UNEMPLOYMENT	
  OR	
  UNDEREMPLOYMENT	
  AND	
  MARITAL	
  SATISFACTION:	
  ANALYSIS	
  OF	
  
ECONOMIC	
  STRAIN	
  AND	
  RELIGIOUS	
  BELIEF	
  IN	
  SOUTHEASTERN	
  MICHIGAN	
  	
  
	
  
By	
  
Amanda	
  Leigh-­‐Guinot	
  Talbot	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
	
  
MASTER	
  OF	
  ARTS	
  
Human	
  Development	
  &	
  Family	
  Studies	
  
2011	
  

	
  
ABSTRACT	
  
Unemployment	
  or	
  Underemployment	
  and	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction:	
  Analysis	
  of	
  Economic	
  Strain	
  
and	
  Religious	
  Belief	
  in	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan	
  
	
  
By	
  
Amanda	
  Guinot	
  Talbot	
  
This	
  research	
  examines	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment,	
  
economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  The	
  research	
  was	
  
guided	
  by	
  ecological,	
  systems,	
  and	
  family	
  stress	
  theories.	
  The	
  sample	
  consisted	
  of	
  100	
  
participants	
  who	
  were	
  unemployed-­‐or	
  underemployed	
  and/or	
  had	
  a	
  spouse	
  who	
  was	
  un-­‐
or	
  underemployed.	
  All	
  participants	
  attended	
  church	
  sponsored	
  job	
  seeker	
  groups	
  
throughout	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan.	
  Through	
  self-­‐report,	
  participants	
  classified	
  themselves	
  
and/or	
  their	
  spouses	
  as	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployed	
  and	
  reported	
  on	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  time.	
  Survey	
  
measures	
  assessed	
  the	
  above	
  variables	
  and	
  gathered	
  demographic	
  data.	
  Three	
  hypotheses	
  
were	
  examined:	
  (a)	
  The	
  instance	
  of	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  (since	
  an	
  
individual	
  felt	
  they	
  were	
  fully	
  employed)	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  (b)	
  
Unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  will	
  have	
  an	
  indirect	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
through	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  (c)	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  buffer,	
  or	
  
moderate	
  the	
  mediating	
  effects	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Findings	
  from	
  
the	
  current	
  study	
  were	
  consistent	
  with	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  previous	
  research.	
  Economic	
  strain	
  
directly	
  affected	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  meditated	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  length	
  
of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  directly	
  
affected	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  moderated	
  the	
  mediated	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  
strain	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
This	
  work	
  is	
  dedicated	
  to	
  my	
  loving,	
  supportive,	
  and	
  amazing	
  family.	
  

iii	
  

	
  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	
  
	
  
	
  
I	
  first	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  God	
  for	
  His	
  grace	
  and	
  His	
  mercy	
  that	
  is	
  new	
  every	
  morning.	
  
Thanks	
  to	
  my	
  family	
  for	
  their	
  love	
  and	
  support	
  that	
  has	
  made	
  this	
  accomplishment	
  
possible.	
  Mom	
  and	
  dad,	
  you	
  have	
  always	
  believed	
  in	
  me	
  and	
  encouraged	
  me	
  to	
  follow	
  my	
  
dreams.	
  Your	
  help	
  to	
  me	
  is	
  beyond	
  measure.	
  To	
  my	
  sister,	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  the	
  levity,	
  
counseling	
  sessions,	
  and	
  just	
  being	
  a	
  shoulder.	
  Grandma,	
  you	
  have	
  been	
  amazing	
  
supporting	
  me	
  with	
  hugs,	
  encouraging	
  words,	
  and	
  food!	
  To	
  my	
  extended	
  family,	
  brothers	
  
and	
  sister	
  in-­‐law	
  and	
  mother	
  and	
  father	
  in-­‐law,	
  I	
  am	
  lucky	
  to	
  have	
  all	
  of	
  you	
  in	
  my	
  life;	
  my	
  
life	
  is	
  now	
  richer	
  because	
  of	
  all	
  of	
  you.	
  To	
  Joseph,	
  my	
  partner,	
  and	
  the	
  person	
  in	
  my	
  corner,	
  
your	
  love	
  is	
  amazing-­‐I	
  could	
  not	
  have	
  done	
  this	
  without	
  you.	
  
I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  express	
  my	
  appreciation	
  to	
  my	
  advisor	
  and	
  head	
  of	
  my	
  committee,	
  
Dr.	
  Ames.	
  You	
  have	
  given	
  me	
  great	
  guidance;	
  I	
  have	
  learned	
  so	
  much	
  from	
  you	
  during	
  this	
  
process.	
  You	
  are	
  a	
  wonderful	
  mentor.	
  To	
  my	
  other	
  committee	
  members,	
  Dr.	
  Carolan	
  and	
  Dr.	
  
Onaga	
  I	
  appreciate	
  your	
  expertise	
  and	
  help	
  throughout	
  this	
  process.	
  
