77 .96 .62 -.01 Wave 14 4.39 .66 .97 4.31 .77 .96 .52* .11 Note: Effect sizes were calculated so that positive numbers indicate the men scored higher than women. The correlation ris the correlation of men and women’s scores. * p < .05. * indicates the effect size is small regarding Cohen’s d. 117 Table 8 Cross-sectional correlations for the relationship variables. Variable Wave 10 1. Relationship Quality 2. Personal Investment 3. Relationship Instability 4. Marital Alternatives 5. Marital Involvement 6. Conflict 7. Problem Solving Wave 12 1. Relationship Quality 2. Personal Investment 3. Relationship Instability 4. Marital Alternatives 5. Marital Involvement 6. Conflict 7. Problem Solving |--' 2 3 .39* -.34* .45* -.41 * .33* -.32* .51* -.48* .4. -.33* .40* -.34* -.52* .47* -.56* .44* IO\ -.87* |\) |\l 118 Table 8 Continued Cross-sectional correlations for the relationship variables. __Variable l 2 .3. fl 5 6 2 Wave 14 1. Relationship Quality -- 2. Personal Investment .48* -- 3. Relationship Instability -.59* -.43* -- 4. Marital Alternatives -.49* -.52* .37* -- 5. Marital Involvement .59* .33* -.32* -.32* -- 6. Conflict -.73* -.41 * .49* .41* -.59* -- 7. Problem Solving .63* .38* -.43* -.39* .52* -.88* -- Note: *p < .05. 119 Table 9 Longitudinal correlations for relationship variables. Variable Wave 10 & 12 Wave 10 & 14 Wave 12 & 14 All Waves r r r r Relationship Variables Relationship Quality .51 * .43* .53* .49* Personal Investment .59* .50* .50* .53* Relationship .3 7* .27* .47* .3 7* Instability Marital Alternatives .70* .66* .70* .69* Marital Involvement .63* .56* .64* .61* Conflict .69* .66* .71* .69* Problem Solving .63* .62* .66* .64* Note: *p < .05. All Waves r refers to the average correlation between Waves 10 and 12, Waves 10 and 14, and Waves 12 and 14. 120 do. v A 3 58536 bficmwbwe we? 33> 2:. + ”no. v m. 3 «$0536 bfioumuflm 33 33> 05 ”3mm: r. .2258 805 no :08 Set 35:8 coon we: 52% em .fiooto Begum “505:me o: 0.53 0.55- 6qu Nb. we. 8. mm:- S.- S.- 54. T oor cor mm. 5. S. $5.8m mo: cor Nor *Mod- 5.- m fl .- ow: mo: 3.- Swan a _. Z. uo~o< 8:33sz «95 «U N _ . T «or mo: +3. T 8.- oo.- em. T we: met ...de oo. 3. 35.23 Cu.— oo. mo. *Nné- w _ .- .1.- mm. T 8.- cor .L _.m om. 2. 88¢. enema»: Nezofiaxomb Nb.- 8.. Nov m5. T 3.- mo.- mar vor 8.. .4de mo. mo. .85—am ac; vo. No. ...ood- vmr w fl .- *vvd- 3 .- mo; ...ww.v a fi. N H. 88¢. enemas: NutchacefiQ $.- No.- No.- me. T we: mot mm. T 00.. nor +8; mo. mo. 853m ow. vo. No. infin- _~.- w ~ .- mm. T war B.- 436 o _. m fi. .88“ enemas: 245.6 N w a. w w m N w m w w m «comm 8050302: 8331582 5:582: E05302: 8332 3th 32.82 mfimaouflom Ecofien— “ESE—om .2 93$: 3 835.5; AEQSBRL ewegoxe 3.88 on: 38 853% Aafiéonfimx .nmESae; «98%;? gets “.33: moamheommhxfis BEER-L834 3 £an 121 6o. v Q 3 “.30—mama 33:33:“ 33 33> 05- + ”mo. v Q 3 230553 333333 33 33> 05 332 r. .2308 305 .«o :30 82m @0380 :00: m3 605w 0m .300t0 30—33 EmoflEwE o: 203 80.? ”08 Z wmr Nov 8.. Nb. we. 8. wv. 8. No. 853m *wvd 2. E. ...de- 2.- m_.- mm; 3. mo. ~80< 0025305... «0325 ..de oo. oo. N_.T 3.- 8.- *Ed mo. co. 63m ..meN 2. 2. *mm.m- 3.- 2.- ...o_.m 2. oo. .88/w 530%:02 3:033me +8; wo. wo. Q..- mo.- 8.. +3; mo. co. 83m in _ .N ac. oo. *vod- N _ .- o _ .- afim 2. mo. 38¢~ $8.33 333.8%me 3.4 no. mo. 3.- 8.. No.- +3; mo. no. .5505— ...vvd 3. 2. 30m- 2.- m_.- ...:N .2. o_. .88" waSMNBM @305 m w. m w w m w w m 83m azmvm 5030.5 8:300 >530 afimcofl3m 03302 330E=0m .2 3S: 3 830.23 £33023? 203.0503.» 380.4 03 350 $30.23 ©3038? Sky-333. 0023203385 35333303 2 2.3% 122 .638 88% 05 8 @8388 $38 6865 05 E 3268 8: £3 03? So: 05 £033 5 82.835 5 338:8 8: 33 “m8 Enom 2F .83 Bow Beanbag baggy—ma mm? 029, 2: $5 882?: gonom... .83 EB”— Eobbmc mango—mam fl Soto 8265 05 850:3 $88 3.3 Enom 2:. .388 05 5 39:2: 33 88:68 2: 5:? >556 E53328 9 033:; bmmofize 05 Eat «8&0 Bum—8:8 05 9 8&2 “m3 8885 BE. 6qu .. -- .. .. -- -- Satan .. -- -- -- -- -- .884“ wuzsgmaw «93:0 ,3 fim -- -- *3; -- ...wfim 853m 60,—. Enom ..de ...mmé 3&4» 30m -- *ovfi .88< amok 750m No. -- -- S. .. No. .5:th mo. oo. wo. wo. -- mo. 88< «Snowmamx Nuzouuxme .50; -- -- : -- ...w ~ .m Sufism “mob Enom ...mN.m *mo.m *omé -- 1&5 *36 88< “mob Enom 5. -- -- -- .. No. 558m 3. mo. mo. ~ ~. no. mo. “93‘ 53onan B§ES§Q -- -- -- -- -- .53 555 ~85 3cm .33 *9; *vw.v the -- awn 88¢. a"; gem -- -- -- -- -- S. has?” mo. mo. 8. 2. -- mo. 884 $8.3m: ~3me § § g g 3% g 82%.: 82%: g g Slim % scum NEH—low. “580295 mo>cm€ox< a 3% 80595 8580 3&2 33.2 3 flags; 8&8: 3333 .2 98x: 3 mmESLS. touusfifi 362.. ES mwagoxw 350m S\=e.:§§£\c mafia ~_ 033; 123 .3. v a... .20on 085 we come 88m REES :82 as: 895w cm .muooto 598w agomemm o: 203 82F .80-mm Hogan u m woo-um 88< H < 6qu *wv.m M2. 3. $06- w_.- 2.. .55-8m 3&3 Vm. NV. ...deN- mo: @0- .56-a.~ 833.23; 20.5535 Broom. .. w m N w m .85 .338 .8395 658.0. - *mm.m 3. _m. ...:a- 2.- 3.. “LE—- 5.- 3.- ...—06 3. 3. 853m .39: av. ow. .12-..2- 3.- cv- *oo.m_- er mm; $02 3. mm. 88< $33.8; mmfigfiam 3.80m. m w m w w m w m m w w. N 325235 38% Nag-fl. wag Eula-2- % Hfléloslafilm flamed modal-”m 124 .3 96k 3 A331» A3§ouu~mx :0 833.29» 233583 3.694 35 mM=SB§ 389. £339.33? 2: LQmEuoE moawhzmmmnxfié LmELQR-SBV m fl 2an do. v a «a “gummy—ma .303»wa ma; 33> BC. + ”no. v m “a “adameMm bfiozmtfim mm? 02.3 05 ”memo“ 2... 22008 085 we :08 80¢ 3380 :03 was 355w 0m goo-mo 828w 3853? 0: 0.53 0.55. ”302 mm. 7 \- 3 .- 5.- co. 3. 5. S. 7 m7 5.- 5. T N _ .- cor 55.8.; mm; 2. 5. car 5 _ .- 5r cw. 5. mo. ...w_.m mm. 3 _. 0933 002302032 3?: 30 N0. co. 5. 5.- 5.- oo. 5.- oo. 5. mm. 5. 5. .55-am i-Nd N. _. 5. m 3 . T 5.- oo.- em. 5.- 5.- *mbd 5. _ _. 233‘ 0.2.3023 3020.2?me mm. 5. No. 5.- co. co. co. 5. oo. omr Nov 5.- .55-am *wo.N w _. we. 5.. 5.- 5.. mm: mo.- 5.. ..ch mm. _ _. 083‘ 0.28.233 3020300033Q mo; 5. 5. mo. 5. oo. o 3 .- 5.- 5.- mm.- 5.- 5.- 85.8.; RON 5. :. oar 5.- 5.- mm.- 5.- 5.- ...mo.m cm. .0 _. .83-‘3 0.28.002? 2005 M m m w w .0 m m m N w m Isomm 8080202: 323582 5:339: “cogmgfi c.5302 3:02 Eta—2 mfimcouflom Baoflom “Egg—om .2 0:02: 20 00330302202 20\M2.303200 232: 0033202» 33020.23? 0M203008 3300.,- 03 2020 5.3025 33020.23? 6033.202” b.2333? 200?.3003 00202020050235 2032003-230V v.— 053. 125 do. v A E 222252me EFF—ESE 33 83> 2.5. + ”mo. v A 8 2:22.22me 2:225:26 mm? 229, 25 ”meme“ 2... 22228 285 .22 :28 82¢ 2032.8 289 man 522% 8 £28,222 8222» 28852me 22 823 82$. ”82 Z mm- 8.- 8.- x: _ _. 2. m2 _ 2. 2. mm. 3. 3. mm. 8. 8. 6. no. 8. 9. 3. 3. 3w. 8. S. 2 2 2 328 $35 mo. 3.7 3.- 2m.- 00.- co.- m2.- 25. T no. 2.- 5.- co.- 5.- mo.- 5.- 50.- w Eulcou mo. 5 _ .- 05.- mo.- 25.- 25.- mo.- 5.- 5.- co. 55. cc. 5. no. 5. oo. 55. Nu; m _. 25. mo: 5.- 5.- ...o—N E. _ _. wmr 5.- 5.- ..mod 2. m _. 2 2 .2 3:220 2325223— .5562 .8232. 222222222. 22.5 20 .8582 .88-«2 22.222.2M22x 3222.22.22QQ 55.82 2824‘ 229222 3222.2222QM2Q .5532 .88/22 $23M22- 22.65 80km 2.5822 36231—3” .2 22822 22 22.3m22M22222 22\M2.32.2222 2223 2232.222, $2222.23? 2222222222 33222 222 222 2232.222» 2.223.322 2253222: 2222222Q222222~ 2222.22m-22222. 2 2322. 126 .638 82% 2: 9 38388 338 8888 05 8 3262 8: mm? 2.1.5 Son 05 533 8 8088.98 8 33323 8: $3 3.3 Enom 2F .83 89a «Ebbmc basaoficwmm mm? 02? 05 85 88388 zonom... .83 88w “Bumbag 38.85%6 mm 80mm “0868 05 550:? 3.83 68 Epom 2C. .358 2: 8 @3208 was» 83:58 05 5:3 3:36 8:88:22 3 0328; 37.0938 05 88m “8&0 33:23 05 8 838 62 8268 22. .2088 805 mo some 88% 3580 soon was 83% cm .muoobo 885w 8858me o: 0.83 22C. ”202 -- -- -- -- -- : 858m -- -- -- -- .. .. 833‘ mutuhzmaw «EBB -- -- -- -- -- -- .8883 -- -- -- .. .. -- 86¢. 532mg»: 3:88me0 : -- -- -- -- -- 888$ Enom -- -- an. m .. -- Koé 88¢. 630m : -- -- -- -- -- 688m -- -- we. -- -- o _ . .88/w $83»: 3:05chme -- .. -- -- -- -- $8.8m Enom -- -- *N: -- .. 3:. 8390‘ Enom -- -- -- -- -- -- Bevan -- -- o _ . -- : _ _ . .584. $0.83 2935 34% 3.1% 3% 38 3m .3 m ubmkmmutN ubmkmfifiN wakmntN ubmkmfiug uUMkaflN “UNKNVKN “—OOmnwm .3 SEE 3 noEQEMoEmn mefiaohzoo 28%: .83ng 288388 3.89... ~88 mM=§u§ 3.83. xchzougcmfiko $qu 2 £an 127 do. v a 8 “gonad.” 338808 003 03? 05. + We. v Q 00 800$:me 33030330 003 023 05 ”3000 r. 20308 0005 m0 £000 80¢ 30:80 8000 00: 808w 00 £80,000 805m 8005880 0: 203 0805- ”0002 3.7 Kb.- mor mm. 8. 5. cm: 3.. 3.- 0o; 8.- co. 888$ 0m; 3. co. *co.m- w? 2.- 3.- no: No; ...mmd m _. mo. .8810~ 0033:02V «0.5 <0 mo. co. mo. 5.- 3.- 8.. cm:- vor 5.- we; no. co. 888m +wwA mo. 3. ...de- .2.- Z.- 3.- 3.- mo: *mwxc. S. we. 80~0< 033038 320.3386 50. mo. S. cm: vor mo: .3. S. 5. RA no. we. Satan on; co. mo. .50.? ow: 3.- K. T 8.- 8.- .Lma 3. me. .8840. 8.220302 NgofimcuflQ ov. No. 5. Sr mo: 8.. N _ .- 5... oo. 52 co. 3. 888$ on; mo. we. ...26- 3.. m_.. 2.7 3.. vor ...mmd 3. 0o. .58-fl $8.38 2896 M w. m w w. m w w m w w. 0 I880. 8080302: 00388002 525805 808302: 080002 352 33.82 mEmcoumfim 3:083 560%. 20M .: 03x: 3 3.3203800. L0\M=.-3L300 20%: 833.23. £38833; 0M=§0§ 3.88. 03 33 5.8338 $380.35? .8353: «088%.:3 Lokfiygg 0083883835 853m-88V C 030% 128 0o. v m 00 0:005:30 33.3308 003 020> 05- + ”mo. v m 00 00005330 330303000 003 020> 05 ”00000 t. 20008 0005 .3 £000 80¢ 09:80 50p 00: 003% 00 500.030 00003 00005030 00 0003 0.005- ”000 Z 3.. 0o.- 3.- :3 no. mo. 3.- _o.- _o.- 858m on; o y. oo. ...3.N- N 3 .- oor _m._ mo. co. 083x 00:30:00V 3.03.0 33 no. co. omv _o.- _o.- 3. 3. mo. .85-am oo._ ~3. vo. om. 7 not oov +oo.~ mo. co. 030400 3.000303% 320.03.00QQ mm; 0o. mo. 8. mo. mo. ow. 3. mo. Egan om. No. No. +_ o. T wo.- 3.- me; no. mo. 58¢. 0.220000 3:0.500RONQ mm; mo. co. 2. 3. 3. mo. 3. mo. 553m ow. 3. 0o. ow. T wor no: me; no. co. 00~0< 30003.32 N336 0 m .0 0 m 0 0 w. 0 8000 3:000 arr—om E0305 “0:300 m_:0:0_00_0m 0000002 >z0o_w=0M .2 033 3 30300-300 L0\M=.$0h=00 20%: 0030.29» $3020.03? 00.000035 3.0000 05 33 0030.2? 30003.33 .00-x0300: 00:030Q03§=~ 353%103V mm 030..- 129 .3on 82% 05 8 @8388 3on 88:2: 05 E 3262 8: £3 02? Son 05 :02? 5 82855 E 33328 8: mm? #8 690m 2F .83 58m Bahama—V 32:85:me 83 33> 2: 35 832?: accom... .obn 82m Hobart baggy—ma mm 80% 62:2: 05 55055 $88 52 .095 BF .686 2: 5 39:2: mm? BEBE 05 :23, 3:53 37.8322 3 oBmtg bmmomwze 05 Bob Soto vows—=28 05 9 WEE “mo“ 80:9: 2: .20on 805 .«o :08 88m 3:38 :03 was 82% 8 .muoobo 898w Enumfiwu o: 29$ 22.: ”8o Z -- -- -- -- -- -- BEE“— : u- u- u- E .. Houo< 935%:th fibkafiv -- -- -- -- -- -- beam 68m -- -- .82 *0: -- ... 5m 88¢. 38m .. -- .. .. -u .. 553m -- -- 3. 8. -- 8. 86< 522$me NgouumeQ -- -- -- -- .. -- 558m -- -- : -- .. -- 88< bagmamx NutoEmomflQ -- -- -- -- -- -- 555$ -- -- -- -- -- -- 38¢. buommfix :me6 g EN“ swing mg Eula g “8%“: 8333 3% g 8433 gig team waged “8.5295 mgfifigz a g .83on 3580 g 13%. afilom a an: aaomzom .V N 96% S Nohzouwamn gogxwfifiohzoo =33» 335.8; ”8.5385 3.894 33 mm§$u§ 3.88. noxiohfifimfi‘xc mafia 2 035; 130 do. v m 3 “Swami—ma 335mg: 33 33> 2:- + ”no. v Q as “:85:me bfiotmtfim £3 02? 05 ”38“ r. 2358 085 .«o :03 Bow 3280 :89 mm: 528» cm gumbo 53% 2:85ch o: 0.53 205. 5qu mo. T 2.. 3.- No. No. 5. car cor 3.- 3“.- mo.- 5.- Bevan on; 3. ma. ...mfim- war 0 _ .- :r 5.- S.- .Kwd 5 fl. mo. 88¢. mutcnzmaw «853 am. No. S. . Q. T var mor er No.- 8.. :1 co. mo. 655$ mm; co. mo. .30.?- w _.- v _ .- 8.. 8.. Nov ..va N. _. o _. .88/x 5.8%..me NESSEEQ mm. 5. S. 2. 7 nor we: a _ .- 5.- 5.- mm; co. vo. .85—am hm; mo. No. ... 5.0- 3-2- w fl .- cm. _- cor mo: *oMé \- _. o _. .88“ $83»: NughficmflQ no... oo. oo. we: mo.- 8.. 3.- 8.. No.- 24 no. mo. $5.3m xv; mo. 8. 3.0.6. 8.. a _ .- E..- mo.- 8.. ... 56 \- _. _ _. .88< bfifimfix 355 m w. m. m w. m m w m N w m seam “58929:: mo>umEoz< 55935 325ng 8:302 1352 33.82 flsmcofifim Know—om flmmowwzom .2 gs: 3 EflEumo xQMfifiohzcu :33 $33.29. A3333}; wmfiiuxm 3.62. ms 35 5:33 mmizouufix $633.29, ©3833; SKflmho: wetmhzmmmhmeN ngLuk-BBV cm 2an 131 do. v m «a Esau—mi b—wEwEE m2» 33> 2:- + ”no. v m an “:85:me 3.855% 33 03.3 05 ”33“ r. 20on 9.05 .«o :08 Gob 3:38 soon was 598w cm .mwooto 665w =30£§6 0: ob? 82E. ”8o Z wwr mo: 3.. am; mo. co. 9m.- No.- Nov .8553 a»; Go. mo. mm. T _ fi- mo.- 5. mo. 8. 