Thanks	
  also	
  must	
  be	
  given	
  to	
  professor	
  Boyce,	
  who	
  over	
  three	
  years	
  taught	
  me	
  so	
  
much	
  about	
  finance	
  and	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  teaching.	
  Thank	
  you	
  for	
  everything,	
  I	
  am	
  so	
  glad	
  to	
  count	
  
you	
  as	
  a	
  mentor	
  and	
  friend.	
  Dr.	
  Stone,	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  starting	
  me	
  on	
  this	
  path!	
  I	
  appreciate	
  
your	
  continued	
  support	
  of	
  my	
  research,	
  my	
  scholarship,	
  and	
  me.	
  
My	
  gratitude	
  also	
  extends	
  to	
  the	
  job	
  seeker	
  support	
  networks.	
  Thanks	
  to	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  
group	
  leaders	
  who	
  welcomed	
  me	
  and	
  my	
  research	
  with	
  open	
  arms.	
  Finally,	
  to	
  every	
  
participant	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  help	
  and	
  honesty.	
  

	
  

iv	
  

	
  
TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Page	
  

LIST	
  OF	
  TABLES………………………………………………………………………………………………………vii	
  
LIST	
  OF	
  FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………………………………..viii	
  
CHAPTER	
  I	
  
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1	
  
Theoretical	
  Framework……………………………………………………………………………………………4	
  
	
  
Ecological	
  Theory………………………………………………………………………………………….5	
  
	
  
	
  
Cultural,	
  Historical,	
  &	
  Environmental	
  Context……………………………………...6	
  
	
  
	
  
Home	
  Economics………………………………………………………………………………...8	
  
	
  
Systems	
  Theory…………………………………………………………………………………………......9	
  
	
  
	
  
Family	
  Systems…………………………………………………………………………………...10	
  
	
  
	
  
Family	
  Stress………………………………………………………………………………………11	
  
	
  
	
  
Double	
  ABCX	
  Model………………………………………………………………………….....12	
  
Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15	
  
Conceptual	
  Model……………………………………………………………………………………………………..21	
  
An	
  Overview	
  of	
  the	
  Following	
  Chapters…………………………………………………………………......22	
  
CHAPTER	
  II	
  
REVIEW	
  OF	
  LITERATURE…………………………………………………………………………………….…….23	
  
	
  
Economic	
  Stress……………………………………………………………………………………………...23	
  
	
  
Economic	
  Strain……………………………………………………………………………………………...26	
  
	
  
Unemployment	
  &	
  Underemployment……………………………………………………….……...29	
  
	
  
Length	
  of	
  Unemployment	
  &	
  Underemployment……………………………………..………...30	
  
	
  
Marital	
  Satisfaction………………………………………………………………………………...……....35	
  
	
  
Gender	
  Reactions…………………………………………………………………………………………....38	
  
	
  
Religious	
  Affiliation/Belief………………………………………………………………………….......40	
  
CHAPTER	
  III	
  
METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………………………………….........44	
  
Conceptual	
  &	
  Operational	
  Definitions……………………………………………………………..44	
  
Population……………………………………………………………………………………………………..48	
  
	
  
	
  
Population	
  Characteristics…………………………………………………………………...50	
  
	
  
	
  
Population	
  Demographics……………………………………………………………………50	
  
	
  
Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………………………….52	
  
	
  
	
  
Measure	
  of	
  Length	
  of	
  Unemployment…………………………………………………...54

	
  

v	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
Measure	
  of	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction…………………………………………………..………..55	
  
	
  
Measure	
  of	
  Economic	
  Strain………………………………………………………...………58	
  
	
  
Measure	
  of	
  Religious	
  Affiliation/Belief…………………………………………..……..60	
  
	
  
Economic	
  Context………………………………………………………………………………..62	
  
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………...........63	
  

CHAPTER	
  IV	
  
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66	
  
	
  
Sample	
  Means	
  &	
  Frequencies………………………………………………………………………...66	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  1……………………………………………………………………………………………….67	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  2……………………………………………………………………………………………….68	
  
Hypothesis	
  1………………………………………………………………………………………………………........70	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  3……………………………………………………………………………………………….70	
  
Hypothesis	
  2………………………………………………………………………………………………………........71	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  4………………………………………………………………………………………………..71	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  5………………………………………………………………………………………………..72	
  
Hypothesis	
  3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….73	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  6………………………………………………………………………………………………..73	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  7………………………………………………………………………………………………..75	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………..75	
  
CHAPTER	
  V	
  
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….77	
  
	
  
Demographics………………………………………………………………………………………………77	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  1………………………………………………………………………………………………...78	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  2………………………………………………………………………………………………...79	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  3………………………………………………………………………………………………...80	
  
	
  
Theoretical	
  Application………………………………………………………………………………...82	
  
	
  
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………………………..83	
  
	
  
Future	
  Research…………………………………………………………………………………………...85	
  
Qualitative	
  Observations	
  at	
  Data	
  Collection	
  Sites/Mailer	
  Data	
  Collection………..87	
  
Conclusion	
  &	
  Implications……………………………………………………………………………………….93	
  
APPENDIX	
  A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………97	
  
APPENDIX	
  B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………102	
  
APPENDIX	
  C……………………………………………………………………………………………………………104	
  
APPENDIX	
  D…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...107	
  
APPENDIX	
  E…………………………………………………………………………………………………………....108	
  
APPENDIX	
  F……………………………………………………………………………………………………………111	
  
Figure	
  1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….112	
  
Figure	
  2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….113	
  
Figure	
  3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….114	
  
Figure	
  4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….115	
  
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….117

	
  
vi	
  

	
  
LIST	
  OF	
  TABLES	
  
	
  
	
  
Table	
  1:	
  Mean	
  Age	
  and	
  Number	
  of	
  Years	
  Married……………………………………………………….67	
  
Table	
  2:	
  Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Demographic	
  Data,	
  Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Level	
  of	
  
Education,	
  Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Number	
  of	
  Years	
  at	
  Current	
  Residence,	
  Frequency	
  
Distribution	
  of	
  Participant’s	
  Employment	
  Status,	
  Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Spouse’s	
  
Employment	
  Status,	
  Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Religious	
  Affiliation,	
  Frequency	
  Distribution	
  
of	
  Shared	
  Religious	
  Affiliation	
  Between	
  
Spouses……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………68	
  
	
  
Table	
  3:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)……………....70	
  
	
  
Table	
  4:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)………………71	
  
Table	
  5:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Economic	
  Strain	
  &	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  
(N=100)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..72	
  
	
  
Table	
  6:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)………………73	
  
	
  
Table	
  7:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)………………74

	
  vii	
  

	
  
LIST	
  OF	
  FIGURES	
  
	
  
	
  
Figure	
  1:	
  Hypothesis	
  1…………………………………………………………………………………………….110	
  
Figure	
  2:	
  Hypothesis	
  2…………………………………………………………………………………………….111	
  
Figure	
  3:	
  Hypothesis	
  3…………………………………………………………………………………………….112	
  
Figure	
  4:	
  Hypothesis	
  3c	
  Results……………………………………………………………………………….113	
  

	
  

viii	
  

	
  
	
  
CHAPTER	
  I	
  
INTRODUCTION	
  
There	
  is	
  an	
  undeniable	
  body	
  of	
  evidence	
  from	
  both	
  the	
  popular	
  press	
  and	
  research	
  
literature	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  finances	
  are	
  a	
  central	
  issue	
  in	
  families	
  and	
  can	
  result	
  in	
  
conflict	
  and	
  divorce	
  (e.g.	
  Conger,	
  Elder,	
  Lorenez,	
  Conger,	
  Simons,	
  Whitbeck	
  et	
  al.,	
  1990;	
  Fox	
  
&	
  Chancey,	
  1998;	
  Papp,	
  Cummings,	
  &	
  Goeke-­‐Morey,	
  2009).	
  Furthermore,	
  research	
  suggests	
  
that	
  stressful	
  economic	
  life	
  events	
  such	
  as	
  unemployment,	
  inability	
  to	
  pay	
  bills,	
  inadequate	
  
resources,	
  inability	
  to	
  obtain	
  necessities,	
  sudden	
  change	
  in	
  standard	
  of	
  living,	
  and	
  
disproportionate	
  financial	
  expectations,	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  personal	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  marital	
  distress	
  
(Conger,	
  Rueter,	
  &	
  Elder,	
  1999;	
  Smock,	
  Manning,	
  &	
  Porter,	
  2005).	
  Research	
  on	
  economic	
  
stress	
  and	
  strain	
  dating	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  1930’s	
  and	
  the	
  Great	
  Depression	
  noted	
  that	
  family	
  
systems	
  struggle	
  when	
  faced	
  with	
  economic	
  hardship,	
  change	
  in	
  income,	
  and	
  lower	
  SES	
  
(Conger,	
  Conger,	
  &	
  Martin,	
  2010),	
  and	
  reveals	
  that	
  individuals	
  who	
  lose	
  their	
  employment	
  
are	
  at	
  increased	
  risk	
  for	
  physical	
  and	
  psychological	
  problems	
  (Howe,	
  Levy,	
  &	
  Caplan,	
  
2004).	
  The	
  effects	
  of	
  job	
  loss	
  are	
  multidimensional,	
  touching	
  many	
  aspects	
  of	
  a	
  family	
  
system	
  (e.g.	
  loss	
  of	
  income,	
  loss	
  of	
  health	
  benefits,	
  change	
  in	
  SES,	
  change	
  in	
  level	
  of	
  wealth	
  
(net	
  worth),	
  change	
  in	
  social	
  status/standing)	
  (Strully,	
  2009).	
  These	
  effects	
  also	
  influence	
  
individuals	
  physically,	
  mentally,	
  and	
  emotionally.	
  For	
  example,	
  increased	
  levels	
  of	
  
depression	
  and	
  anxiety,	
  decreased	
  individual	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  and	
  in	
  extreme	
  
cases,	
  suicide	
  can	
  occur	
  (Jones,	
  1992;	
  Stack	
  &	
  Wasserman,	
  2007).	
  With	
  the	
  current	
  “Great	
  
Recession,”	
  job	
  loss	
  statistics	
  have	
  reached	
  historic	
  highs,	
  and	
  levels	
  of	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  
strain	
  have	
  dramatically	
  increased	
  for	
  many	
  individuals	
  and	
  families	
  (Isidore,	
  2009).	
  