88¢. muzunrmfix «9:25 om; mo. we. we. 8. oo. mo. mo. No. $5.8m we; we. we. +3. T 3.- cor Nv; co. vo. .88/x \Smfimamx 32023me N. _ ._ mo. mo. m H. S. 5. 5w. 8. 8. 553m oo. we. we. E. T 3.- co.- 9v.— oo. we. .88" $233 Eggnog-RN 3. we. we. 3‘. No. No. on. 8. No. 8585* vo. we. we. +8. T mo: 5.- mm; mo. vo. .58< 98%.: 3.6 m w m m w m w w m sum-m M8394 2&3ng 8.» :00 as Emcouflom 959-32 Biomwzum .2 983 3 255.2%» Lo-xmfiachaou :33 833.29» £33.88me 228323 3.88. 2% BB .83ng bmmommamx xeNnEGoE muzmnammmuxfis metum-LSQV Z.- 033- 132 .20on =m 9 com—mam 88 £5 5 £023 40on 88% 05 9 3.89:8 688 8265 05 E 3268 Ho: 33 02? Son 05 3033 E moocfimfi E 333030 Ho: mm? 52 Enom 2:- 40.38 2: E Bus—2: mm? .8362: 05 5:? >235 @3323»: 8 0325? 562w? 05 68m “8&0 33:23 05 9 flown.— umB 82:3: 2:- .2268 80:... mo :80 88m @0580 coup was 63% cm .30on 828w Encamcflm o: 895 82:- ”So Z - - -- -- - - .553; - -- -- -- - -- 86¢. muzsgmaw :95 «U - - - - - - 558m - -- -- - - - 86¢. gag-m 329:5me -- - - - -- -- $5.8m -- - -- -- - -- 88< $.83»: NuromamomflQ - -- -- -- - -- 55.23 -- -- - - - -- 88¢. bV-ommamk =3me 3% 3m 3% ...-gm 3% a. m % 32.-IE ...-4.3 sl-ME 393 3.4.24 gum. gum- EoEoZo>£ mo>cmfioz< 325535 Hammad :55on 8:28 3% 34%|: 33 flaw-mm 2:302 tagged .V N mag 3 5&8th S\M=.Soh=8 22>: «flautg nouuaxfifi 3.89... 33 mmfixtxw 38$. Lek. ushumcwE-xo mus-m mm 033- 133 6o. v A E “50$:me bfifiwfifi 83 on?» 2:. + Mme. v m an «gomfiwfi bfioumufim mm? 038, 05 ”38“ r. 20on 805 no :08 Bow 35:8 :89 mm: 895w cm .fiooto 825w 585%? o: 203 085. 6qu mo. 7 o _ .- we... 3 . 5. 5. ac... we. 8.. $7 No.. 5.- 858m hm; oo. «6. ...vmd- a ~ .- E .- m _ .- 5.- 5.- *Ed 0 _ . ac. .88/x muzuuamhw £9595 wv. me. 5. mm. T nor vo... mm.. 5.- 5.- $2 mo. 8. 853m ...ood mo. vo. $5.? 0 _ .. N _ .. me; No... we: .3 fl .v 0 ~. 00. .58< $8.“...me Nutoucxme cm. 5. S. cm. T mo; we... we... co. oo. 84 co. #0. $5.8m mm: no. mo. ..bmfi- mm; N. _ .. we. T 8.. 3.. *mmé h _. o _. hEo< $8.33 BtofiwoRflQ cc. oo. oo. hwr vor 8.. mm.. 5.- 5.- o _ A mo. 8. 853m +3; mo. vc. ... 3.? a _ .. o M .- va mo: 8.. ...wwd o _. 0 fl. .58/w bmmomwamx ~3me m w m w w. m w w m w w m “comm 258029;: 83:35:.“ Nam—ESE: =58“ng 9:5on 32.82 352 fingers—om Enofiom atmowwzom .: 98x: 3 baczoucfim 953$? sQMfifiohzcu :33 8353p mgwaouSmL mmfixxuxm 3.83. 2% 33 $533 kfigoucfix .9633ng bmwfimamx Lo\m~%§< muzmnmmnanxfifi xmfixunwioBV mm 2an 134 6o. v m. 8 agowEwa 33:38:“ 985 02? 2:. + ”no. v Q S “gamma—ma >=8umufim 33 33> of ”3mm: r. 2305 085 no :23 89a @8380 soon was 528w om .muoobo 830w “Swofcwfi o: ob? 22E. 6qu mm. T 5.- 3.- +3; _ fl. mo. 8.. no. «or .5853 ms; o _. ac. ...: .N- m fl .- 8.- oo; we. we. 88< 8:532th «93 «D mm. we. we. av. No. S. on. No. No. $5.3m mm; we. no. .3 _ .m- mor ear 2..— oo. mo. “93‘ bmwommamm Nazcauxmmb mo. 3. we. wv. No. .8. mm. 8. 8. 853m 3 ._ we. we. .5 _ .N- wor cor mu; no. mo. .88" 523mm»: NuacfiwomflQ cm. No. No. 3. we. 8. 3. 8. No. 888m mm; mo. co. *mm.~- ac; wor om; co. mo. 88< Samfix 3.5 M w m N m m w w m .ootm mEZom £5305 85:00 a5 mfimdomuflom 2332 BEBE—om .2 SEE 3 bhczonofim 9:3ch gokmfizohzeu =2? wwEutg AEQSBNE 228385 368. 2% 36 $33.23» ©3933? xokflmnose. muzmhzmmmnxfifi LmELu&.LSQV vm 2an 135 £0on :0 3 002%? 0000 020 5 £053 .E88 800% 05 3 0089080 6on 80505 05 5 0003000 8: 003 0205 S09 05 £033 5 0005305 E 0000—50—00 8: 003 0000 .008 05. 40—88 05 5 00—0305 003 800605 05 :05: 5:56 3:08:22 8 033.53 362%?“ 0.: 88m 80,000 0083200 05 3 000.80 0000 80wa 0f. .20on 0005 .8 £000 88m 003:8 :00; was 805m 00 .3000c0 828w EwofiEwmm o: 083 0005. ”082 -- -- -- : -- .. 858m -- -- -- -- -- -- 88< 00:33:03... £0035 -- -- -- -- -- -- 858m -- -- -- -- -- -- 88< gammfiz 3:83.895 -- -- -- -- -- -- 858m -- -- -- -- -- -- 88< baommamm NachmoQflQ -- -- -- -- : -- 850$ -- -- -- -- -- -- 88< bmmcmuwc0- $0.85 $8 $8 30 a. 0 gm 0% . “993%ka wbwkmfitN abmkmmutN uhmkNVEN .UNKNVQN “99%th uOObW a 8080202: 00335002 a3 3 80580 6580 wag. mg. 0% flamed 05302 $8300 .2 08x: 3 bagohofim 03332 8\M=.59§80 20%: «.0350? 8.8503.» 383. 38 035888 3.82. 8\=o.au.€05\c gym mm 030,—. 136 Ln.hEF£.l-. L. . do. v Q 00 0:005:me b_0Ew008 003 030> 05. + ”mo. v A 00 0:005:me $305306 v.03 020> 05 “3000 0... 20008 0005 .00 0000 80¢ 00580 0000 m0: 000:0w 00 £000,000 000:0w 00005300 0: 0003 00002. ”0002 8. T o _ ... 5.- 0m. 5. 5. mm..- Nov Nov 00.- 5.- 5.. 00500; 5. mo. 5. ...omd- o _ .- 0 _ .- co. co. co. *mv.~ 0 _ . we. 030< 0000000000 0.0009 mm. 5. 5. :0.- No.- 5.- 00. No. 5. mm. 5. 5. 00500.0 mm. 05. No. ...mnd- 2r 2.- wmr 5.- 5.- 10d 3. mo. 0000400 00800000 0000.0000QQ mm. 5. 5. mm.- mo: 5.. K. 5. No. om; co. 5. 00500m no. mo. 5. ...mNd- F..- Er N04- cor mor 0.de 3. mo. 08000~ 0.0800000 0000.0000RO0Q oo. oo. oo. o _ .- co. oo. 00. No. No. Nw. 5. No. 0050000 0w. 5. No. $0.0- omr c _ .- mm.- 5.- 5.. *0 Tm 3. 05. 0000000 0.0800000 00003 0 0. 0 0 w 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 080.0 20080202: 00300500? 5250005 00005002: 050002 0:002 3:002 mEmaozflqm 30000000 Nutmeg—0M .2 00.00: 00 000000000000 0>00M02 0000 000.000.0000 000000-000 00\M0.00000000 0000: 000000000, $030000? 0M2000R0 00.0000 000 000 5.0000 000000000000 £030.20; 05000.0M0000 000000000000 0.000000000000005 005050-0000“... cm 0305. 137 .8. v m “a ugmfiwfi bfifiwae $3 02?» 2E. + ”no. v m “a «:85:me bfiozmufim $3 029» 05 ”38» r, .2258 805 mo :08 80¢ 35:5 :83 an: 63% cm gumbo 595w 68$:me o: 225 82$. 6qu 2.7 co: co.. on; 2. mo. vw. nor 8.. 553m co. 8. mo. 3”. T we: oer mm . mo. 8. H23»‘ muzunamaw «9:23 ~ #4 we. we. 3. No. 5. oo. oo. oo. 853m wot co. co. mu.. 3.. 8.. cm. 8. mo. .58< . 93%me Ezohugmmb :4 we. 3. mm. 3. 5. am. No. S. $5.3m 3.- oo. oo. «W. 8.. mo.. no; we. 8. .83< 98%:wa NEQSERWNQ ww. we. we. :. 8. mo. 3. S. S. 855E 3.- co. co. oar 3.- 8.- 3.. 8. mo. 88< bmnommamz :3me w w m w w m M w m seam mdmZom Eng—poi 85:00 Em: Emcozflom 832.82 582mm“;— .: 98x: 3 bagehofim mfishwmz ~35 .Eflzfimd .Noh§u$mn xQKMfiSEEou 5%: 333.29» R£w=o=£mx 20.5525 3.69... 2% ES 833:9» gamma? Lc\n~m§§< muzmgmmwfixfié .SELQKJSBV mm 035,—. 138 20008 :0 9 088% 300 88 8 8083 42008 80.8. 05 8 0032800 3808 80.808 08 8 000808 80: 83 Big Sea 08 88:3 8 80568 8 02080—8 .08 mm? 52 Snow 0E. 80008 08 8 000208 925 89838 08 80:? 3:03 2280888 2 03082» 3888—2 08 808 «8&0 080328 08 3 80.88 38 60808 2F 20008 088 .80 8000 808 00880 :03 m0: 828% 8 £80me 805w 802.82me 0: 203 82:. ”202 24.00 0% 28 2 28 2 0.42.030 024$ 29.43 0042.2 w8>_0m 80803028 888%“? 803on 8580 382 352 32 Belg. 523038 m.£_m.:.-o|§olm 32 sail? 808082: EGOmhunm 888$ 890< 00230202V 2022 2D 88.82 86¢. 0280202 820202026 888$ 88¢. 0220202 3202.2002me 808.82 830.4. 5.200283% 20.205 “ooh—mm— Pagozfifioflfim .3 082: 20 2020202022m 082032 220 220.85% 202200.500 20\M2.S02200 2023 0030.202» 202002028 20.2000 220 0M2020§ 20.2000 20\ 20.20.8058 musk mm 033. 139 .00. v 0. 00 8000880 >=08w008 003 080> 05. + 80008 000000 05 00 00000800 _0008 0000008 06 8 0000000 000 003 080> 0000 000 00005 8 00000008 8 000080000 00: 003 0000 _000m 000. .000N 80.0 8000.000 38000880 003 080> 000 005 00000008 “—0009. Ho. v Q 00 8000880 b_00000000 003 080> 000 ”00000 0... .0000 800 8000.000 380000080 00 000.00 000808 000 0000003 000000 0000 300m 0:... 00008 0.0 8 000808 003 00000008 05 00003 @0000 800000800 00 0300000, 50008—00 08 80.0 000.00 0000—00—00 000 00 000000 0000 0000008 05. 00008 00000 .00 0000 80.0 00880 0000 000 000=0w 00 0000000 00000w 8000880 00 0003 0000.0. ”000 Z $2 $2 0.05m 00. 00. 008000 $2 $2 $0.0m mm. mm. 0000.0. 0.0000 000020000000 .. -- 8.- oo. 00. 008000 -- : 0.de om. om. 0000< NDQBBNQV ~m0k§-nv ...vm.~ S. «008 00. 00. 008000 -- _ m 0. 35.0 00. 2. 0000.4. b0000M0~0- 002000020009 0.00.0 S. tum.— 00. 00. 008000 -- E. ...mm.m mm. mm. 0000< 00800000 002308000 -- -- 00.0 00. 00. 008000 -- z. .03 2. mm. 032. 008000002 00220 040% 095.00% 0 0. 0. 080m 20.0? 0292000 208088 o_.%E_.I> .2 0002: 00 003002020 02008200 8002000002 00002000 000 20\0300V< 0.020002000002005 202020a~.20000\ am 0500. 140 .00. v A 00 8000880 338308 003 080> 00.0- + ”no. v 00 00 8000880 330000000 003 080> 0.0 ”00000 0... 000008 00000 .00 0000 800 00880 0000 008 00080w 00 0000.00 000:0w 8000880 00 0003 0000:- ”0002 *moN- 3.- 00.- N08 mo. mo. 0.00:0. 2. 0o. .LNN- 2.- 00.- 5000080005 . 00:00000V 00.0009 :8- 00.- 8.. wh. mo. No. mm; 00. 00. Q..- moc No.- 3000080005 00.30.0000 00000000005 8.7 00.- No.- on. mo. 8. *mN.N 00. 00. mm.- 8.- 5.- 3800080005 0.08.0000 0000.000003Q 30m- mo.- 00.- mm. mo. No. *0m.m 00. co. :3- no.- .00.- 5000088005 00.80.0000 0306 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 w .0. 0 w. 0 0800 8080398 0080000002 05050008 80800028 0.80002 008002 08002 800000800 3800000 away—00 .00 00005 .00-\00300003 80000000000 0M=000H0 00.0000 000 000 6.0000 8000000000 0.030.200 808M000 .00\ 000003- 00008000.0005 000000m-0000V 00000050000Q 000.000.0000 cm 0300- 141 .00. v 00 00 8000830 00008008 003 080.» 000 + ”mo. v Q 00 8000880 000000080 003 080> 08 ”00000 0... 20008 000.0 .00 0000 800 00880 0000 008 000=0w 00 0000-00 00000» 8000880 00 0003 00000. ”000 Z 3.0- 3.- 0o.- +N0._ :. we. *m0.N- 3.- 00.- 5000080005 0000000000 00000.0 0w. mo. 8. 00.- Nov 8.- mm;- mor mor 3000080005 5.000800% 00000000006 3.- 00.- nor 3.— .8. mo. *wm.m- 00.- 00.- 5000080005 808M000 0000.000080Q 00.- S.- S.- 00. 8. 8. 0.00.0- 00.- 00.- 0000080000 00.30.0000 00000 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 08.00 w830m 803000 0000000 Nflfimd 0800000000 0.80002 biog—0,0 .2 000.00 00\00~00.£0> 0000000000000 0800000000 00.0000 000 000 5.0000 8000000000 0.030.200 000008.000 00K0~0000< 0.000000000000005 008.00%..000000 00.200.80.00an 80.0.0000 0m 0300- 142 00008 000.00 05 3 00000800 .0008 000005 05 E 000300 8: 003 02g 800 05 0023 E 000538: 5 00003200 00: 003 0000 005 05. .000N 80-0 “000$? 300000806 003 025» 05 005 0000305 ”.0009. ”082 - 83 :80 -- 02 83 0.0500 08m -- 0.8.0 .. Em - *0;- 83 .92 080 -- 8.- 8.- - s.- 8.- 0500 0508020 .. 8.- 8.- -- 8.- 8.- 82 0088000 00200000V «0.5 «D - -- - -- -- -- 05-80 05:80.05 -- - - -- -- - 80< .05—8:85 0..-0.833% 30000-086 -- -- - - a; -- 0500 080 - -- - - .80 -- 83. 080 -- -- -- -- 8.- -- 05.30 058000 -- -- -- -- 8.- -- 8.2 058000 0030000 303080qu -- -- 08.0 -- a; -- 0500 3% -- -- 80m -- .80 -- 093.. 080 - -- 8.- -- 8.- .. 055 0508005 -- -- 8.- -- 8.- -- .32. bfizfimma 0020.0»: 000.6 04000 0000 3% 0.00% 30% gm 09.0% 08080 0% Belg % 08% 000m mam 000802020 003%“? a g g wad-gm Eula—‘4 @12- 0.83 3 08802 $8800 143 .3 98% .8\ 0.030.909» ANS-00.0300 00.000003» N0300- 000 $0000.88 0.800- 05 000 00.0000 $000003? £030.29» «GREEN? .8\ ...-N0003- 00000=0Q00000=~ 005.00%..8000- 0000:500me 0000M-0- 000 L0\ 20.00.0005\0 «.00-Q mm 0300- do. v Q 3 Emu—mama b33w38 33 33> 05 + ”no. v A 3 :30me3 3323335 33 33> 05 “38“ r. 2258 085 no :03 80¢ 3580 soon was 53% cm .mfioto 895w Swami»? o: 05>» 82:. ”802 Lad- MN..- wor mo; mo. mo. *ovN 2. oo. tuna- m_.. we.. bimzfimmma 82332923 .35 “5 End. w_.. 8.. NV. 8. No. Nb. mo. 8. NY. 8.. No.. bum—mgmma $85»: 3:83;me ...vo.m- 3.- 3.- co. co. mo. :1 o_. no. 007 3.- 3.. brim—Emma $83.3: EzofinomfiQ 3:”- mm; 0o: .8. no. 3. Eu— 2. mo. v0.7 m7 co: bra—mfimmma $8.332 3:96 3 w a. N w m N w. m w w m 60mm 2580302: 833582 5:582: E2582: 23302 352 3:32 Hammers—om 3:88; flmmowmzom .2 96x: 3 ESREMoEmn Logxmfizohaeu =23» $36.2qu £338.33me mM=§88 3.894 2% ~28 8.53:6 $52023? .8332? bmmfimamx 3&5383 muzmhtmmmnxfis gmsgukifiuvx btcmfiwufiQ nacmmmwm mm 2an 144 do. v m 3 ESENEB b3fiw38 33 33> 2: + ”mo. v m 3 Haggai b30533 33 33> 05 ”3%": N... .2308 805 mo .38 Bob 63:80 coon was 83% cm gumbo 896w 3onch o: 0.53 0.55. ”So Z NNN- mo; 8.- ...:.~ 2. o_. ...cvd- 2.- o_.- bra—memmma muzuhtmNNV «93.5 m N. S. S. om. S. 5. mm. 7 2.- wot b§_m8_mm_n bmwfimamm 3:23.395 3.. 8.. 8.. mm. co. mo. 3.7 2.- 3.. 35:83me «99.3%me choNNEomflQ 3.. 8.. mo: _N._ mo. co. *mNN- c N .- o N .- bra—mfiima baonNNmz 2396 N m. N N m N scum wag—om 80305 85:00 oSmaoZszogom .2 m>$= Nu EEQEMQEmV LQKMNNNNNEEQQ :32 833?? £2382wa “$23.88 389. 