1	
  

	
  
Economists	
  state	
  that	
  the	
  present	
  “Great	
  Recession”	
  is	
  the	
  worst	
  economic	
  
downturn	
  since	
  the	
  Great	
  Depression	
  of	
  1929.	
  The	
  U.S.	
  economy	
  has	
  seen	
  recessionary	
  
times	
  throughout	
  history,	
  notably	
  the	
  recessions	
  of	
  1973-­‐1975	
  and	
  1981-­‐1982.	
  However,	
  
the	
  current	
  recession	
  has	
  surpassed	
  these	
  in	
  duration	
  and	
  severity	
  of	
  loss	
  (Isidore,	
  2009;	
  
Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith,	
  2010).	
  In	
  2009,	
  national	
  unemployment	
  figures	
  rose	
  to	
  around	
  10%,	
  
while	
  underemployment	
  was	
  around	
  16%,	
  rates	
  that	
  had	
  not	
  been	
  seen	
  since	
  the	
  deep	
  
recession	
  of	
  the	
  early	
  1980’s	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.;	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  2010).	
  In	
  
January	
  of	
  2009,	
  741,000	
  jobs	
  were	
  lost,	
  while	
  the	
  first	
  five	
  months	
  of	
  the	
  year	
  saw	
  a	
  total	
  
of	
  5	
  million	
  jobs	
  lost.	
  From	
  the	
  start	
  of	
  the	
  recession	
  in	
  December	
  2007	
  to	
  January	
  2010	
  
approximately	
  8.4	
  million	
  jobs	
  were	
  lost	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.;	
  Edin	
  &	
  Kissane,	
  
2010)	
  This	
  wave	
  of	
  unemployment	
  has	
  been	
  felt	
  predominately	
  by	
  male	
  workers	
  (Edin	
  &	
  
Kissane,	
  2010),	
  and	
  these	
  displaced	
  male	
  workers	
  accounted	
  for	
  three-­‐fourths	
  of	
  the	
  swell	
  
in	
  unemployment	
  (Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith,	
  2010).	
  With	
  regard	
  to	
  the	
  recent	
  labor	
  market	
  
decline	
  and	
  its	
  effects,	
  economist	
  Heidi	
  Shierholz	
  stated,	
  “The	
  deterioration	
  in	
  the	
  labor	
  
market	
  from	
  2008	
  to	
  2009	
  was	
  the	
  worst	
  we’ve	
  ever	
  seen.	
  When	
  you	
  see	
  a	
  big	
  
deterioration	
  in	
  the	
  labor	
  market,	
  poverty	
  rises”	
  (ABC	
  news,	
  2010).	
  
The	
  national	
  unemployment	
  rate	
  as	
  of	
  September	
  2010	
  was	
  9.6%,	
  up	
  five	
  
percentage	
  points	
  from	
  2007	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.).	
  Since	
  that	
  time,	
  in	
  June	
  
2011,	
  the	
  unemployment	
  rate	
  dropped	
  slightly	
  to	
  9%;	
  however,	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  
underemployment	
  has	
  continued	
  to	
  hover	
  around	
  16-­‐19%	
  (Fleck,	
  2011).	
  Throughout	
  the	
  
current	
  recession	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  Michigan	
  has	
  been	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  hardest	
  hit	
  states	
  with	
  
unemployment	
  (ABC	
  news,	
  2009).	
  In	
  the	
  month	
  of	
  May	
  2009	
  the	
  unemployment	
  rate	
  in	
  
Michigan	
  rose	
  8	
  percentage	
  points.	
  It	
  was	
  estimated	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  that	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan	
  

2	
  

	
  
had	
  4.8	
  million	
  residents,	
  and	
  in	
  2009	
  only	
  3.878	
  million	
  individuals	
  were	
  employed	
  
throughout	
  the	
  entire	
  state	
  (Motley	
  Fool,	
  2009).	
  As	
  of	
  September	
  2010,	
  Michigan’s	
  
unemployment	
  rate	
  was	
  12.8%,	
  ranking	
  it	
  as	
  the	
  second	
  highest	
  unemployment	
  rate	
  in	
  the	
  
country,	
  second	
  only	
  to	
  Nevada	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a).	
  In	
  July	
  2010,	
  the	
  
unemployment	
  rate	
  in	
  metro	
  Detroit	
  was	
  16.7%	
  (Crain’s	
  Detroit	
  Business,	
  2010).	
  These	
  
high	
  area	
  rates	
  are	
  due	
  in	
  large	
  part	
  to	
  the	
  decline	
  in	
  the	
  auto	
  industry	
  (ABC	
  news,	
  2009).	
  	
  
The	
  city	
  of	
  Detroit	
  recently	
  was	
  rated	
  the	
  most	
  stressful	
  city	
  in	
  the	
  nation	
  in	
  which	
  
to	
  work	
  and	
  live.	
  Thomas	
  (2010)	
  stated	
  that	
  when	
  ranking	
  the	
  nation’s	
  major	
  metropolitan	
  
cities	
  and	
  their	
  stress	
  levels,	
  several	
  factors	
  were	
  included,	
  but	
  chief	
  among	
  them	
  was	
  the	
  
unemployment	
  rate.	
  Other	
  factors	
  were	
  poverty	
  levels,	
  commuting	
  times,	
  level	
  of	
  crime,	
  
pollution,	
  and	
  amount	
  of	
  sunlight	
  an	
  area	
  receives.	
  Detroit	
  topped	
  the	
  list	
  primarily	
  due	
  to	
  
the	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  unemployment.	
  The	
  American	
  Psychological	
  Association	
  (2007)	
  stated	
  
that	
  the	
  subjects	
  of	
  money	
  and	
  work	
  were	
  the	
  two	
  leading	
  causes	
  of	
  stress	
  in	
  the	
  American	
  
public.	
  Further,	
  nearly	
  half	
  of	
  all	
  Americans	
  (48%)	
  reported	
  both	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  levels	
  of	
  
stress	
  and	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  stress	
  keeping	
  them	
  awake	
  at	
  night.	
  Over	
  half	
  of	
  all	
  Americans	
  
(54%)	
  reported	
  stress	
  as	
  a	
  factor	
  inciting	
  relationship	
  strain	
  and	
  conflict	
  with	
  those	
  around	
  
them	
  (American	
  Psychological	
  Association).	
  	
  
The	
  economy	
  in	
  recent	
  years	
  has	
  been	
  full	
  of	
  uncertainty	
  and	
  loss.	
  As	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  
recent	
  economic	
  instability,	
  jobs	
  have	
  been	
  lost,	
  incomes	
  cut,	
  homes	
  foreclosed,	
  and	
  lives	
  
altered.	
  Families	
  have	
  faced	
  restructuring	
  of	
  family	
  finances	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  member	
  roles	
  (e.g.	
  
ABC	
  news,	
  2009;	
  ABC	
  news,	
  2010;	
  Jones,	
  1992;	
  Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith,	
  2010).	
  Families	
  are	
  
experiencing	
  great	
  financial	
  stress	
  and	
  strain,	
  placing	
  pressure	
  on	
  familial	
  and	
  marital	
  
relations.	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  (2010)	
  stated	
  that	
  economic	
  downturns	
  and	
  recessions	
  create	
  

3	
  

	
  
environments	
  for	
  natural	
  investigation	
  into	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  financial	
  stress	
  and	
  strain.	
  Most	
  
research	
  on	
  financial	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  has	
  been	
  done	
  in	
  a	
  retrospective	
  manner,	
  looking	
  
back	
  upon	
  economic	
  crises	
  (Costello,	
  Compton,	
  Keeler,	
  Angold,	
  2003).	
  However,	
  presently	
  
researchers	
  have	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  examine	
  the	
  worst	
  economic	
  downturn	
  in	
  modern	
  
history	
  and	
  the	
  pertinent	
  effects	
  that	
  the	
  “Great	
  Recession”	
  will	
  have	
  on	
  marriage	
  and	
  the	
  
family.	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  state	
  that	
  investigators	
  must	
  use	
  the	
  current	
  situation	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  local	
  
economic	
  realities,	
  using	
  recent	
  changes	
  to	
  guide	
  exploration.	
  Furthermore,	
  because	
  the	
  
current	
  economic	
  crisis	
  is	
  a	
  recent	
  reality,	
  very	
  few	
  current	
  research	
  studies	
  pertain	
  
specifically	
  to	
  this	
  topic	
  (Edin	
  &	
  Kissane,	
  2010).	
  Thus,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  need	
  for	
  researchers	
  to	
  
investigate	
  existing	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  and	
  the	
  resulting	
  effects	
  to	
  family	
  and	
  
marital	
  systems.	
  
Theoretical	
  Framework	
  
Several	
  theories	
  from	
  multiple	
  disciplines	
  have	
  been	
  applied	
  to	
  the	
  investigation	
  of	
  
families	
  and	
  economic	
  distress.	
  Theories	
  with	
  roots	
  in	
  sociology,	
  psychology,	
  and	
  family	
  
studies	
  have	
  included	
  ecological	
  and	
  systems	
  theories,	
  symbolic	
  interactionism,	
  structural-­‐
functionalism,	
  exchange	
  theory,	
  and	
  family	
  stress	
  theory	
  (e.g.	
  Broman,	
  Hamilton,	
  Hoffman,	
  
&	
  Mavaddat,	
  1995;	
  Feldman,	
  1996).	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  will	
  utilize	
  aspects	
  of	
  ecological	
  
theory,	
  systems	
  theory,	
  and	
  family	
  stress	
  theory	
  as	
  guiding	
  principles	
  for	
  the	
  current	
  
investigation.	
  The	
  three	
  theories	
  selected	
  have	
  application	
  to	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
common	
  suppositions.	
  Ecological	
  and	
  systems	
  theory	
  are	
  both	
  meta-­‐theoretical	
  approaches	
  
that	
  help	
  scholars	
  understand	
  living	
  organisms,	
  their	
  environments,	
  and	
  the	
  relationship	
  
between	
  the	
  two.	
  These	
  theories	
  recognize	
  the	
  bi-­‐directional	
  nature	
  of	
  interaction	
  between	
  
organisms	
  and	
  environments.	
  Both	
  of	
  these	
  theories	
  identify	
  layers	
  of	
  environmental	
  or	
  

4	
  

	
  
systemic	
  influences	
  and	
  attempt	
  to	
  examine	
  individuals	
  and	
  their	
  environments	
  in	
  a	
  
holistic	
  manner.	
  Family	
  stress	
  theory	
  was	
  based	
  on	
  systems	
  theory	
  and	
  bears	
  many	
  
similarities	
  to	
  that	
  theory.	
  This	
  theory	
  uses	
  ecological,	
  developmental,	
  and	
  systems	
  
understandings	
  to	
  comprehend	
  the	
  incidence,	
  reaction,	
  coping,	
  and	
  adjustment	
  that	
  
families	
  make	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  stress	
  and	
  crisis	
  (White	
  &	
  Klein,	
  2008).	
  In	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  
ecological,	
  systems,	
  and	
  family	
  stress	
  theory	
  work	
  together	
  to	
  illuminate	
  aspects	
  of	
  context,	
  
relational	
  and	
  system	
  interaction,	
  and	
  the	
  process	
  and	
  effect	
  that	
  stress	
  has	
  on	
  both	
  family	
  
context	
  and	
  system	
  operation.	
  