2% ~38 5:33 $54.23me .meQEg bwnfiwamx 3:336: 8th=QO3§5 .NmELumiSuV NotumfimnflQ wafimamm em 2an 145 do. v m 3 “Swami—ma 338338 83 33> 2:. + .3808 88% 85 8 803888 3888 8888 05 8 3268 No: v.33 33> Son 08 .323 8 32388 8 333030 No: 83 88 390m 2:. .83 88mN Nacho-£8 b83m8w3 83 33> 85 38 33388 ”Enom... 88< .83 88m Echo-t6 b88w8wmm mm Soto 8268 05 880:3 8.3.8 3%. 398m 2:. 83808 038 mo some 898‘ 82:80 soon m3: 885» cm goo-co .885» 8305§fi o: 883 822. ”282 -- 8; 838 -- +8; 85 8:8... 88m -- .88.". :3 -- *8... 88m 88¢. 88m -- 8.- 8.- -- 8.- 8.- 88.88 838885 -- 8.- o N .- -- 8.- M8.- 88< 888885 8.828828% «8.595 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8:88 85:88.85 -- -- -- -- -- -- 88< 88:88me NoNu-Emamx 8:88;me -- -- -- -- - -- 8&8; 85:88.85 - -- -- -- -- -- 88< 58:88.85 883882 888885 -- -- .. 88 -- -- -- 8&5 88m -- -- 88m -- -- -- 88< 88m - -- 8.- - -- -- 8588 888888 -- -- 2.. -- - -- 8818:8828 8838wa N885 8|.»wa 8» m 8% 888w 8&3 8% 88488 8.83 3.88 g 8188-8 88% Nola-HE 88888 888235 8.888.? 838% 88% 8% 8.3 3 88.3.2 3 RAN-owned .3 888x: 8 838888588 .NQKMSNNEES 28%: 8838.29 £3,388me 2888wa8 8.88. 85 8M§ b.8238; .8\ £088: 08:08:0Q08L0EN L05L8k-x888w 8088:88me §8NMN~0K cm 035. 147 do. v m a 68.-:36 EEEwBE 33 on?» 05 + ”mo. v a “a «gowEwfi b—aozmuflm mm? 038, 05 ”3.0.3 r. .2258 085 mo :08 88m 35:8 :8; .3: 83% cm .muoobo .598m 2805:»? ca 0.53 22:- ”802 2.7 00.. 3.. mm; 3. no. ...ovd- 2.- mor bra—Emmma 8:5»:th «.235 2.. mo. 8. wvr Nov 5.- 3”;- mo.- 3.- bra—mafia Snags 323::me 5.- mo- 8.. No; we. 8. *m_.m- we: cor bugs—Ema bmwomwamx NanofinomfiQ R: 5.- 5.- on. no. No. *mm.m- we: cor bum—gamma $8.33 $55 w w. m M w m .0.-em MEZom 8030.5 8:200 2332 azazom .2 98% 3 thou-bmn xc-xwzfiohgo 22>: .83ng $560233 wm§-88 3.82,. 2% V5» 853% £33233» $33.29. «89.2%me Lo-xémne: motmhnmmmnxfifi LmELum-SBV QQV brumgnflQ «SSMSSN mm 2an 148 .3on 88% 05 8 3.8928 3.68 88:85 05 E @0268 Ho: 33 02m> Son 05 523 E 82885 5 38328 “on an? 82 Enom 2:- .obu 89a Echo-t6. buquocfiwmm 33 38> 05 :2: 8.8%.: gonom... ”202 -- -- -- -- 8.2 .83 555 snow -- -- -- -- .82” .82 82 E8 -- -- -- -- 8.- 8.- 5.88 358535 -- -- -- -- 8.- 8.- 5?. €883me 2.922222% 2.92220 -- -- -- -- -- -- 858$ 35:83.85 - -- -- - -- -- 86¢. 282288835 bmnfimncmx 320.222me -- -- ...-88 -- o: -- 5:28 “Bow -- -- ..wa -- .83 -- .53. .38 -- -- 8.- -- 8.- -- 8:28 35:82.85 -- -.. 3.- - vor - 38¢. bra—gamma 5.28%th 3292.2anng -- -- Lama -- 8; $3 355. Boom -- -- .82 -- .82 $3 83. 38 -- -- 8.- -- 8.- 8.- 555 sagas-.5 -- -- 8.- -- 8.- 8.- 83. 358.55 8.288.282 2585 mg g 28% 8% 8.8% % slug 3% W23 28.22 888$ g seam mafia-w 8580202: 328822 MEI—gm gala-fl g “loam 312 3.5% g 3 as: £88.23. 149 .2 962: 22 3228-me .8\M2.59228 222: 8&3ng $2,822.23? 22.28.2322 389. 222 mM22288 382. m5 222 8.222% $2820.22Nm2 £322.22; 5.282%.232 .S-x ...-38: mu2m22mmm2232~ SEER-.2298 bNLGEENV-flQ magmamx 222 20\ 22.22.2230? 3.85 mm 2an do. v m 8 3852?.“ 322388 33 02? 05 + ”mo. v Q 8 tsunami 3828338 £25 03? 05 888 r. .2258 085 mo :80 88m 3580 soon mm: 535% cm goo-co bucom Emomfiwfi o: 803 225. 682 ...voN- 3.. co.- “mg no. 8.. ...EN S. no. +8.7 2.- 3.. bra—8535 82332sz .3320 mm.7 mo: Nor ww- mo. No. Q: co. mo. .8.- 8.. Nov bra—3:35 $8.832 323.23.2me 5.7 we: Nor oc- mo. No. *mmzo- wo- co. 0%. Nor 5.- 55—2535 88.2.32 Ngognomv-NQ imN- we: 3.- mm. 8. No. 2.th co. co. 3.7 8.- 3.- bus—2535 hwy-03.23% N335 w w. m w w. m N w m w w- m .00-um 3080235 333822 5:53.: 308835 0.5822 32.82 352 mEmcoufiom BaoEom Nagy—om .2 $35 3 22.22223 3.x.M2Sc-228 233 333.29» $2,023.23me 3.23288 3.39. 22 33 6.233 REM-23.2332 £333.29» 20333-232 35.8.333- 8232333325 33.3%.33V 3.23.225.me gammamm am 2an 150 do. v Q E Emu—mama 33539: 33 03? 05 + ”mo. v a. «a ufiomfiwfi 3303355 33 on?» 05 “mummy r. 2288 085 we :08 88m 35:8 coon was 895w cm .33»? 898w «885%? o: 0.83 22: ”8oz car 3.. 3.- pm; we. co. ..RNN- N7 wor brazemmma measuzmzw «95:9 K. mo. .8. mm; 8.- 5.- mm. T co: 3.- 55:86me $8.3m: 329:3me mm: 8.. 8.. w: vo. mo. *mvd- mor cor 35:8?me 533%.»: NuacfimomfiQ war 5.- 5.- mu. 8. No. EYN- 3.- 8.- bra—magma baa: =§S m w m N w m scum 333m :85on 65:00 0.5302 BEBE—om .2 95: E Eamfinmo SKMKSEES 5S: afiaatg £3.30:qu 3.2333 3.88. 2% ~28 6:33 £238.33? £633.29» bwnowmawx .5333: mu§n§mm§§=~ Lmsgumifiuw QQ» btumgmfiQ 38332 ow 2an 151 .6308 82% 05 3 38388 $88 8868 05 8 33.62 8: mm? 33> Son 05 £023 8 80568 8 3833—8 Ho: .83 “m8 Enom 2:. .83 88m “coho-$6 3885.86 mm? 33> 05 35 8:368 gonom... ”8oz - - *owd - +8.— - - ..._m.m - ...vwxc- - - mo: - S.- - - 8.- - co.- - - 3. ~ - - ..ch - - - - S.- - - - - mo.- *wv.m - RA *am.m - ... mad - - Nor - S.- - - v0.- - mo.- § 3% 3% a» m Edam 33 32.-43 mum-E. g g mg 8080202: mo>cm8§< filfilnwumlfi ..va ..va No.- no.- Elam 3.3 Hugo-E 3483 68.—mm Epom 88¢. 330m 653.8 35:88 83. 55858 833th 3.539 55-5 35:57.28 88¢. 55:86me \Smfimamx 33.8326 .5883 Enom 88< Enom 555 55888 52 35885 bmmowwamk NuzofimomflQ 888$ Enom 88< Enom 355 55888 88¢. bra—“8&5 538$me ~3me “8.8m 08932 3608:3— .v~ 98% 3 =58th Lossmfiaohaou .223» 833.2? $5.283wa 283588 3.83. 33 333398 3.83. NS 33 8.333% £33833; $33.29» 8.88:? 33303 muzmnzmmmmtfifi amSKuR-SBV 83253me 383.3% 2% 3\ 3.88353 8.85 :V 035,—- 152 do. v a 3 885880 338308 003 02g 05 + ”no. v a 00 8005:me 3305830 003 02g 05 “$000 F. 20008 0005 no £000 80¢ @0580 8009 00: 805w cm .300»? 00.8% 8005830 on 0.53 0805. 0qu EQN- 3.- S.- omA no. mo. *ovd 2. mo. and- 2.- cor 0080:8605 00:30:08V «0.380 8.7 we. No.-. mu. 8. No. mm; co. we. 3.. 8.- nor bra—M8305 0:30.008 ~020230QQ Q..- mo.- 5.- ov. No. S. ..bod no. mo. mf- No.- 5.- 0380:8305 0.08.0000: 82030000me *noN- wor 8.. E. 8. No. *mm.m oo. oo. +34- 8.- 3.- 35:86me 88.00502 30.05 0 w 0 0 m 0 0 w 0 0 w. 0 80.00. 8080202: 0030080.? 523805 808002: 080002 3802 3802 mEmcoufl0m E8083 Nummowwmfim .2 08k 8 baunohofim 0053002 00.\M=Soh=o0 20S: w0388> 85202300 0M830u0 3003. 05 ~88 $5030 85.20.8800 6030.2? 808M500 .8\ $0800: 00=0~0=0Q0~§0E~ g0E§kiS0V 80.20280.an 0,3833% NV 030% 153 .8. v m an Emu—mama DREwQE mm? egg 2: + ”mo. v m “a “56¢?me b—aoumcfim mm? 33> 05 ”38“ r, 2258 805 mo :03 Soc @8280 coon was 835w 0m .8950 83% “585%? o: 803 223. ”Bo Z Z”. T nor 8.- +va._ o _. no. *hmd- m M .- 8.- bra—Exams muzcwtmfiw «9550 we; «.0. 8. wk..- 8.- .8.- m_.T vo- mor bra—2535 baommfix 3.823me mm.- Nor Nor mm. mo. No. +8. T 8.- no: bgzfiuma $8.3m: ~Q=oEnom3Q wor co. 00. mu. 8. S. *N _ .N- we: mo: 35:85me basmamm 2396 N w. m m w a. M w a. 80mm M32389: Hangman” mfimcozflom Ecofiom Ea £30333“ 8:322 Emmogfim 154 .V N 98% 3 5.432335% $53me S.\M=.S9:=8 :33 $33.23; $5233me uMSESB 389... 2% 38 85336 “#:323me «$33.23; bwnfiuwcmg .8\ @333. 8§~u§m§§$§~ Quick-SUV bNLSNEEflQ 33332 3 2an .338 88% 05 8 389:8 $on woo-65 05 E 3268 Ho: mm? 029 Son 23 :02? E 80535 5 33328 Ho: mm? 53 Epom 2:- .Bou Eo-a Bob-Ev regent-gm? 83 on?» 2: 35 8.8%.: gonom... ”8oz -- :3 $3 -- +8.. .33. . scram 30m -- EA a? -- a: $3 82 68m -- 8.- 8.- - 5.- .8.- 355 rummage -- 8.- mo- -- 8.- 3.- 8?. 535mg mucuntmsx £355 -- -- - -- - -- scram 352535 -- -- -- -- -- -- 88¢. fifizémma bNu-ommamm 238.52me -- -- -- -- oi -- 555 38m - -- -- -- .53 -- .22. 38 -- -- -- -- S.- -- 555 brain-.5 -- -- -- -- 3.- -- 8.3.. bcéafia .9.-2mm»: B§E8§Q -- -- Lana -- #2 $2 555 38 -- -- a?“ - $3 a? 83. 38 -- -- S.- -- 8.- s.- 855 buggy-WE -- -- 3.- -- 8.- 8.- 86< bum—Emma bus-wan: aux-.5 Elm-QM ...-mum mg Elm-6m gm Nam-QM 39% 89% URI-.34 324:4 Bug-liq 82% Beam 3 “580302: mo>ualfio=< a 3% $243 .4.-flaw ‘3 flag-42 mflmfififim g 8%on émofizom .3 985 8 baczouofim 953$? xo\M=.So-:=8 :33 333.29» ASESBBK guns-23 3.82. ~28 mmtguxm 383. 2% BS «932% $52023wa .mmBS-Sxp ~98meme .S\ “.38: muzmhzmmwhgfifi LmExcnw-LQBV QQ» btumfitfih mafimumm St .8\ tocuaumE-E flaw-m $- 25 155 do. v Q “a 3.85:me $353.2: 9;» 029» 05 + ”mo. v Q 8 EacfiEwmm bfioumufim ma? 2:? 05 ”3mm“ r. 2338 085 mo :08 Bow 35:8 53 was 835m 8 goo-«mo 828w 2805:me o: 083 822- ”So Z Luv-N- 3.. oo.. a; no. mo. ...mmd 2. mo. *w_.m- :6 cor 55:86me 8.33382V .3325 om;- mor Nor mu. 8. No. no; mo. vo. war 8.. 8.- bum—mfimmma $8832 3:83.835 3.. mo.. 5.. 3. No. 5. Rod no. mo. 3.. mo.- 5.. 55:86me basfimz 3:05qume *o_.m- we: vor 3. 8. No. *wm.~ co. co. +3.7 8.- we: 35:55me $8.83: 855 w w. m m w. m N w. m N m 3 80am Eon—029,5 833882 Nam—58%: 32582: 0.5322 3:82 33.82 mEmcouflom Egg-Ba Nummowmzom .: 83x: 3 bauuouofim 833%»? 33 8&5qu 3328-38.,- 8\M=.-3.¢=8 8%: 833.23» $58253 $633.88 3.8%. 8.: 33 .9333 $5833? .833tg 589%me 8\n33€< 88388383~ 853%..88V 8.23258me 303.32 we 2an 156 do. v R an. «50$:me EEGESE $3 039’ 2: + ”mo. v A B agomemm bfiocmufim mm? on?» 05 ”38. r. .20on 085 mo :08 Bow 3580 soon mm: Steam 8 gumbo .6va «gamma—ma o: 0.53 22:- ”So Z no.7 cor mo; Eu— g. so. *nm.m- N_.- we: bfiazczmma wetsuamzw #355 mm. 8. mo. 3.- Nov 8.. ow. T mo: vor 353535 $8.33 3.8:?me 5.- No: No.- ow. 8. mo. LON- 3.- mar bin—Ezmma bagmfix 3=QEQRM~Q 3.- 5.- oo. hm. No. No. *MNN- wor cor 55:86me basmsmx 35.6 N w. m m m m seam aviom 8030.5 85:00 oSmdo—zflzmoflfim .2 9:6: 3 5.432285% 959$? VS» .Eflfiumo «3309\wa S\M=.Soh§u :33 “$33.29, $5.283me mm§~xu§ 3.6%. 2% ES 833% A£w§h£mx .83ng bmmommamu 33383. muzmhzmmvhxfifi megum-LQBV bESNENnfiQ anew-mamx 0v 2an 157 do. v Q 8 agomemm b—afiwhwe 33 02? BC- + .385 82% 05 9 38988 358 3265 05 E 3262 8: mm? 02? Son 05 523 E 82865 E 38328 8: 33 $2 Enom 2:. .83 80¢ Bogota. bagmiwfi 83 33> 05 gopom... ”202 -- -- 22 -- EB 3.3 5&5 38m -- -- ...wa -- .3..“ ...?a 83 30m -- -- 8.- -- S.- .8.- 555 brazémma -- -- S.- -- 8.- 8.- as... baggage 8:36:th «xv-=25 -- -- -- -- -- -- 558m buggy-£9 -- -- -- -- -- -- 88¢. bramfimmfi Kat-SEEK Nazccugmmb -- -- -- -- o1 -- 555 ~38 -- -- -- -- .53 -- §Q< snow -- -- -- -- s.- -- 55-5 bfizfimma - - - - 3.- - 88< bra—memmma «9.43332 NGtoEmoQu-NQ -- -- ...wfi -- a; $2 555 Bow -- -- .52 -- ...8.~ .33. 83. spam -- -- 8.- -- S.- S.- 555 bcéémma -- -- 3.- -- 8.- 8.- 361.3535 sigma-x 2896 a» m 3% 3E Fowl-$4 g Elma 3% 3'3 g g % slug scum mg “5.530%: avian-“8?. a a finial; 6.3 g g gag-m fig 2:302 zaoa-zom .v N 98% B bauzohoE-w $5362 33 .Efifiamo «chasm-b3 SssMfiSo-zteu 5%: 833.29» $5.223me totouhxfi 389.. BE mmfguxm 3.88 mi 38 $333 £33333; $36.29» «QESMQE 3.x n33: 8233223325 LmELum-SBV QQ» «GESNENENQ ...-38%»me mS S\§.a§§£\o flaw-m Cu 033. 158 do. v m 3 2305ch 338338 33 83> 23. + .388 80:: 2: 3 33:88 3:08 88:8: 2: 8 3268 8: 33 33> Son 2.: :02? 8 80:38: 8: 333030 Ho: .83 38 320m 25. .83 88-: Bob-:6 3:30:83 33 33> 2: 35 330:8: :onom... ”mo. v m 3 83:8me b38833 mm? 83> 2: ”33“ F. 20:08 82: .8 :28 88.: 33:80 :8: 8: 88% cm .85-co Hoccow 88:8w3 0: ob? 805- ”So Z ..me Nor ...ao.~ 2.- ...Enm- 2... E... 55:8:35 8233383 «9:30 -- : -- -- S.- we: Nor 35:8:35 bmmomwamx 338.83me -- -- -- -- $3 cor co.- 53:8:35 88%.»me NuagfiwomflQ *3: 5.- $5.: 3... +8.3 3.- no... 35:8389 88.3%: 3220 Elm-M “INN-.8 m g Emum gen 32% ~38 Elfin N m a. seam 823602 823602 0:383 38233: .853: _Q ..So< ~D 338800 0:383 .2 98% 8 833.23» 2368.58 8932883: :968 2: 8.3.8.2 88 ...-38: mutwgmmmhxfifi me-Smifiovx 88:83me gemwamx we 033:. 159 6o. V A 3 .SwowEwE EREwBE mm? 02? 05 + ”mo. v A “a 28536 3336sz 33 33> 05 ”38“ r. 2258 085 mo :08 88m 3388 coon was 5.5% cm goofing bucow ESEHEE o: 0.53 82:. ”802 3% a: obfimg 00.- No... *wv.m :. Nméva ~5th ow. S. *mhd :. vofiwa modes 54 mo. ...NNJu N_. cmdma o _ .wvm mm. me. *och E . w w «g§>—O>GH mag $.53 $.93 E..- *cmN- Swan _ $.wa— 3.7 59¢. wmdog hmdcm— h _ . T *Nw.m- mod _ 2 oméofl mm. 7 ..bNfi- u mo: 3.. mo... :.- 8.. C... we... 2.- w m0>muweofi< 33.82 3.2: 3.8: 3;- 3.. ...RN- mo: 2&3 K63 ...wm.m- cor ...wo.~- 3.- wmdmn endow ...No.m- we; ...vod- 3.- 2%an cméao *mm.m- mo; than- 8.- m w 5:583— flaws—0:23“ $.32 \u 555 53:: \n .32 a _. S. 555 .. 8+ o a 53 wozufizmhw «95.3 8.2.: \u 355 3.2: _ \u 52 +3; 8. 5:5; ...26 w w. 83 buowmawm NSSNBSQQ SENS \u 555 3%: \n 83. 31 3. 3&5 Es a _. 83 bmnewmmmz ExofiodmfiQ Sfi: \n 555 who: _ \n 52 3; 3. 555 3% cm. 82 $8.3m: 3296 w w “loolmm. u§§w0>£ RfiOmuom Pam—32 Emmomwmfim $33.29” mm=§u§ 388. mi 38 833.29» 530.9%ng m5 LokuEuo: 3555:: NQEBSESQ‘N fimnmhxsgfiw av 033. 