Ecological	
  Theory	
  
Life	
  course	
  theory	
  has	
  been	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  economic	
  change,	
  stress,	
  and	
  strain	
  
and	
  primarily	
  focused	
  on	
  the	
  individual’s	
  response	
  (White	
  &	
  Klein,	
  2008;	
  Voydanoff,	
  1990).	
  
This	
  is	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  ecological	
  theory	
  that	
  considers	
  multiple	
  systems	
  and	
  influences	
  of	
  
economic	
  stressors	
  on	
  families.	
  A	
  human	
  ecosystem	
  is	
  defined	
  as,	
  “human	
  organisms	
  in	
  
interaction	
  with	
  their	
  natural	
  physical—biological,	
  social—cultural,	
  and	
  human-­‐built	
  
environments	
  comprise	
  a	
  human	
  ecosystem”	
  (Boss,	
  Doherty,	
  LaRossa,	
  Schumm,	
  &	
  
Steinmetz,	
  1993,	
  p.	
  431).	
  Ecological	
  theory	
  provides	
  a	
  lens	
  through	
  which	
  the	
  complexities	
  
of	
  the	
  multifaceted	
  relationship	
  between	
  marriage	
  and	
  finance	
  can	
  be	
  seen.	
  The	
  ecological	
  
perspective	
  allows	
  elements	
  unique	
  to	
  each	
  person	
  and	
  context	
  to	
  be	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  
examination.	
  This	
  perspective	
  holistically	
  views	
  the	
  family	
  and	
  all	
  other	
  related	
  systems	
  as	
  
nested	
  within	
  one	
  another	
  (Bronfenbrenner,	
  1979;	
  Griffore	
  &	
  Phenice,	
  2001;	
  White	
  &	
  Klein,	
  
2008).	
  
	
  
	
  

5	
  

	
  
Cultural,	
  historic,	
  &	
  environmental	
  context	
  
The	
  ecological	
  perspective	
  allows	
  for	
  important	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  economic	
  
stress	
  and	
  strain	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  to	
  be	
  included.	
  One	
  such	
  aspect	
  is	
  the	
  inclusion	
  of	
  
context.	
  This	
  theoretical	
  orientation,	
  like	
  systems	
  theory,	
  is	
  unique	
  in	
  that	
  the	
  main	
  focus	
  is	
  
the	
  interaction	
  between	
  organism	
  and	
  environment	
  (Boss	
  et	
  al.,	
  1993).	
  The	
  importance	
  of	
  
investigations	
  giving	
  heed	
  to	
  both	
  the	
  organism	
  and	
  the	
  environmental	
  context	
  is	
  
emphasized,	
  “The	
  well-­‐being	
  of	
  individuals	
  and	
  families	
  cannot	
  be	
  considered	
  apart	
  from	
  
the	
  well-­‐being	
  of	
  the	
  whole	
  ecosystem”	
  (Boss	
  et	
  al.,	
  p.425).	
  With	
  the	
  complex	
  nature	
  and	
  
central	
  position	
  of	
  money	
  in	
  the	
  family	
  system	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  include	
  a	
  discussion	
  of	
  
environment	
  and	
  context	
  in	
  every	
  investigation	
  (Conger,	
  Ge,	
  Elder,	
  Lorenz,	
  &	
  Simons,	
  
1994).	
  Systems	
  theory	
  would	
  define	
  this	
  as	
  the	
  suprasystem,	
  while	
  ecological	
  theory	
  would	
  
classify	
  the	
  outer	
  environment	
  as	
  the	
  macrosystem	
  (Boss	
  et	
  al.;	
  Bronfenbrenner,	
  1979).	
  
The	
  terms	
  may	
  vary,	
  but	
  the	
  overall	
  concept	
  is	
  the	
  same.	
  Individuals	
  influence	
  and	
  are	
  
influenced	
  by	
  their	
  environment.	
  Boss	
  et	
  al.	
  classified	
  the	
  external	
  context	
  as,	
  “…everything	
  
that	
  is	
  external	
  to	
  a	
  system	
  but	
  in	
  some	
  way	
  in	
  direct	
  or	
  indirect	
  transaction	
  with	
  it,	
  is	
  
collectively	
  termed	
  the	
  environment”	
  (p.	
  333).	
  In	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  marital	
  
quality	
  in	
  Finland,	
  the	
  authors	
  noted	
  that	
  the	
  context	
  and	
  culture	
  of	
  Finland	
  was	
  an	
  
important	
  factor	
  in	
  the	
  examination.	
  For	
  example,	
  in	
  Finland	
  there	
  are	
  generous	
  
unemployment	
  benefits	
  and	
  other	
  social	
  services	
  such	
  as	
  governmental	
  day-­‐care.	
  These	
  
services	
  help	
  sustain	
  a	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  economic	
  security	
  that	
  supports	
  individuals	
  during	
  
times	
  of	
  economic	
  pressure	
  (Kinnunen	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  	
  
There	
  are	
  various	
  cultural	
  expectations	
  regarding	
  monetary	
  issues	
  and	
  standards	
  of	
  
living	
  that	
  affect	
  couples	
  and	
  have	
  the	
  potential	
  to	
  fuel	
  conflict.	
  A	
  study	
  on	
  the	
  contextual	
  

6	
  

	
  
influences	
  affecting	
  marital	
  relationships	
  exemplified	
  the	
  power	
  of	
  context	
  by	
  stating,	
  
“…even	
  skilled	
  and	
  relatively	
  satisfied	
  couples	
  may	
  have	
  difficulty	
  interacting	
  effectively	
  
under	
  conditions	
  of	
  stress	
  or	
  diminished	
  resources”	
  (Karney	
  &	
  Bradbury,	
  2005,	
  p.	
  171).	
  
There	
  is	
  inherent	
  influence	
  in	
  the	
  contextual	
  environment,	
  influence	
  present	
  on	
  all	
  systems.	
  
Further,	
  when	
  contextual	
  stressors	
  are	
  high	
  and	
  social	
  or	
  spousal	
  support	
  is	
  low,	
  a	
  couple	
  is	
  
at	
  higher	
  risk	
  for	
  personal	
  and	
  relational	
  problems.	
  Stress	
  resulting	
  from	
  the	
  
environmental	
  context	
  has	
  been	
  seen	
  as	
  highly	
  related	
  to	
  negative	
  marital	
  reactions	
  and	
  
decreased	
  satisfaction	
  (Karney	
  &	
  Bradbury).	
  Broman	
  et	
  al.	
  (1995)	
  conducted	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  
autoworkers’	
  response	
  to	
  stress	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment.	
  They	
  stated,	
  “the	
  
response	
  to	
  stress	
  is	
  affected	
  by	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  social	
  statuses	
  and	
  circumstances	
  of	
  the	
  
person	
  affected	
  but	
  also	
  the	
  dynamic	
  sociocultural	
  environment	
  that	
  is	
  reflected	
  by	
  social	
  
roles	
  and	
  group	
  membership”	
  (p.	
  814).	
  
Sweeney	
  (2002)	
  states	
  that	
  economic,	
  cultural,	
  and	
  attitudinal	
  context	
  varies	
  by	
  
race,	
  thus	
  reiterating	
  the	
  salience	
  of	
  contextual	
  investigation.	
  Cultural	
  and	
  environmental	
  
contexts	
  vary	
  across	
  family	
  systems.	
  Families	
  may	
  differ	
  in	
  their	
  needs,	
  desires,	
  
expectations,	
  and	
  expenditures	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1994).	
  Kwon,	
  Rueter,	
  Lee,	
  Koh,	
  and	
  Ok	
  
(2003)	
  studied	
  an	
  economic	
  crisis	
  and	
  the	
  resulting	
  family	
  stress	
  in	
  Korea,	
  and	
  stated	
  that	
  
key	
  to	
  the	
  investigation	
  was	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  Korean	
  culture.	
  Certain	
  Korean	
  
customs	
  such	
  as	
  traditional	
  gender	
  role	
  division	
  and	
  the	
  association	
  between	
  husbands’	
  
work	
  and	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  power	
  became	
  pertinent	
  to	
  the	
  interpretation	
  of	
  results.	
  	
  
The	
  historical	
  state	
  of	
  the	
  economy	
  also	
  has	
  a	
  direct	
  association	
  to	
  levels	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  (Feldman,	
  1996).	
  Changing	
  national,	
  state,	
  and	
  local	
  economic	
  contexts	
  
will	
  shape	
  the	
  emotional	
  and	
  physical	
  effects	
  of	
  job	
  loss	
  (Strully,	
  2009).	
  Thus,	
  the	
  cultural	
  

7	
  

	
  
and	
  historical	
  context	
  surrounding	
  the	
  marriage	
  and	
  family	
  systems	
  must	
  be	
  identified	
  
(White	
  &	
  Rogers,	
  2000).	
  For	
  example,	
  during	
  the	
  Great	
  Depression	
  and	
  the	
  economic	
  crisis	
  
of	
  the	
  1980’s,	
  the	
  economic	
  environment	
  surrounding	
  couples	
  became	
  visible,	
  and	
  the	
  
influence	
  was	
  tangible	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1990).	
  During	
  the	
  Great	
  Depression	
  researchers	
  
began	
  to	
  examine	
  economic	
  stress	
  in	
  connection	
  with	
  loss	
  in	
  income	
  and	
  male	
  
unemployment	
  as	
  the	
  nation	
  saw	
  a	
  26.5%	
  drop	
  in	
  Gross	
  Domestic	
  Product	
  
(GDP)(Kinnunen	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998;	
  Isidore,	
  2009).	
  The	
  recession	
  of	
  the	
  1980’s	
  saw	
  a	
  
crippling	
  of	
  financial	
  markets	
  and	
  all	
  levels	
  of	
  employment,	
  and	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  the	
  
economic	
  crisis	
  greatly	
  affected	
  agriculture	
  and	
  farming	
  markets	
  (Voydanoff,	
  Donnelly,	
  &	
  