160 .co. v Q 3 Exotiwa 33222332: 33 33> 05 + ”mo. v Q 3 2§om222w2m 33022236 83 33> 05 2282 2... .222on 085 .20 238 82.2 32222220 :03 2222 62% cm goo-mo Scam 2§w222w2m o: 0.53 22C- 208 Z 161 8.2 2 2 8.2.22 2.2-2 .22 553.2 2.22 2.82 2.32 x22 223. 2222. 8. 2.0. 8. $2 8. 555 2.2.2 8. 2.232. 2.- 2.2 22. 2332 82332823 23.325 8.2222 2 8.: 2 2 2.22:2 x22 5:52 222 2 2.2.8.2 2 8%” x22 822. 32.2-- 8. $.- Sc 32.-.2 S. 5552 $2 8. ...2 2.2- 8.- .33 8. 233.- bmmommamfi 328.23.350 2.8: $222 8.2-8 2% 5532 3.222 2 8.32 2 2.82 x22 823.. o: 8. 2.2.- 5.. ...~m.~ S. 8532 122.2 26. 92.2- m 2 .- 322.2 2 2. 82% 298.23ng NESSEAEQ 2.2 22 22.222: 222.822 .222 285.2 3.22: 2 22.82 2323 2a 8232. $3 8. $.- 8- ...$.N mo. 553,2 .. 22.2 8. 2.22.2.- m 2 .- .22- 2. 822- bBomecmx ~222me 2 m 2 w. 2 .22. 282.222 wag—om g—DOHA— amazon-v Pam-mo: gmoazom 233222.292 20.28585 3892- 8: 238 6.2235 £33332? ...-6322.292 20.23.2323 32 ugh-322: 323.223: 232352m=3 umumhxuhnufi cm 23.—- .oBN 88m Beanbag bane—mam? ma? 2:? 05 85 82865 gonom... ”Bo Z *mm.N ...0Nd vo. mo. “KG.— .. .. «God 5. -- .. co. shod *omv vo. wo. Kb.— .. *m©.N *om.v 5. -- VG. mo. 3% Em 3.4% Balms wEZom 5030.5 35:00 Rea *mnd we. we. Rod “Luca mo. 3. *wod ...Om.m mo. mo. *hmé. *0 g .m co. no. Bmfim “36% % 823$ E25202: 823582 .8922 33.82 ...wod no. *ovd ...Nm.~ 5. v0. ..de * _ m.m 5. mo. *ovd ..me 5. mo. 3w. g a 3 -- 553m .vpom 15m .88< Enom -- 5:5; mo. .88< 8233th $253 *3; 55:3 Enom -- “30¢. Enom S. .55—am 00. 38< biowmamx 283:3me -- .55—mm Enom ...N _ .o pogo/x Boom -- .55—mm oo. . .88< baammmm Ezsfiomaa -- $5.3m Epom *3 .o .88< .onom In 553nm oo. 88< bmwowmmmz #985 3% 3|? 3% g Ecofiom 8332 bagged .meExg “#:30qu 238325 3.88. 33 mMESBQ 3.82.. 3: BS .3333 AEQOES? $33.23. gamma? xcxxflmho: 3833: Ngmhémmssow hmufixuhzufi m3 .S\=o.ac.fimfi\c 3.8% E 2an 162 .mc. v Q... .20on 085 mo :03 Sch 3380 coop mm: 592% cm .fiooto Steam “:85:me o: 0.53 0.55; ”So Z 2.82 2.82 @555 $.22 3.22 \393. ...mod _N. *bmd- om: Satan *Nm.mm mm. *mmdm- 5.- 58< $35.82 w W N w. 20.5325 3.80m. wag—om 80305 85:00 3.me :82: 3.02 _ CINE \h Hogan Sumo: mmdme cmwmfl mwdofl Kn .58< ...oo.w 2. *Nw.m- 3.- ind- we: ...wcd 3.. 85H?— 393 mv. *vw.w T 9%. ..vv.-- _m.- *om._m Du. .58< 833.8; m w m w w w w. w mwzufiam 3.80% “580202.: 833592 52582: E08302: 352 352 95283332 3:85am 853% £330.28me :0 83S§> 288382.. 3.83. ~28 mwngoxm 3.83. 923.30.23me 2% 3.3383 36:23: 3535323 2322352»ch mm 2an 163 .8. v m 8 2.35:3,“ 312538 33 039» 05 + ”no. v Q “a “smog—$6 330338..” 23, 83> 05 ”2mm: r. .20on 085 he :08 Scam c0338 :89 mm: Bufiw om goo-co 520w “:35:me o: 303 22:. “Bo Z 3.8V bméov m _ .mmv muss. \u 8:23 3.22. c2 :. 8.3;. 8.3. 2.5% we. 5. mm. T mo: mo. 8. *om.m N. H. $5.5m 3.. no: 8. T cor 2..- oo.- 8. oo. 86¢. . 8233822 «9:25 Nwdmv mméav 3.3m awfimv XV .55-am 563... Rd? 3.9% aqwov \V .58" GA no. *an- m fi- *woA- N7 LON 2. 858m mw. we. 3.- 3.. mo: oo. +3.2 _ 2. .88/2‘ AEEMNEN 320.3286 8.22. 3.9:. 3+3 :22. he 555 «was 8.va am. Em $.me \h 88¢. E..— _ _. wv. T 8.. am: «0.. mm. co. 853m we. we. ow. T 3.- _w.- mov mm; mo. .88-m Not-SEEM EtofinomflQ 9..—am woéov one; oodwm KB .85-8m 8.3... 8.8... 2.3% 8.2 :. .5392 no; 2. ...:..N- 2.- mm.T aor +wa._ 3. $5.8m mm. 5. mm: 3.. war 8.. cm; mo. 233‘ 5.28.22me 2820 m w w m w w m w 60mm “580202: 338582 5:332: 252532: 352 $3.82 maidens—om Enembm gov/H EmmoE—om ..GEQEMQEmh LQKMSNNEES :33 833.29. mwzafixm 383. m5 228 335.5» $8.33? 2% LQmEgE 38332 Ngauammg-N hwfihxawtuuh mm 2an 164 do. v Q 3 aganwfi 335338 33 33> of + ”mo. v a 3 “gangs b32333 v.33 33> 05 ”v.58 r. .2258 035 we :08 Get 3580 soon was 535m 8 goo-mu 528w 685ch o: 803 82:- ”3oz 165 89:. com:- aswv xv bang 3.8.. 2.3... 3.9:. 5393.. $3 2. 3.- 8.- +8; 3. 555 8. 7 B.- G- 8.- 3.- 8. 83 thcgmhvx «xv-5&9 38¢ 33*. a: :- 3. $55 $8... $.09- Séw 3:33.. :3 2. mm. 7 S.- ..de 2. 555 S- 8- 8. 8. 3w. 8. 86¢. bwwommamx 3:333me 35. as? 8.3; x». sauna 2;: 85% $.3- \392... .33 2. mm:- :.- :3 t. 355 S- 8- 5- 8.- R. 3. 8?. bwmommamz BacfiaoQflQ 5o:- Eemv 8.3»- @553“. 3%.. 92: 38.. “5332.. $3 a. .53- 2.- $3 a. 5:23 E. _- 3- 2. S. 2.. 8. 83. bus-wfix 2396 N w M m seam wagom EDBOHQ «35:00 0.5932 >ummomw=om ..GSQEMoEmE LQ\M=.$Q.&=8 =23 wmfiutg 20.5383 3.83. 2: 3:3 .baczw KEV-29:33 $33.23» 538$me 23 .5333: 3&333 ~§NEENM=QQ wmnmhxunzsh Vm 2an 1. .88 89a “5.5.wa bummomfiwmm 83 02? 05 35 880%.: ”Eco?“ ”802 *m~.N -- -- -- -- ...me Satan Enom -- -- -- -- : -- 88< «Bow 8. -- -- -- : we. .55—mm -- -- -- .. -- .. .88< meascamav. «Esau *N_.N .. .. “bud *oh; *N~.N 553m _onow -- : -- -- -- -- .88< finom mo. -- -- No. 5. 8. 853m -- -- -- -- : -- .88< 532$me 329:3me *wmd -- -- -- -- -- .55—am Enom -- -- -- -- -- : .58/x Enom mo. : -- -- -- -- 858m .. -- -- -- -- -- 88< 532$me 328:8“?me *owd *N_.N -- *moN -- *3; Hugh Enom .. -- -- .. -- -- .88/w Baom vo. mo. -- No. -- mo. 855$ -- -- -- -- .. , -- .58< $83»: 2596 gm 3% 34% gm alga Em 324$ 3.4%. g g g 32...»? 80mm glam .880235 823:3“? a slug slag mama 3442 @434 a flawed 233: EOE; .EEQEMQEmn xQMfifiohaou $32 $33.25 $5.20.:qu 228333 388. 35 wwzufixm 35% 2t 38 5.83% ASSSBSE .nflautg bwafimamx SKflmon 3833: ~32§§M§N unfinxagsm mfi SX§§§§E~® 53$ mm 2an 166 do. v Q as Emoficwa EEEwBE mm? 33> 05 + ”no. v a 8 “SwocEwmm bfioumsfim we: 02? 05 6.62 r. 2088 805 mo some Bob 62:80 52. man 825w cm .flooto 525w Ego—mama 0: ob? 82F 68 Z 2.6m? 3.52: afiwv: magi: \3 853m 3&6: 362: SAN: N fl 6X: Kn 86¢. am... 8.- mm: Nov am... No.. no. oo. 553m *hwd oo. .52”. 3.. *mv.m- 8.- ...mvd m _. uo~o< mgsczmhw «9.3 «D 2.69: 3.8: 363. mv.mv~_ \h 858m 3.3: $.32 $.85 :52 \332 5.- oo. $7 No.. ...aod- co... on; mo. $5.8m ...mwN mo. ...vvd- 3.- +8. T nor *0 _ .m m _. .88< bwmommhmm Nazohuxmmb mméme wwfiom— wogwb Swvfi \3 858m mméme 00.2.2 vwd _ N. 8.82 53 88< cc. 8. I..- No.. E. T 3.- NH ._ 8. 858m Lad ac. ...ofim- 2... *:.m- 8.. ...de 2. 88¢. ©2onme NuaofimomfiQ $.wa wmémfl mQNwh $.82 Rh .65.—am No.82 m fl do? ac. _ mm meg ~ be .88< h _ . 5. mm: 8.. ...wo. T we: 2: mo. .5ng ...$.m :. $31 3.- ...Nm.~- 3.- ...NVd E. .88< bmmowmamm 32mg N m m m M w w m .85 «580202: 833582 NEBSmE Bonsai: 33.82 :3th 9:80:23” Enembm 2332 BEBE—om «338$»... SKMSSEES :23» 833.29.» mMSSuxu 38$. 2% ~35 «SQQES» Nomwfiwmmg 2t .5338: 3&3}: NSSSSM§Q wwfihxuhzafi on 2an 167 do. v Q 8 ancfifim b—aEwBE 33 33> 05 + ”no. v Q “a “Swami—mu 318593 33 03:; 05 “3mg 3. 2288 085 mo :08 88m @2380 53 was 825w 0m .30on Encow #805:me ca 0.53 225 68 Z $.82 3.82 :65“ \n Scrum 3.3m _ 3.82 2.602 \h 88¢. mw. 8. No. No. 84 8. .5553 mm; we. 3:”- o_.- ...omd mo. 88< muxahamaw «93.5 3.3: 26¢: Nodva \u 353m 3%: 00%: 3mg \u 8.3 ...wm.~ co. 3.. mo: 84 mo. Sufism 3. 8. mm. T 3.- ...cmd co. uo~o< bmnfiwamx 320.3:ka 8.82 2.3: 8.x; \n .555 3.3: _ 3. x: _ 3.8a \n 88< 52 we. m _.- oo. E..— mo. .5553 32 we. *vod- we: ...wo.~ we. 88< 532$me NSBSmoQfiQ 3?: 3.: : 8.3a \u 855 352 _ 3N2 _ 363 \h .88< two.— oo. 3.. Nov +8; co. Esta cm; 3. LEN- mo; «oo.m oo. 88< 53%;»: :3ng m w. w w. w w Hoofim wEZom Bozo:— uoécoo ago aEmaoqum oSWmQE >xmoW=oM .NohzouKNmn xQMfiSohxou :23» 833.29» 20.5383 3.83. 2% ~83 5:31“ fiawaouSmx .mmBExuz «0383me 2: meEgg 3633: 32.55%23 nmnmhxuhzufi mm 2an 168 .oBN Gob Eobptc bugowawmm 83 33> 05 85 8829: zonom... ”Bo Z .. “wood -- mo. *hmé .. .. laced S. .. .. mo. Hag 89565 83.85 chom ease: 36:8 Lad ..va we. we. fled 50m 3. mo. *8N $3... we. no. ...NOM K3. 3. we. we. mfim Em m g BENEN 2580335 mo>=MEo=< IIIEEE a “El: *NmN we. *mod #0. *3..— ...de S. we. Elam $143 3 gala -- 555$ Enom *NN. m .88" anm -- 853m co. 38¢. muauwzgw «93.5 -- .8555 Enom .. .58< Enom -- Satan no. .88< bmnomwamx 329:5ka .. 853m .onom -- .58" «Bow -- Butan— wo. 88¢. bmmcmmamm BroSwomflQ -- 558m .onom ... ~ m .m 88< 390m -- .55—am mo. .88/w bfiommamm ~3me 34% $4.: Elam a 3'5me 83on BREE—om «338$»... xQMfiSohgu :23» 833.29 $522243 aoNBEmNE 3.894 .38 mMEESS 3.53 mi .28 5:35 A£w§2£mx .8335» $9.83me LQflmnc: 3633: ~u§§mM=Q~ hw~§§=8h m5 S\=o.a§§§\o SEN mm 2an 169 do. v Q as “58¢:an 33539: 33 on?» 05 + ”no. v Q “a 2805:me 3.855me 33 33> 05 838 r. .2258 085 mo :08 89a 35:8 :03 was 895m 8 .muoobo 895w 8onan o: 803 obi. ”802 8.22 3.82 82:: v3.8: 8. .555 8.2: 8.88: 8.2: ESE \392 E.- 8.- $- 8.- K. 8.- 8. 8. 553.: .82 8. ...:.m- .2.- ..8.~- 8.- 82 E. 83. mussQNutth finkzufiv 888 8.2: 8.25 8.8: \n 553.: 3.88 3.82 8:8 88.88: .8292 :.- 8. 8.- 8.- :3- 8.- 8.: 8. 555 1.2 8. $2.. :- 31- 8- .88 2. 8?. bwmommamfi NSSEEMRQ 2.88 8.8: 888 8.3.: \n 553.: 8.88 8.82 2.2: 8.8: 8.86.... 8. 8. 8:- 8.- .83- 8.- 2: 8. 5:5,: .88 S. .88- 2.. 32. 8.- ...88 2. .23.. buy-SEE: Nuach-REQ 8.88 8.8.: ~28 8.8: \u 555 8.88 8.22 8.3 8.8: 8953. S. 8. 8:- 8.- 8.2- 8- 8. 8. 55?: .88 :. .88- n : .- .88- 8.- 83 w _. 83. $8.83 :896 m w w w w w w m woo-mm «880302: mo>flgo£< Nam—£89: aggmo>fim ~3th Rum-82 WEmF—OUEOM anew-Em 0.5932 >ummazum .92-852% LQMSSEEQU :23 833.23: mwagukw 389... St :85 833.29: bNu-Smamx mi LQnEg: 3833: ~§~3§M§N nmfinxcfizafi on 039—- 170 6o. v R 3 «gocEmmm b35338 mm? 33> 05 + ”no. v Q 3 Enema-Em 3303838 83 33> 2: 882 r. 83on 085 no :03 88m 85:8 moon was 595w om .88-co 895w 230...:ch o: 0.53 22:. ”202 8.82 8.82 8. .8: 8. 553.: :82 8.82 8.88 8:93.. 2. 8. 8. 8. 8.: 8. .555 8.: 8. .8...“- o_.- .88 8. 8.3.. mutumutmhvx QUKRSU :82 2.82 8.88 8. 855 8.2 : 8.8: _ 8.88 \w as... 8.: 8. 8.- 8.- 9..: 8. .555 8. 8. .88- 8.- +8._ 8. as... .0888me Ncaocuxmmb 8.8: 8.8: 8.8 8 .8. 8:58 8.82 _ 8.82 _ 8.88 .8 5% 8.: 8. 8. 8. 8.: 8. 5:58 .33 8. .88- :.- .88 8. 8?. 583%.:me Nuxcfimomv-NQ 8.82 8.88: 3.88 .8. 555 8.82 8.82 8.88 .886... on: 8. S.- 8. 8.: 8. 553.: 8.: 8. .88.- : T .88. 8. as... 88.8me 2896 w w m w 8 w- llama-m 833m 8038.: malafl £80 838233 94802 888.3. $85.58 xokwfimohaou :2?» 833.23 228385 3.89. 2% :35 8.33% REV-29:33 535:? ~083Mb»: 8% 3:33: 3833: NSSGENM=S 3333328” o0 23H 17] .83 Bob Echo-m6 DES—mama 83 2:9» 05 85 8:86.: gonom... “20 Z - -- - - - - but“; gem -- ... _ m.m ...SN «wad ...oo: -- “30¢: Enom -- -- -- -- -- -- .55-am -- cc. 3.. no. 8. no. 5848‘ 823332: «33:0 - -- - -- -- - Hos-am 3cm -- .15-N ...hqm -- -- I 38¢: 330m -- -- -- -.. -- -- .85-am -- we. we. mo. .. mo. .86/x 589%th 329:3me -- - - - -- - 558,: Eom *ood $65 “and -- *ch -- .884..- Enom -- -- -- -- -- -- 858m 8. no. mo. we. we. go. .8898: 88%.:me $88885 - - -- - - -- 555: :28 -- *vo.m .80-m -- .50.: -- .88».- Boom -- -- -- - -- -- 588m - no. no. we. mo. ac. .864:- bt-Smamz N385 .9.-IE sl-E 88-8 88-: Elam 8% 884: 88% 3% 3:48 88.3 mum-88 58m wag 825235 833582 NHHMSIE alga 80388 8880 834 g 983% 8% 2382 £8.83 172 .58-Emma S\M=.$ch=8 :33 8382? “8:36:33 20.5585 3.894 :38 mMEEBB 3.89- 2% :33 853% Riv-=33? .....wEExg $838me .8\ Suva: 3633: Nufihzhmso-N 83833333 2% .8\ acufiwmfiko 8.3m G 2an do. v a 2m 2§ow2=w2m >22m5w38 33 0:2? 222 + ”mo. v R 3 2.282236 >22mo22m2§m 33 0:2? 222 “$82 2... 20258 8222 .20 some 882 2522280 2822 was 20va cm £23m». .8250» 2§om222w2m o: 803 222.2- ”Bo Z 3:232 0033 20022 3.2282 xv 205.252 8.32 ov.mwo2 v2 .3222 mm. 2 82 \h 58¢. mm. 2- mo: 2 2.- oo. 3.. 222.. war 8.. .8532 1% .m we. *cw.m- 2 2.- Nb. 2- 3.- ... 22mm m 2. 38¢. measuzmaw 2293229 Smog madam 2 91mm an. mmm 2 \h 85.82 «.33 $.22 mam: 8.32 .2322 25.. mo: 20.- Nov «cod- nor am. 2 co. .5582 32mm wo. Lyman- 2 2.- m 2. 2- 8.- *om.m m 2 . .529.N bfiofiawx 238.23me0 mhdao 2o.oam2 3.2-2.2. CYNNQ \h 85.82 22.2252 225.32 V2625 N532 \2» 86< 222. cc. 2w: Nor cm. 2- mo; em. 8. .8532 ..me ac. ..bmd- o 2 .- ...ond- 8.- ...mod n 2. .8232 Anaemwamx anfigmfiQ o2 .03 oodmm 2 05w: and: 2 \n .8532 3.23 3.5.2 owfimh $.32 bu .88/w oer Nov 8.- 8.- +8. 2- nor mm. No. .8582 *Nm.m 222. 39.21 m 2.- on. 2- 3.- “.36 2. 2. 88¢. bNmSMQmM 225mg 2 w .2 w. w w 2 w. 28.2mm use-295 3% Egg 3% 23% 3%. avg mam-d 233-: 3.8%? Bankcuosm $53M»? BKMSSEBS $232 $33.23 mM=§o§ 23.88. 222 285 835.3; bwmommawg mi xQflmuofiw 2962.33: 2322235.»?ch hmflhxuhzufi No 2an 173 ..2 al.-II” .2? . .. I . .— Err!“ do. v 2 B “goat—ma 222.22%35 33 0:2? 05 + ”no. v 2 8 EnumeR 222826236 33 2.2g 05 ”385 2... 20255 085 2o :08 58.2 265250 522 was 855w cm 58.2.20 Bccow 5582-2236 o: 0.83 822.2- ”202 N532 n 2 . 202 25de \3 .5532 3.3222 mmdcm 2 w~.m 22 a? 88¢- 2 2.- co. 20.2 mo. 3. S. 5532 mo. 8. {kam- oor 2m. 2 co. 88¢. 823$th 229525 3.32 2m.2m22 2.22 \h 85.82 mm. 3: SS: 5.39 x2. 53. w 2.2 8. mm. 8. 3.2 8. 85.82 3. 222. +8. 2- 3.. em. 2 mo. 88¢. 5.2822322 2388.620 33: 3%: 853 \n 6532 3&2 2 8.32 2 3.223 be 88< S. mo. as. No. On. 2 3. $5.82 an. 2 mo. *nmd- g.- .LKN no. 88-2 298.2%me 320.222.33.2Q 5.82 2 3682 02.23 \V 85.82 3.2 2 22 3.82 2 No. 2mg .23 .2392 on. mo. $2. No. 0 2. 2 8. 65.82 w 2 .2 8. 39m- 8.- *mm.m no. 88¢. $8.532 22596 2 w. 2 w 2 m 5822.2 md2>20m 5022282 8222280 22“: 2225023232 anew/2 22223232 ...oaSBmoE-m $56M»? LQKMfiSohaou 2223 533.292 «8.229355 23.63. 222 238 5.223;» 22.222.25.823 .8332? bfifimamx 222 3:33: 2962.533 23.552223 Emmaisgfih me 03222. 174 20268 28.26 222 3 3.89:8 2238 8865 222 :2 25262 8: mm? 02? 822 222 2202223 :2 828222 :2 25252828 20: $3 33 222cm 22H .83 822 258.22% binomfiwa 33 33> 222 35 8282252 ”230m... @20on 8222 .20 .208 882 2522280 :8; ma: Bcfiw 8 £282.20 .8va ugomawa o: 803 22F 6qu -- -- -- .. : -- $5.82 -- -- -- -- .. -- 32042 muauhamaw «EEC -- -- -- -- -- -- $532 -- -- -- -- -- -- 88¢. 32.28%me 2383326 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8:52 222cm -- ...ood ...3.N -- *Nm.m -- .8232 2onom -- -- -- -- -- -- 85.52 -- co. we. no. we. we. .523~ $82332 Ngsfiofia E .. -- -- -- .. 205.852 2onom -- ...ood “*on -- -- .. uo2o< 226m -- -- -- -- -- -- 653m -- co. 3. no. .. we. 88¢. baofiemm 2396 EH § § 34% alga 3% mag. 3%. gig gig g El? 3: ma|2>2|omu 2562,3222 822922? a a 80305 8:280 g 3 3 fig 0592 £823.32 6.223335% ~33me xokmfizohgo :33 833.292 92.22323me 28.22.3235 3.83. SE mwrufixm 23.83, 3% VS» 5.223% ASQSBNE $633.23 gamma? xokémhcg 2962.33: Nazfinhwaoq nmnmnxuhzsrn 222 xo\:o.:§cm5\o flag we 2an 175 do. v m 5 2§om2cw2m 2229.2w58 83 5:29» 55 + ”no. v Q 5 2§om22cw2m 222825255 33 5:2? 222 “382 2... 525258 5.8222 .20 2225 882 2532.25 .522 mm: 53% 8 £552.25 52:5w 2555256 0: 553 5522.2. 58 Z 02“.me 2 game 3.222 2 m 2 .2282 xv 5552 mar-.222“ 2 :.owo2 3.2 2 22 vo. 2 82 xv .55< mm. 2- 3.- oor oo. cm. 20. «mi 222.. .5552 +3.2 co. *mhd- o 2 .- rm. 2- 3.- .. SN 2 2. 85< 85%:th 225.3 229 3.2222 $62222 aodmn 3.32 \h 55.52 no.2 2222 emdam 2 NoSNn wodmfi \22 85¢. 20.- mo: oer Nov 3.- 8.. 3.2 3. .5582 ... 2o.m co. *om.m- o 2 .- 25.. No.- 2.25.2V v 2. 85< . 29823232 23283me0 mm.o2o2 22.8222 omdon o2dmm2 \V 55.52 $.32: 8.52 3.32 8.82 2 x2. .33. 2 2. oo. 2:..- mo.- aor No.- 2.. No. 55.52 ...m©.~ mo. ...No.m- m 2 .- ... 2 m.- cor .2226 m 2. .85< 5.28.5232 233228225 mm. 23 vvwmm 2 $.an 3.32 2 \h .5552 omfimo 3.x 2 m 2 $.95 owdm 22 \2» 85< w?- 2o.- 20.- Nov 2..- No.- mm. No. .5552 ..ch 8. 2.3.2»- 222 .- 22m. 2- vor 2.3.22 m 2. 85¢. 293.2%.2232 223.55 2 w. 2 w 2 w 2 w. 5525 2252252962 835-22522 22222222832 225525222 3E2 352. aficegm _I-§o-|..e£ as: £833. 3.223285% mfiBMmZ 38 25.25236 2922:8225...- gokmfiaohtcu 2223 533.292 mmsgukw 23.53. 55 235 2533.292 5.2.8.2323 mi SKflmwo: 2952.53: Ngmaflwaoq 223229822283 3 52225.2- 176 do. v Q 222 2§om222m2m 2229223228 33 o=2m> 5222 + ”mo. v 2 5 Enemawfi 222825285 ma? o=2a> 5222 5282 2... 2525222 5.5222 .20 2225 80.2.2 25222228 255.2 mm: .52225w 8 £552.25 595w 2§ow222w2m o: 553 552.2- 52072 2.2.2222 «$222 2222. 2 222 2a .2852 222.822 23222 2222222 233% m2. 8. 222.2 3. mm. 222. 22252 mo. 8. +8. 2- 8.- 23. 8. 223.. 932632th {ULBQU 3.52 2 22.222 2 2.22.2 \n 52223.2 22.222 2 22.222 2 ~38 x2. 82% 3.2 3. 8.- 8. S. 8. 222232 $.- 8- .5.- 8- 22.. 8. .2332. 5.22.0.2M22mx 238.223.5229 22 2 .2222 2 2.2.2: 2 222.58 .23 2052.2.2 232: 2 N22. 2222 2 2.2.22 .23 8232. mu. 8. mm. No. 2222. 8. 22223.2 mm. 8. .32- 8- 2: 8. 23.-é b2w02m22m- 238.22.283.2Q 22 2”522.22 2.22.22 2 92.22 22 8.5.2 23 823. 8.82 2 3.2.2 2 2222.2 2225.2 22. 8. 22. 222. R. 8. 233. 22.. 222.. 2.2.2- 8.- 9.2 2.22. 5.282522322222ng 2 22. 2 w 2 22. 222mm. 222.228 282282 32$ 2:322 32822232 .b223223205m 522.23%»? 233 £2.22:th 29:289-252. noxxmfizchzou 25223 «533.292 28.22.53.525 23.592. 5222 35 26.223222 22.225283}; 2533.232 b.2no2m223 5222 xQflmhoS. 2526222233 23538.2wzod Emahxcnzsh 00 522222.2- 177 525255222 225 52 22522225 5555 52222 222 252223 .2552: 2552222 5222 8 25252855 252258 552222222 5222 :2 255222252 25: 553 52223 52522 5222 2252223 :2 5552525222 222 2525225255 2522 m5? 552 25225m 522.2- .55N 222522 22552-2225 2222253222525 553 522252» 5222 5222 55255222222 2252259.. .83 8222 255522222 2222255222535 52 55225 2552222222 5222 52225223 55585 2552 25225m 5222- 25225222 5222 :2 2252525222 5223 285225222 5222 25223 222252222 22225225225252 8 522252.52, 222852252 5222 55.2.2 55.225 2525225255 5222 9 5.5.5.2 552 55.22225 5222- 5252258 5555 .25 2225 85.2.2 2522285 25522 5522 55.5w 8 £55225 55.5w 2555222cw2m o: 553 55222- 252572 - - - - - - .55-52 - - - - - - .2525».~ 55282525222.- 225.3220 - - - - - - .55-252 - - - - - - 2o2o< 20.28%.22522 233.225.2526 - - - - - - .58-52 - - - - - - 202542 b2no2m225- 2525222552252Q - - - - - - .55-252 - - - - - - 2525.4. b.2282m225x 225-2526 bowl-2H Elm-222 5% 2822-2 322-8 .22 Ell-25222 3222242 2524322 552222-222 28.2222 282.2225 28.42242 2552.222 mafia-m- 225225>2o>=2 m5>22m22522< 33 225855222 225222522 252222250 flaw-2N2- 3 2222235222252 25:55.52 522252-2522 328223252 6.225282255m 52555.52 2552 €5.25th 252228-552. Skmfiachaou 225223 5535-292 22.2225225225252 28.22.55.525 25.259. 2523 5522232558 25.2592. 55 2523 5.22322 2.222522222222252 £535,292 202.8%.225-2 .BKV-Eg: 25.252.222.232 2522.22552M22oq §5N2hguh=u2h 5222 .8\=o.225.2255E-\o .35-m no 522252. 178 .8. v 2 a 22282-222252.m 2222522525222 553 522223 522.2. + 25225222 2552222 55 52 25.522228 25225222 552222222 55 :2 25522252 2522 553 5:25> 52522 55 225223 222 5552252222 :2 2525225255 2522 553 2552 25225m 522.2- 6.55 852.2 22525-22222 22255522225222 553 522223 55 2525 55255222222 2252259.. We. v 2 25 25552-222525 2225522522525 53 5:252, 55 252552 2... .83 22252-2 22525-22222 2222255522525 m2 55-225 552222222 55 555223 35555 2552 252225 522.2- 552: 55 222 25222225222 83 2525225222 55 25223 2222252222 22225225225252 8 522252223 2225523252 55 222522 55225 2525225255 55 52 525-252 552 25522225 5222- 525225222 5555 .25 2255 22252.2 2252222225 25522 5522 555m 55 £55225 522225m 22552-222525 o: 5253 5.5222- 582 <\Z <92 2.2226 V2622 as. 255.252 <22 <22 .5de E. 2222 mm. 252322 ASSG A2225=o22525x - - hm. 2.2..me2 222. 5222.252 2.3.22 mo. .5522 26.3.2 222. 25252222 , 55522522522V 225.5 220 ...0NN 2o. 2.th 02.82 2 no. 25222252 2.3.22 2222. 2.86 92.922 2 v 2. .8232 b2wo2m225- 238.225.2me 2.3.2 222. *2o.m 2.3: no. 255.252 - 2 2. ...mm5 M21282 2 2. 2o2o< 522.52%.2252 25225222552225.2Q 2.8.22 222. ..de 3.282 no. 25222.52 - N 2. ...Nvé we. 2 2222 2 N. 2o2o< 5282522522 22253 2|I82 2.225... 282.25 28%.: 2 2.22 22 35 52522-24222 2222225225252 5225592250 52522-223 6535.292 52.22.2258 52.222.35.223? 225.526 5222 3:22.52 2552 525255222 252822223222 2322552M:5- 555225235252” we 52225-2- 179 .oo. v 2 25 2255522525 222555258 553 52225> 55 + ”mo. v 2 25 222552222525 2225522522525 553 5:25.» 55 252552 2... 5252255 5555 .25 2255 22252.2 2252222225 2552.2 5522 555m 55 5255-225 2522225w 222555225 25 o: 5253 5522.2- ”5252 180 3.5% «5.055 25.8w 3.96 \25 5222.252 92.555 52.555 25.555 55.255 22:23. oar 8.. mm: Nov E..- No.- mm. 29. 255.252 cm . 2 co. ...wo.- ~20.- nv. 2- nor *ocd N 2. 2o2o< 55225222252252 225.3 229 w 2 .Nwa was 22 $2.85 3.53 \5 .55-252 5082 modem 20.2%» 55.2mm \25 255/22 05. mo. *3. 2- co: ...mm.- 8.- ...SN o 2. 25222-252 *mo.~ co. ..wwN- 8.- 3.. mo; 2.3.5. m 2. 25252222 b2552m225- 2528.2292an $2.53 mméww 5.23 52.5.35 \25 255.252 25.85 8.555 2.5.55 22.552 .25 293.. 55.- oo. .25 2 .m- 3.- ..mm.- 8.- *am.~ 2o. 25222252 LNN no. 58.n- o2.- 22.2- 3.. 2.3.2“ 52. 252522 2222552M225- 25:522255252Q 22.252 2023 wmdoo 2.22. 2cm \25 255252 52.223 25.525 55.255 522.555 258292.. ...om. 222. mu. 2- co.- .. 2 Wm- B.- ...omd mo. 25222-252 *VNN no. .. 2nd- 3.- 8.2- 8.. ...mm.m N 2. 222222252 528252252 22856 2 w 2 w 2 w 2 w 255.22m2 225222525322 553252252225. 522222525222 225222255222 2522-2522 2522-2522 24222555225252 25225552 522255522 5255522252 552525.292 5M§22528 25.2555 5222 2523 55352-822 20.255.2m2252 5222 25.525255: 25352222532 2522.225322m225-2. 255553-5539 22555-252385 25 52225.2- 522. v 52 25 222552222525 2222522235222 553 52225> 55 + Ho. v Q 25 2225522225 25 25225522522525 553 52225> 55 252552 2... 5252255 5555 .25 2.2555 552.2 2252222225 25552 5522 555m 55 555.225 555w 22255525525 22 5253 5522.2- 5252 181 52.255 55.555 55.555 52 2222252 55.255 55.555 55.55 535252.. 55.2 55. 25.- 25.- 55.2 55. 25525.2 2.5.- 25.- 55.2- 55.- 55. 25. 2932 5555252252255 225.325 55.555 55.555 52.555 52 255255 25.555 25.555 25.55 535295 2.55.5 2.5. 52..- 25.- ...55.5 55. 225252 52. 55. +5.2. 55.- 2.2-.5 55. 2523.. 252255232522 228.225.5520 55.255 55.555 55.555 25 525252 55.555 55.255 25.555 5383.. 2.5.2 55. 22.- 55. 2.555 55. 255252 55. 55. ...55.5- 55.- 55.2 25. 2525.22 20.28.2325“ 232522255252Q 55.555 55.555 52.555 .55 25222255 55.525 55.555 25.55 585252.. 55.5 55. 55.- 25.- .525 55. 25525.2 55.- 25.- 25.2- 55.- 55.2 25. .2523. 5282522522 22256 2 w 2 w. 5522M M222>2om 85222522 252222250 $5522 525523252 55352.29» 2252255252222 25.555 5222 252:2 5.225225 52252252225255 55352.2? 25225523252 5222 3225255522 252252.223: 25222522225223 55%3-55520 2555222255255. 02. 52525-2- .855 855 5555-5-55 5555555595 553 525.» 55 555 5555555 ”—5559. “5552 .5me -- -- *OON No. .- .. we. “5de -- No. .- 55.-J55 551555 5.55-5.55 5.55.555 wag—om SUEDE 8:250 -- *No. _ *NO.N *oo. fl “.55-0N -- -- S. 5. no. we. -- .. ... _ Nd *Nod -- S. S. -- .- ... NON .. -- S. 5555 55.55 55155 slag 515.555 52.153 E58529»:— 55>55du5z< 3235555 5352 552.552 5% fl .m *0”? No. co. *awd 5.55 m 5155.555: E55552: 9%:5525M 5550553 555-5555 58545 55233555555 «5.3 $0 855m 55% 59555. Baom 555.55; 595555 555555.535 NEE-53.55550 .55-am _5nom .8595. 590m .55-55¢ 59555 5.5855552 552555555Q55Q 585m 55% .8535 55% .55-am .5595. 558555555 55.556 58555 555552 Magma—5m 5535.29. 55.35.255.553? 58.55.555.585 555.855. 5555 5.3555555 3.5.595 55 5555 3.52535 55.25.525.553? 55355-535 555.555.535.55 .55-:38: 555555.33: Nufinahmgu nmmmgéwoxb 5555555555255 5555 .5555 555.555.5555.? 5555.5 :- 535% 182 .55. v 5 55 55555555 5.5555558 53 525> 55E. + ._55o8 555.55 55 8 55.58805 _5508 555.558 55 8 5553555 55: 553 525> 5555 55 55.33 5 55585555 5 5555—35—55 55: 553 5555 555m 55. .855 85.5 8555-5-55 55555535 553 535> . 55 555 55555555 “Snow... ”mo. v m 55 8555585 55:55:55555 553 525> 55 ”55555 5... .855 85.5 855.55 5558555535 5_ 555-555 555-555 55 555553 555555 5555 555m 55:- ._5558 55 8 555255 553 5855558 55 85:3 355%. 855855555 9 53553 3528—55 55 805 555.555 55553255 55 3 55.555 5555 555.555 55.—- .5_5558 5555 mo 5555 80.5 55585 8555 555 555:5w o5 5555-5-55 .5585» 585555585 5: 5.553 5555:- ”555 Z -- -- m5. ovémw No. .58-am - -- *mN.N mwévw no. 595.55 55555555555. 555.359 ..bNN S. *mbd 3. Ea no. .55-am ...mm.~ 5o. ...Nod 35.5% no. 5835 b5555M5~5N ~5255555QQ *3; S. ...mm.~ 5.5. 35 8. H55.555— .. -- 5.de 9.555 oo. 59545 55555553535 NuzofiamflQ .53.— S. 5.de wméom 5o. .55-am -- -- *owd omdma S. 585.4. 50.555.555.585 25.555 555-m N555” 55555N~ 5555.555 m 55 w. woo-mm— 535t5> 8590533“ 555055850 535t5> 55355-553 55.555885 $552553? 55.5558 55 5555 55555 525 555553. 55555253: 552.553.5353 55MM355ED 555555552555. N5- 535-_- 183 .59. v 55 55 85555555 5:53.558 553 525> 55 + ”no. v A 55 8555595 55.—55555555 553 525> 55 ”55555 5* 5.5508 5555 .55 5555 855 55585 8555 555 555m 55 5555-555 555w 5:555:55 o: 253 555.:- 5qu m 5 o 5 5d: Qmmo c.5555 mar-5. \5 5555558555 5.3.5. «5. .5 8d 5o. *3; 5o. .5 3&- 8.. 555585555 5555:5555 555.353 m m m _ 53A. ofiwo 5.35. 5.53- \5 5355:8555 .53-.m- wor om; 5o. 35; mo. m5. T 3.- 355585555 5.5855555 55255555550 w 5 v m 5.955. 5.5% 55$. mum-mk- 5 355585555 mm. T cor on. _ vo- m5. 5. N5. No. 35558555 558555555 ~5=5558§Q 5 w o 5- 5.555 5.55 5.555 5.555 55 55558555 LVN-m- o _ .- on; we. Sl mo. vwv No.. 5555558555 595555535 55.5530 5 5. 5 5 5 w 5 5 58-55 58585253: 55355855? 5555555 58585552: 5.55552 3552 5:552 855do55fi5m 5555-5555 N5m5owm=3m 5535-5555 5555255555 5552555555 55.5555 55 525 555535 5555255555 5535.295 5955.535; .55\5~5555< N55553: 552.555.5353 5555-5552555. 55.55555555Q 535.555.5555‘ m5 535B 184 do. v Q 55 55555:»? b—5Ew558 553 55.—55> 55 + ”no. v Q 55 5:52.55w55 555—5555555555 553 53? 55 ”55555 5* 5.5508 5555 55 5555 855 55585 555.5 55: 555m 8 5555.555 555:5w 55555355 5: 553 555.5. ”5552 55.555 55.555 3.555 5255:8555 55.- 8.- 55.5 3. 35.5. 8.- 555585555 5555525555 55.5.5.3 8.25 8.35 53555 555 5555585555 3.- 5.- 55. 8. 55.5- 55.- 5555555555 55.58.55.585 325.553.5me 8.25 55.85 55.555 555 5553:2555 55.- 5.- 55. 8. 55.5- 8.- 555555555 5.5855535 358.55.55.25me 55.85 8.555 55.555 555 35.58555 55.- 8. 55. 5. 5.55.55. 55.- 5553:8555 5.58.5553 55855 5 w. 5 w 5 w 585mm 552.55.. wand 853855 555580 9555855235 555555552 355553535 5535.23 $555,555.53? 555225558 3.5555. 5555 35 5.55355 $555,205,533 65355.29» 5.550%.5555 xQflmho: 555555.553: ESSEM§Q 55555qu55525555 5.23.55.55.55 5.395355% 55 Lo\55555.55~555 5.23.55.55.55 535.5%.5552 g Bank 185 do. v 55 55 555535355 5555:5w558 553 5:55> 555.5- + 55555: 5555555 55 9 5555555855 55559: 5555555555 55 :5 5555555555 50: 553 5:55> 55555 55 5555.53 :5 55555555555 :5 55555535555 55: 553 5555 55555m 555.5- .85N :85 55555-55555 55555555555535 553 525$ 55 555 5555555555 555%... ”55575 - - 39m ...-8. 5 35. 5 *3. 5- 555-555 555595 -- - 155.5.” *3. 5 .55. 5 *3. 5- 5835 55555 - - 8.. 5a.. 555.- 50.- 555555 5555555585555 - - 3.. «or nor 3.. .8535 N555-555555555n5 5525555555 555.3550 -- -- 55.5 - -- -- 855 2.55 - -- *mc.m - - - 595555 55555 - -- 8.- -- -- -- 5:58 55555585555 -- - 3.- - -- -- 5335 5555555555 b5505M555- 538.555.5556 -- -- - - - - 555555 555555585555 -- -- -- -- -- - 5835. 55555585555 5555555535 532585555 -- -- 52.5 -- -- -- 55.5 7.5.55 ..- -- *Om.m -- - - 5050455 Enom -- -- 8.- -- -- -- 655.5 55555555555 - - no: - - -- 5o5o< 5555555585555 55555555535 55835 581555 5.55555 58 5 5.55.555 5855-55 5.54555 5243 5.4.5.545 35.55 §|5|E5 521.555 3.5.5.5 5855 3% 55558525255 553558555555 Nfilfia mg 5053 55585 54:52. 555%. 95% 3355 238: £85535 5535.235 55.35.25.553? 565555555 55.5555 533 5m§5588 55.5505 55 5555 5.55355 55.555.558.55me 5.535.295 5.5555353 .8\535§< 555855555: 555535.5M20-N 55555555555255.5- 59-555555555Q 558.5%.555M 55 .BK 255555555E\o 5555-5 m5. 55555.5. 186 do. v m 55 5555555555w55 >555c5w558 553 5:55> 55 + “mo. v a. 55 555555555w55 5555555555555 553 5:55> 55 “55555 5... 5555558 5555 .55 55555 5.8.5.5 55555585 555555 5555 555w o5 .5555-5-55 5555:5w 55555-55535 5: 5553 55555.5- ”550 Z 550.5055 N 5 .855 5.0.55? wnwov cc. 555V \55 535-5555555559 ...mmfi- 5m... wN.5 mo. ..de 55. ...5m.m- o5... *wm.m- m5.- 55555555555559 55553525555x .55-35$ $.me .8.me ©5535 wmfihv cow; \55 NA55.—55555555 5.3.55- 5 5 .- 3.. oo. 5m .5 mo. our 3.- .595...- NN.- 35555585555 55555555555 538.555.55QQ cmdbv $635 55.05.55 3.me ~55.me \55 595555585555 ...on- m5: m 5. 5. mo. 8. ...ood- 5 5.- *ooN- 5 5.- 35555585555 55555555555 55:05555QQ55Q moN-wv oodmv mw.m 555 50.55055 5 5 .5505 \55 5555555585555 ...: .m- vmr hm. 50. mm .5 mo. +50. 5- o 5 .- “50.n- 5N.- 5555555555555 5555555535 55896 5 m 5 w 5 w 5 w 5 w 5855 55555530255 55355555552 55555555555 55555555>£ 555530 5.555535 5555-552 5555-5552 mE5co55555~5 55585-5555 55555558555555 550E555 55555555355555 ERMSSEBS :55: 5535.25; 55.35.20.553? 5953588 55.855. 5555 5553 5.5535555 55555525555555 6535.295 b55o5w5555 55K55552§5 5556555555: 53555355M=cq 55555555555585.5- 50155555555Q 305M535 on 55555. 187 do. v m5 55 5555555555w55 5555:5w558 553 525> 55 + ”no. v 55 55 5:55555cw55 5555555555555 553 5:55> 55 ”55555 5... 5555558 5555 .55 55555 805.5 55555585 555555 5555 555w o5 5555-5-55 5555:5w 5555555555w55 o: 5553 55555.5. ”55575 55.555. 55.5:- 55 5555585555 ...NQN- 5 5.- ...5 5.5.” 5 5. 5555555585555 55553525555x 555.555 55.555 55.555. 55 55555585555 555. 5- B.- ..wod 5o. 505555585555 b5505m555- 538.556.5556 55.555. 55.53. .5. 5555585555 .55.- 55.- 55. 3. 5555585555 50.58%.5535 532055552555Q 55.555. 55.55... 55 5555585555 .55. 5- o 5 .- ...wN.~ o 5. N555-5555255555 5.555%.55555 555.596 5 w 5 w 65am wc5>5om 85555855 55555580 5555552 >555o5w555~5 .553S55Moz5555 mefiaohzou :55: 5535.29» $555,585.53? 5.335.555 55.5.595- 5555 5555 5.55535 Afianoufimx 5.533.595 505.85%.5555 .8\ 5555553- 5556553: 535555353 555-5555355533 55555555555Q 5.585355% 2- 55555.5- 188 ...ood ...vfim No.- co.- .55-a5 ...ood No.- 5o.- 5455 5455.5 55.35 55% «mod ...vfim No.- no... 55.5.5 ...ow. 5 8.- co.- *oo5 ...oo.N No.- co.- 555 N 5555.55 5155.55 .5055 ...5 5d 555.. ...mm.m 5.3.5” 3.- ac.- *mm.m *am.N NO.- mo.- ...wm5V .5955 no.- 5 5.- .5555 555-555 ...-5.5 555-55555 5555-5535 5555555525255 5535355555 5555-552 .53-5 .55-N 53.- co.- .5555 5554554.. 5.5% 55.-TN 5.95:5. No.- no.- .wm 5.N .55.N No.- no.- 5.5.0.5 .555 No.- mo.- 55:55 555.5% 5555855525 55585555 3555 52.05 505.05% Enom .5555 55555565555 853.. 55555585555 55=~5V=555V 55.5.5550 555.5 52505 5050/55 Enom .5555 5555585555 5555.5. 5555555585555 555.550.5355“ 538.555.5me 55555.5 52505 5555555 555% .5535 55555585555 .23.. 55555585555 558555535 535558555 55555 5265 88.... 525.55 553.5 555585555 .22 5552585555 5.5855535 5585.6 IIEE 5.555552 355%."5 .5555EEM05555 xo\m=5555.55=8 =55: 5.535.595 553525.553? 22555-5555 53.82. 5558 55.553555 555.5505 55 5555 8.55355 $555-$553? 5.535.295 b.5555m555-5 505555555: 555555.553: 55555555555353 55555555555555 5555555555555Q §05M555x 5555 Lo\=o.55§c5fi\o 5.555-m mm 55555-5- 189 do. v Q «a Emoficwmm b35358 mm? 039, 05 + ”mo. v A 3 83¢in bfiocmuflm mm? 02? 05 652 r, .2088 085 mo :03 88m 3580 soon was 828w cm goo-co 826m «:85:me o: 0.53 825. ”202 wwfi K wmdmo mmdvn 3..me 5.3% \n bra—2535 ... 3d- 2.- EA 3. mm; co. *w~.- cor ...S .N- no: bum—«Emmma muzuhzmavx «EEG v m. :R madwc aw: 26.2. $42. 56 55:85me *VmN- wor on; 8. EA vo. em. 7 8.- ...EN- 3.- bra—«SEED haemmmmm 3232225 g S? 9&8 $6: 8.5 8.9:. x... 55:85am vw. T cor mm; 3. am. 5. K. we. 3.. T mo; fits—mega .6333me NuacfincmflQ v m5:- fimdmn whdmc 3.me wwwmn be btwmammmma .5 ~ .m- 3 .- om: vo. mm; we. our 8.. ...vm.- 3.- 55:86me baofimx 365 m m m w m w m w m w. «outm— EoEoZgE mgafioaz 5:5ng «58535 52.30 0.5322 32.82 352 armamcotfiom Bag—om mimcouflom flmmowzom gotten-5mm SKMKSEES :2? 833.29. £3,333me QMSEBS 3.894 2% 38 $5336 mmfigtSmx 335$.» bmnfimamx LQKmNmno: 3855:: Nufihfimwtou fimumhxunzfim $23253an axon-ASSN Q. 2an 190 do. v m “a «gowiwmm $3.3»wa 33 33> 05 + We. v Q E “585:me bag-mafia 33 0:3, 2: “Smog r. .2238 085 we :08 68% 8580 soon was .5va cm goo-ac 830w “gamma? 0: 203 95.-F “Bo Z $.30 Efio \n bfizfimma on- S.- :._ 8. 332535 mbtfifitmhvx {ULRSU m3? NEWS 5.. brain-.29 3.- 8. fl. 8. .ofizémma bmwommamx Sacha-ERG 3.”: :32 x... baggage 2.. S.- 2.. S. 53235 bmnommmmm NuaoEu-omfiQ 8.?» 3.0? \n brazémmfi 8. 8. mm. 5. .3E:E§E 98%.me 2896 w w. m w. scum wag—om 8030.5 85:00 83-482 bfiowzom «338$»...- xokmfiachzcu :2? 833.29» £33233; mwzafixm 3.88. 2: ES ..oauaw QEQSEBL .8332? 633$me gosgmho: 3&333 Ngfiémmg-N hmumwguhzsm. btumfim-AEQ «SSMNEM ow 033. 191 .8808 88% 08 3 38888 838 88:8 05 8 8262 8: .83 38> Son 85 .823 8 $2888 8 38328 8: $3 88 89cm 2E- .oBN 88-“ «co-8&6 augment-gm mm? 38> 05 85 88068 gonom... ”Bo Z -- - 8.91m -- -- Lb.— batam 830m -- -- ...Nofi -- ..- *3; 88¢. 8.8m -- -- 8.- -- -- 8.- 555 $8888 -- -- 8.- -- -- 8.- .56... 38.8828 88232888 .88 N5 -- -- :2 -- -- -- 555 Bow 3 -.. *m©.N I. I. nu .58-3% Enom -- -- 8.- -- - -- 555 €8,535 -- -- 3.- -- -- -- 88< 55:88me $8.8.th 288.83me - -- -- -- - -- 5588 5.5286me -- -- -- -- -- -- 88< 55:86me 588882 828.:onwa -- -- .28 -- -- -- 555 .33.. -- -- ..on -- -- -- 88¢. Enom -- -- Nor -- -- -- 888m 388:8mmm5 -- -- nor -- -- -- 88¢. 888885 $283 82.5 .98 gm 3% E18 8488 Elm-g 88:8 8885 888 82.88 38.1.88 8888. team 838w 880235 8.8.8582 g “Ia-g 30-301.“ 83 332 3:42 a mag as: $883 «ESPY-888. 8859958888 8%: 8388; @3888me 288588 8.83. 88 838888 8.83. 88 88 5.838 £88288wa £838.29» bwmowmawx 8\m§8§< 8833: Ngfianwzou 33.883883 bmxmemnflQ anommmmx 88 .8\ =o.~8.888\o “.88-m S 033. 192 .8. v Q 3 “:85:me 335$wa 33 33> 05 + We. v A an Haggai bfioumufim 33 33> 05 ”38» r. @338 085 .«o :03 Sch 62:60 soon mm: 53% cm .30on .5wa .535:me o: 0.83 22F ”2oz 36.? chmo 56? modmw and: \h bra—Ezmfln ...ww.m- ~ ~.. ...ood <0. mm; mo. *mmd- cor +3. 7 nor 35:86me mozuhzmfix 2.x: mmdwo $.NE‘ 2.va Ed: «355 *mmd- cor mm; 3. 5; mo. cm. 7 3.- *8.” mo: bwazfifima bwmowmmmm ~38?!me cod: 8.va 9». 2K 3N3. 363. \h 35:86me ...vod- cor Q..— vo. mm. No. mm. 8. Sod- 8.- Ema—Ezmma b33332 NuzofiaomflQ wad: m _ .omb wm.wm© ~9me 8.2K be fits—«Emmma ...omd- o _ .- K; we. mm; mo. 3.- No.. ...mvN- mo: haw—2:535 $8meme 2296 w M m w. w. w w W M w. 60km #580302: 8231582 Nam—38$: 80:5ng Nam—SIAM 23on 33.82 32.82 mEmaoufluM anfiom mEmcoufiom 562m. 20m .Eflsund .SXMKSEES :33 33:29» A§§S§~3 mm§~§8 3.88. 2% ~28 833% A£§2§~3 333.29» waSMNEK Loysémno: ~m>m>5~§~ EE§§M=S hmnwuxugfih «NE «@2325?an axemmamm mm 2an 193 do. v m 3 “gumemm b3fiw38 m2» 33> 05 + “no. v a 3 230$:me b3oumm§m 33 33> 05 338 r. 5.3on 805 .«o .33 88m 38:80 soon was 53% 8 goo-ac 826w 2305sz o: 303 82.:- ”202 23% 8.3% \u bfimemmma 3.. S- :._ 8. 58.:an mbtfimukmhvx £0.5SU 8.»? Rd: \3 bfizemmma on- 8.- m: 8. 55335 . bmwowmamm 32623an 385 «3: \m bEEmmE 3.. S: we. 8. bfigmma 9.43%me Ngogwcmu-NQ SE «SE \n brazammma 2.. oo. 8. 5. 353335 55%;»: 2896 w w m w woo-cm 32% .8305 Isa solo. 23»: QEE .535qu LQMfiSEBS :23; “$3333 Riv-20:33 3389398 389- 2: 3:3 353% $5.26.:qu .3332? Not-Swank xQKmEgE ~m>m~3§< 32.85%on hmnfixuh§~h GS btumsmwflQ gowwhmz mm 013,—. 194 195 -- -- *Nva ..ng -- *3. _ 858m .onom -- -- *N©.m ...omé -- ...oo. _ .58-fl Enom - - 8.- 8.- -- 8.- 355 358835 -- - 8.- 8.- -- 8.- 88¢. brazefifi muzahzmzw £235 - -- *9: -- -- -- 555 2% nu u- {ha-N .- .i .- Houo< 390m -- -- 8.- -- -- -- $55 558535 - -- v0.- .. -- -- Houo< 35:88me 532$wa 329:5me -- -- $2 -- -- -- 555 3% -- -- *3; -- -- - .56-a.~ Enom -- - 8.- -- -- -- 355 Eggs-.5 -- - mo; - - -- Ho~o< bum—8535 «Sm-Swami EtoEu-oQflQ -- - ...mfim -- -- - 558m Enom -- -- Ema -- -- - “So/x .onom -- -- 8.- -- -- -- 555 bud-mega -.. -- mor -- - -- 88¢. bra—Emma $8.83 3% 3% EH 3% EH Em 82.8.: 888$ % g 88-5 “8%": g 88mm max/Elm Swag—oz: 838M883- flwznlfimlfl Hag-fl 8050.5 85:00 3 E564 nEmaouflom mam-Mum 83482 Eamon-Bum .58-5on S\M=.Soh=8 :23, 33th> A§fi§3~3 228585 3.8% 38 $63588 3.89. 2: 38 85338 R£m=omc~mx «$33.29» 5223me .5538: 365533 Ngmhatmg-N anfixuhzufi thNENv-flQ magmamm 2t xo\=e.:u.fimfi\o mam-h vw 033- nmdmb $.me .mémn n _ .NE 9.x: xv fits—$535 39v. _ _.- 3w; vo. ...wmA co. ...mv.~- cor ...mmd- S.- bra—mammma mgsgmavx «EEG was: $.88 ~38 8.5 3.25 8. 3:28qu *3 .m- act on; 3. 34 co. 2.. T we... ...cod- ac: bra—Ezmma «032$me Nuzouuxmas 3.35 $.30 3.30 3.85 8.th- bc bra—Egan ...ovd- S.- ...oo.~ mo. N- _ ._ we. m _. co. ...SN- wor bra—$285 bwmcamamz BacBmcmEQ 883 8.25 2.88 822 8.88 8. 3.28.535 .354“. 2.- «mo; no. Loan 8. mm. 7 3.- ...Sfi- oer bum—mfimmma 8.833% 3&5 w m m w w w w w m w 80km «580202: 838.882 5:583— :8582: ad 84% 38.-El: 135': mzmcefiom wall-OER“ afiaollusolm Human-fl £33883? .u-mBQES bwmemmmmx SXQENBE 36333 Nufihfimws-N hmfihxuwnufi brumgnfiQ azcmmamm do. v £ 8 EmoflEwB haw—HERE 33 33> 05 + ”no. v £ 8 2805:me 5:85:58 mm? 029, 05 888 r. 20on 085 mo :08 88% 63:80 soon was 52% cm goo-mo 320w ugocfiwmm o: 803 22:- 68 Z .bauzshofim 9:332 SKMfiSeES :23» .83ng £339:wa wMSSUHw 389,. 8% VS» 5.53% mm 033- 196 do. v m 3 “anomemm 33539: 33 039, 05 + We. v m 8 2:35:me bfioumufim mm? on?» 05 ”memo“ r. 20on 085 we :08 88m 33:8 noon 8: Steam 8 goo-to 520w Ema-«Ema o: 203 Eon-- ”8oz 26: 85% \u brag-.29 8.- 8.- m3 8. brazefia 8:532th «.255 93$ 86$ \n 53235 mm... 8.- o? 3. bramfimmfi NOESMNNSN 3:025me 8.5 com-R \n bfimémma E. _- 8.- w? 3. 35385 bmmowwamm NazoEnoQflQ 8w: 2.0: «an 3539.5 S: 8.- a? 3. buéémma 638%.ch :3me w w w w goo-um wag—om 8030.5 HOMEGOU aha—av: Emmomwzom flacachosm 9&3me- LQMFSohaoo :33 .8353; ASQQBSE mm=§88 388 m5 323 $533 $52935? .8338; ANN-SEQ? LQKmNmVe: 3633: Nufiwfiwwtoq nmnmnxcnzsm. «NS btcmfimnflQ anowwamm cm 033- 197 u . w. - -- ...NVM ...Noé an. _ *ow.~ .55-am .onom -- -- 39m *3; *3; ...wod 88< Enom -- -- 8.- 8.- 5.- 8.- E88 bfiaefia -- -- no; mo: mo... 8.. Ho~o< 55:86me mumsssuw £333 -- -- é: -- -- -- 555 20m 3 .- inqm u- ..- ..- .55/w ~onom -- -- 8.- -- -- -- 555 $8835 -- -- 3.- -- -- -- .88< btngmma 532$me 329:3me -- -- :3 $2 -- -- 355 30m -- -- ..de “.3.-m -- -- .86< 390m -- -- S.- 8. -- -- 5:58 bEEEE -- -- 8.- Nor .. -- “So/w btazfimmma 5333me NuaoSneQfiQ -- -- 39m ...mm.~ *No.~ -- $5.3m flonom -- -- ...vagm 3: *NmN -- “So-«V Enom -- - 8.- 8. 8.- - has; bfizemmma -- -- no; mo... 3.- -- 88¢- bum—ERRED $8.83 355 8% gm 3% 38w 3&5 E m g g g 34% g 33 3a war-am. 6080295 83858?- Nflgflu g .5588 85:8 3 a2 @8233 ad 2:2.on BEE-é «cacao-aoE-m m>uaMm2 .S\ M85338 :33 $33.29» Riv-238$; totem-SEN 383. 33 mwaufixm 3.82. 2: 33 .3533 $<§E§~3 533.29» 582$me gQ-émhox‘. 362:3: chwhzamgq hmuwhxuhgm QQ» 3.2625}.me “30.5%th 2t xo-xzeuumhmE-xo 3.35 mm 2an 198 do. v Q :0 885830 3388.08 0.03 029, 05 + ”no. v Q .0 800$:me b30583 00>» 029, 05 ”$00“ r. 2088 0005 m0 £000 88m 80580 :00: was Eva—ow cm 800%? 888w 8005:me o: 0.63 0805- ”082 36$. ovdmc gawk. and: 05.03. 0? bra—M8889 “Km-m- _ fi- ow; we. NBA mo. ...wm.~- cor ...woN- cor 35:86me 00582028 «0.380 3.9.» 88% 2.80 8.9% 8.88 \n bfi=§§o «co. m- oor hm; we. EA mo. 3. T we..- *vw.m- wo.- 35:86me «028M832 NSBNBEQQ 0N6: oc.wwo 86% SSE. omémb \h 55:88me *cvd- 3.- ...mod mo. ~ ~._ 3. w 8 S. ..ch- wor 580:8?me baomwhmm NgfihgmfiQ $.03 ovan 8.03 omémn maéwo \E 35:86me $06.- fl _.- +_ a; mo. 54 co. 3”. T 8.- “Bo-N- oer 35:8605 89-80%: 2206 w w m w. m w m N m w Swam— 8080335 00335082 5:388: 808802: 5:815 08000—2 13822 Eta—2 mflmaomgym .8880“— Qsmconafim szomw. =0-m 8.438805% «Sham-02 88 .80-“830 «0.828.500. Ssxwfifiohacu =83» m0388> 83.3083? 038.5080 3.63- 08 88 8.48% 88.30.83? ..,-030.29— 828330 xQu-Eg: N083}: Nuzmhanwzc-N 3838328” btuzgmflQ 30mmm~0- mm 030B 199 do. v Q 00 8005880 3188008 003 02g 05 + ”no. v Q 8 “macaw—mi 33050830 33 02g 05 ”$000 0... 20008 805 00 £000 80¢ 00580 8000 mm: 008w 8 £800.80 Bcfiw 80058me 08 0.83 0005. ”08 Z 03: 03% .00 05835 ovr 5.- E ._ mo. 580:8mmma 00030008V «0.030 $5 $08 .0 08:50.05 on... 8.. Cu. _ vo. bra—8605 bmm0mmg~0- ~00000L0QQ 2.3 3mg .00 58830 w _ . T not 9: we. 0580:8605 bww0muw-0- N000500Q8Q 3m: $.30 .0. 0.5830 00... mo: w _. _ 8. 5858589 5.20%.:02 30.005 0 w 0 m Somm— m8>_om 8050.5 “0:800 0.804.002 Emmomm=0m 3:0:000EM 038%? .000 80.05.0080 «0.0003000 L0KME~N00=00 0003 0030.200, A300000~00 08000000 8.0000 03 0020 850:0 £83003? £030.29» 5.000.0MNN0L 00503003. N00033: 80.85.0303 0000000000000” 00.202800me §0mma0- am 030,—. 200 ...-IE 3% 3% gm 3% ~8th Ellacoo ...NVM ...Nod - 8.- -- mor -- ..bwd - ...SN -- 8; -- 3.- - LNN ...mm.~ *Nm.m ...ové- 8.- 8.- 8.- No.- ...Nv.m ...mm.m and aim 8.- 8.- 3.- mo.- Em m Um MN .8424 % «580295 muzmfiouz g 3 “um-8m 89565 55%me Eager-«EM ..an ..on 8.- mo.- Bm W .92-4% “:25ng 588$ 553.. 38m .88" Epom 555 552235 83. bcéémma mu§h=§wx «9.3.5 555 snow wouo< Enom 555 bcéémma 88.... bfizémma 838$wa NSBEERNQ 355 3% 56¢. Enom aqua 555.55 .88< bum—wfimma $8.5m: Ngouaoawfi 555 3am uo~o< Enom 55.5 55:55 as... ages-.5 $83»: $56 60km 8332 363.33% .bagomosm. 953%»? 38 .Efixfimc «938$»...- SKMRSEES 22%: .83ng $58.33me 23838:.» 3.62.. .28 mMSEBQ 388. 2% has 5:38 £33333; .83ng 533%:va 35038: 3833: Ngmhémmgq 33336238 NotumENEQ 38332 mi .8\ zoufinmfiko afiu on 033- 201 .888 828 88 3 8.8888 888 “9888 05 8 3288 8: mm? 88> Son 05 .823 8 82888 8 88828 8: 83 88 88m BE- .obw 88» 888.88 888588 83 88> 08 85 88088 ”88m... ”no. v m 8 885.88 383888 mm? 88> 05 888 2... .888 05 8 88.88 an? 88:88 .8888 05 5:3 8 80.8.. 83 8888 .8888 2:- 888 2: 8 3888 33 88:88 882 05 883 3:88 8882888 9 bum—8888 88822 03888 288828 05 808 80% 38828 2: 3 88.8.— 83 8888 88¢ 05. 2288 3.05 .8 .88 80.8 88:8 889 m8 888m 8 £80.88 8va 8on88 o: 083 82:- 882 ...ch 8.- ...cod 8.- .88.“...- ENwo 8.- 58886me 8233288 2822 2D *8; 8.- 89m 8.- *mo.m- 88.882 8.- 8.828865 8.28.8582 828.282me - - -- - S..- vodz. 8.- 85:88me 8.28828 32328285 -- -- -- -- 88. 2.82. 8.- 358838 8.2.8828 2826 a 88% E 888% 23% $42.48 23% 8% M 8 8 68m flag mafia-2 ‘ maul.» g 88¢. 5 mEmcozfiom Bach—Eco 288$ 83882» 8.28828 8528882 ~888 88 8.\ 882 828 £388 882:2: 82.88823 33822828” 8.282228an 88%:me 8 088,—- 202 85. v Q “a 88:86 2588.88 mm? 83> 2: + ”no. v m 8 882-386 3:85:83 83 03:2, 2: ”38: 2... 20:88 82: .8 :88 88: 88:88 :8: mm: 888% cm Jacobo 8:5» 885$? 08 083 22:. 88 Z 3.83 553 2.85m 5.5m 5.5% \2 208:8680 *mmN- oo- w _ A 5. no. 5. 8m.- 5.- 2w. T cor bra—8:35 2822:2852 28.525 P502 :58 S». m H m 365m 5. mow \2 2288:8689 ...: _.N- 5.. N2; 5.- m :. 5. 3.- 5.- mn.- mo: 5:28:85 238.8%:me 38.28226 8032 82.32 modem modem nmdom K: 298:8:35 3.. No.- mm: 5.. m _ .- 5.- 8.. 5.- 3. mo. 55:8:85 8.28.822 32838285 :53 endow 5d _ m bmgbm : 35m \2 b8:8:mm5 ow. T cor war 5.- mm. 5. am. 7 5.- NY- 5.- 35:85.05 8.28.2332 25.85 N w. w w. w w m w w w woo-:m 888382: 838882 5:388: g :3 0.84064 3.8.- 2.. .35.. -2. Ellllméusé 38%|: mil-.33 g .8388.» $2,428.23? 8.2888 8.83. 2% :22 5:38 82.38.2282 .8358.» 20.28.2382 8.58:8: 362:2: 82.85%23 thMS-mmED «88.223228: 20:22:22.2..an «Sommmuz ma 038:- 203 .00. v m «a 885ch b35358 83 02? 2: + ”no. v m “a “53¢?me bfioumzfim 83 33> 05 ”38“ r. 232: 085 .«o :08 Bob 3388 soon mm: 62% cm .maoofio chow “=85:me 0: ob? 22:. ”202 3.5. 8.5. \n bEEEQ t2- 8.- .52.. S. bEEmmE thufitmuuvx Son 05 £023 5 80:32: 5 682328 «on 33 “m2 Bnom 2:. .88 Eat Bogota. 3:333? 83 on?» 05 35 8:865 gonom... ”mo. v a 8 Ewocmdwmm 3:85:56 mm? 029, 05 ”38“ r. ”802 -- -- -- -- ...ovN- 33% mo; brazemmma 8:33th $95.5 -- : -- -- car mmdma 5.- 35:86me bNmSMNme 3:952me -- -- -- -- 8. 2.8m S. brazémma «GESMNRK NuzofimomflQ -- -- -- -- 3- 2.2% 8.- 55:86am bwmcmmamx N335 mad. 3% mm. smifi Beam. g Beam. % m Sm w. 80am magma aging 3 3 Flag... 5 9:28.20“ 0:838 2.53% $36.23, magmas.» ASQSEEK $298 2% .8538» has “.330: ~m>m~3§< NUSVSNM=3 hmnmhxuhzfiw btumfimmfiQ “SEMNEK mo 033. 206 Appendix III: Figures Figure 1. Overall proposed model explaining the association between religiosity and relationship quality. Social Exchange Variables Relation- ship Quality Religiosity Social Interaction Variables Note: Although I recognize that it is difficult to dichotomize the social exchange and social interaction variables as such, variables are classified under these headings for clarity. Social exchange variables include commitment and shared values. Social interaction variables include conflict in the relationship and problem solving skills. Religiosity scores from adolescence will be used for the target partner’s scores for the longitudinal models. 207 Figure 2 Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Women’s Religiosity Men’s Religiosity ’ Women’s Relationship Quality Note: A = Actor effect, P = Partner effect. 208 Men’s Relationship Quality Figure 3 Cross-sectional Actor-Partner Interdependence Model linking overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality. Actor effect: (E) .08; Partner effect: (F) .01 , : .19 Women's : .44 Women’s W°."‘.e".s ——’ Personal Relationship Reluguosuty Investment Quafity .18 B: .08 B: .08 D: .18 Men’s : .19 Men’s 2 .44 Men’s . Religiosity —> Personal ‘——> Relationship Investment Quality Note: Covariances between residuals for Personal Investment and Relationship Quality are not displayed to enhance figure clarity (r = .18 and r = .52, respectively). Paths with the same letter were constrained to equality because there were no observed gender differences (A, B, C, D, E, and F). All paths were statistically significant unless otherwise noted. Standardized path coefficients ([33) are reported. Although this model depicts personal investment as the mediator variable, the same model can be applied to the other cross-sectional models assessing mediation. 209 Actor effect: (E) .08; Partner effect: (F) .01 Figure 4 Stacked Actor-Partner Interdependence Model linking overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality. Actor effect: (E) .09; Partner effect: (F) N/A , A; 20 Yearly ’ c: .47 Year|y Women S ———-> Personal Relationship Yearly Investment Quality Religiosity D: .21 B: .04 (ns) ’ B: .04 (ns) DI .21 Men 3 R333“)! A: .20 Yearly C3 -47 Yearly ~———-> Personal ——-> Relationship Investment Qualitv ' A I L ...................................... J Actor effect: (E) .09; Partner effect: (F) N/A Note: Covariances between residuals for Personal Investment and Relationship Quality are not displayed to enhance figure clarity (r = .58 and r = .13, respectively). Paths with the same letter were constrained to equality because there were no observed gender differences (A, B, C, D, E, and F). All paths were statistically significant unless otherwise noted. Mediation was not tested for partner effects because the association between partner religiosity and personal investment was not significant. Standardized path coefficients (,Bs) are reported. Although this model depicts commitment as the mediator variable, the same model can be applied to the other cross-sectional models assessing mediation. 210 Figure 5 Cross-lagged Actor-Partner Interdependence Model linking overall religiosity, personal investment, and relationship quality. Actor effect: (G) N/A; Partner effect: (H) .02 I . V Women’s A: .12 Women’s Previous Wave I a Women’s E' 47 Current Reliaiositv I Current —L'—-—§ Relationship Personal Quality Investment Women’s Previous Wave Relationship Qualitv Men’s , D: ' Current E. 47 Men 8 Men’s Personal —p’ ' CU'TP'“ Previous Wave ’ Investment Relation- Relationship 0: .41 S 'P - Quality Quality A: .12 , , T Men’s Previous : Wave : Religiosity : ' l I I Actor effect: (G) N/A; Partner effect: (H) .02 Note: Covariances between residuals are not displayed to enhance figure clarity. Paths with the same letter have the same value because there were no observed gender differences (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H). All paths were statistically significant unless otherwise noted. Mediation was not tested for actor effects because the association between actor religiosity and relationship quality in the original assessment was not significant. Standardized path coefficients (fls) are reported. Although this model depicts personal investment as the mediator variable, the same approach was applied to the other cross-lagged models assessing mediation. 211 REFERENCES Adamczyk, A., & Felson, J. (2008). Fetal positions: Unraveling the influence of religion on premarital pregnancy resolution. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 17-3 8. Ahlborg, T., Misvaer, N., & Moller, A. (2009). Perception of marital quality by parents with small children: A follow-up study when the firstbom is 4 years old. Journal of Family Nursing, 15, 237-263. Amett, J. J. (1998). Risk behavior and family role transitions during the twenties. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 301- 320. Assad, K. K., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Optimism: An enduring resource for romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 285-297. Beach, S. R. H., Fincham, F. D., Hurt, T. R., McNair, L. M., & Stanley, S. M. (2008). Prayer and marital intervention: Toward an open empirically grounded dialogue. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 641—669. Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., Branaman, A., & Sica, A. (1995). Belief and behavior: Does religion matter in today’s marriage? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 5 7, 661-671. Booth, A., Johnson, D., & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital stability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 387-394. Bowie, J ., Ensminger, M. E., & Robertson, J. A. (2006). Alcohol-use problems in young Black adults: Effects of religiosity, social resources, and mental health. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 44-53. Brinkerhoff, M. B., Grandin, E., & Lupri, E. (1992). Religious involvement and spousal violence: The Canadian case. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 15- 31. Brown, E., Orbuch, T. L., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2008). Religiosity and marital stability among Black American and White American couples. Family Relations, 5 7, 186- 197. Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., Sherkat, D. E., & Gore, K. A. (2007). Are there religious variations in marital infidelity/2 Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1553-1581. 212 Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A., & Gardner, B. C. (2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual: Clinical implications of religious couples’ report of relationship softening, healing, perspective, and change responsibility. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 19-3 7. Call, V. R. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religious influences on marital stability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392. Christensen, H. T., & Barber, K. E. (1967). Interfaith versus intrafaith marriage in Indiana. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 461-469. Christensen, A., & Walczynski, P. T. (1997). Conflict and satisfaction in couples. In R. J. Sternberg and M. Hojjat (Eds), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 249-274). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Conger, R. D. (unpublished manuscript). Codebook for the Family Transitions Project. Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361-373. Crocker, S. F. (1984). Prayer as a model of communication. Pastoral Psychology, 33, 83-92. Curtis, K. T, & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religious heterogamy and marital conflict: Findings from the National Survey of Families and Households. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 551-576. Donnellan, M. B., Assad, K. K., Robins, R. W., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Do negative interactions mediate the effects of Negative Emotionality, Communal Positive Emotionality and Constraint on relationship satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 557-573. Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481-504. Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Burzette, B. G. (2005). Criterion-related validity, self-other agreement, and longitudinal analyses for the Iowa personality questionnaire: A short alternative to the MPQ. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 458-485. Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562-576. 213 Donnellan, M. B., Conger, K. J ., McAdams, K. K., & Neppl, T. K. (2009). Personal characteristics and resilience to economic hardship and its consequences: Conceptual issues and empirical illustrations. Journal of Personality, 77, 1645- 1675. Dougherty, K. D., Johnson, B. R., & Polson, E. C. (2007). Recovering the lost: Rerneasuring U.S. religious affiliation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 483-499. Ellison, C. G., Bartowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. L. (1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 87-113. . Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat D. E. (1993). Obedience and autonomy: Religion and parental values reconsidered. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 313-329. Fincharn, F. D., & Beach, S. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 630-649. Fincharn, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative process in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 275-292. Giblin, P. (1993). Marriage and martial therapy. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 1, 339-341. Heaton, T. B.,.& Pratt, E. L. (1990). The effects of religious homogamy on marital satisfaction and stability. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 191-207. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Hies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574-600. Humbad, M. N., Donnellan, M. B., Iacono, W. G., & Burt, S. A. (2010). Extemalizing psychopathology and marital adjustment in long-term marriages: Results from a large combined sampled of married couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 151-162. Hiinler, O. S., & Genciiz, T. (2005). The effect of religiousness on marital satisfaction: Testing the mediator role of marital problem solving between religiousness and marital satisfaction relationship. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27, 123-136. Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M. G., Pargament, K. 1., Powell, L. H., Underwood, L. G., & Williams, D. R. (2003). Measuring multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality for health research. Research on Aging, 25, 327-365. 214 Jose, A., O’Leary, D., & Moyer, A. (2010). Does premarital cohabitation predict subsequent marital stability and marital quality? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 105-116. Kamey, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3-34. Kashy, D. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2008). Comparing MLM and SEM approaches to analyzing developmental dyadic data: Growth curve models of hostility in families. In N. A. Card, J. P. Selig, & T. D. Little (Eds.). Modeling dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 165-190). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451-477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kashy, D. A., & Snyder, D. K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 338-348. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guildford Press. Lambert, N. M., & Dollahite, D. C. (2006). How religiosity helps couples prevent, resolve, and overcome marital conflict. Family Relations, 55, 439-449. Lambert, N. M., & Dollahite, D. C. (2008). The threefold cord: Martial commitment in religious couples. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 592-614. Lehrer, E. L. (1996). The role of the husband’s religious affiliation in the economic and demographic behavior of families. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 145-155. Lehrer, E. L. (1998). Religious intermarriage in the United States: Determinants and trends. Social Science Research, 27, 245-263. Licther, D. T., & Carmalt, J. H. (2009). Religion and marital quality among low-income couples. Social Science Research, 38, 168-187. Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. 1., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-338. 215 Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. 1., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2008). Religion in the home in the 19803 and 19908: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, S, 63-101. Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. 1., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home in the 19803 and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 559-596. Masters, K. S., Carey, K. B., Maisto, S. A., Caldwell, P. E., Wolfe, T. V., Hackney, H. L., France, C. R., & Himawan, L. (2009). Psychometric examination of the brief multidimensional measure of religiousness/spirituality among college students. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 106-120. McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. Jr. (1973). Love and guilt-orientated dimensions of Christian belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 53-64. McCullough, M. E., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2009). Religion, self-regulation, and self- control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 69-93. McDonald, G. W. (1981). Structural exchange and marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 825-839. Myers, S. M. (2006) Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational patterns 1980-1997. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 292- 304. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141-151. Olsen, J. A. & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 1 1, 127-141. Park, I. J. K., Garber, J ., Ciesla, J. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2008). Convergence among multiple methods of measuring positivity and negativity in the family environment: Relation to depression in mothers and their children. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 123-134. Peterson, C., & Seligrnan, M. E. P. (2004). Spirituality: Religiousness, faith, purpose. In C. Peterson and M. E. P. Seligrnan (Eds). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (pp. 599-622). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 216 Preacher, K. J ., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731. Salsman, J. M., Brown, T. L., Brechting, E. H., & Carlson, C. R. (2005). The link between religion and spirituality and psychological adjustment: The mediating role of optimism and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31, 522-535. Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Difi’erences, 32, 15-25. Scheier, M. F, & Carver, C. S. (1988). A model of behavioral self-regulation: Translating intention into action. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 303-346). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism fi‘om neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6 7, 1063- 1 078. Schwartz, P., & Young, L. (2009). Sexual satisfaction in committed relationships. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC. Special Issue: State of the Art in Sexuality Research, 6, 1-17. Shehan, C. L., Bock, E. W., & Lee, G. R. (1990). Religious heterogamy, religiosity, and marital happiness: The case of Catholics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 73-79. Spilman, S., Neppl, T., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (unpublished manuscript). The role of religiosity in romantic and parent-child relationships: Intergenerational outcomes. Iowa State University Srivastava, S., McGonigal, K. M., Richards, J., M, Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2006). Optimism in close relationships: How seeing things in a positive light makes them so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 143-153. Sullivan, K. T. (2001). Understanding the relationship between religiosity and marriage: An investigation of the immediate and longitudinal effects of religiosity on newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 610-626. 217 Tsang, J .-A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Measuring religious constructs: A hierarchical approach to construct organization and scale selection. In S. J. Lopez and C. R. Snyder (Eds), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 345-360). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Whisman, M. A., Gordon, K. C., & Chatav, Y. (2007). Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of married individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 320-324. Williams, L. M., & Lawler, M. G. (2001). Religious heterogamy and religiosity: A comparison of interchurch and same-church individuals. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 465-478. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1996). Religion and marital dependency. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 30-40. Wolfinger, N. H., & Wilcox, W. B. (2008). Happily ever after? Religion, marital status, gender, and relationship quality in urban families. Social Forces, 86, 1311-1337. Young, M., Denny, G., Luquis, R., & Young, T. (1998). Correlates of sexual satisfaction in marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 115-127. 218 HIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRAR III II III