Fine,	
  1988).	
  During	
  the	
  recession	
  families	
  felt	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  cyclical	
  unemployment,	
  
permanent	
  loss	
  of	
  employment,	
  underemployment,	
  involuntary	
  part-­‐time	
  work,	
  and	
  wage	
  
cuts	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990).	
  Similarly,	
  the	
  current	
  economic	
  recession	
  and	
  credit	
  crisis	
  has	
  an	
  
enormous	
  bearing	
  on	
  families	
  either	
  as	
  the	
  direct	
  cause	
  of	
  economic	
  stress	
  or	
  as	
  an	
  indirect	
  
facilitator	
  of	
  economic	
  strain.	
  Many	
  families	
  have	
  lost	
  employment,	
  had	
  a	
  decrease	
  in	
  
income,	
  and	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  their	
  debt	
  load,	
  and	
  these	
  changes	
  bring	
  changes	
  in	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  (Dew,	
  2008).	
  With	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  contextual	
  and	
  historical	
  economic	
  stress,	
  
couples	
  will	
  experience	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  in	
  some	
  form	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999).	
  
Home	
  economics	
  	
  
Ecological	
  theory	
  has	
  many	
  implications	
  for	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  finance	
  and	
  the	
  family,	
  as	
  
this	
  theory	
  has	
  it	
  roots	
  in	
  home	
  economics.	
  From	
  the	
  beginning,	
  human	
  ecology	
  has	
  placed	
  
an	
  emphasis	
  on	
  the	
  external	
  environment	
  and	
  material	
  goods	
  and	
  resources	
  that	
  families	
  
acquire	
  and	
  manage.	
  Many	
  concepts	
  present	
  in	
  contemporary	
  ecological	
  theory	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  
holistic	
  approach,	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  environment,	
  and	
  importance	
  of	
  social	
  interaction	
  come	
  

8	
  

	
  
from	
  the	
  theoretical	
  origins	
  in	
  home	
  economics.	
  The	
  family	
  is	
  seen	
  as	
  a	
  unit	
  or	
  system	
  that	
  
endeavors	
  to	
  address	
  issues	
  of	
  physical	
  sustenance,	
  economic	
  control,	
  and	
  psychological	
  
and	
  social	
  nurturing	
  (Bubolz	
  &	
  Sontag,	
  1988;	
  Bubolz,	
  Eicher,	
  and	
  Sontag,	
  1979).	
  Central	
  to	
  
ecological	
  study	
  are	
  the	
  concepts	
  of	
  family	
  resource	
  management,	
  human	
  development,	
  
and	
  family	
  relations	
  (Griffore	
  &	
  Phenice,	
  2001).	
  This	
  theoretical	
  perspective	
  follows	
  the	
  
idea	
  that	
  humans	
  require	
  material	
  goods	
  and	
  resources,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  management	
  and	
  
interaction	
  with	
  these	
  resources	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  part	
  of	
  family	
  life	
  (Bubolz	
  &	
  Sontag,	
  1988;	
  
Bubolz,	
  Eicher,	
  and	
  Sontag,	
  1979).	
  From	
  its	
  inception,	
  ecological	
  theory	
  postulated	
  that	
  
economics	
  and	
  the	
  decisions	
  that	
  families	
  make	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  resources	
  has	
  an	
  immense	
  
effect	
  on	
  the	
  system;	
  there	
  are	
  micro,	
  meso,	
  exo,	
  and	
  even	
  macro-­‐system	
  effects	
  
(Bronfenbrenner,	
  1979;	
  White	
  &	
  Klein,	
  2008).	
  In	
  fact,	
  research	
  suggests	
  that	
  monetary	
  
decisions	
  and	
  money	
  management	
  represent	
  a	
  major	
  area	
  of	
  marital	
  conflict	
  (Dakin	
  &	
  
Wampler,	
  2008;	
  Zagorsky,	
  2003).	
  Often	
  relational	
  arguments	
  surrounding	
  finances	
  are	
  not	
  
directly	
  connected	
  to	
  income	
  loss,	
  but	
  reduced	
  resources	
  and	
  money	
  management	
  (Jones,	
  
1992).	
  
Systems	
  Theory	
  
System	
  theory	
  views	
  the	
  family	
  and	
  its	
  members	
  as	
  joined	
  together	
  in	
  a	
  functional	
  
network,	
  passing	
  information,	
  energy,	
  and	
  material	
  to	
  and	
  through	
  members,	
  and	
  
interacting	
  with	
  the	
  surrounding	
  environment	
  (Griffore	
  &	
  Phenice,	
  2001).	
  Systems	
  theory	
  
considers	
  the	
  marital	
  or	
  family	
  system	
  as	
  a	
  whole	
  with	
  interconnected	
  relationships,	
  
defining	
  roles	
  and	
  boundaries.	
  Further,	
  changes	
  occur	
  on	
  multiple	
  levels,	
  affecting	
  multiple	
  
systems.	
  This	
  theory	
  conceptualizes	
  change	
  as	
  preceding	
  from	
  the	
  cellular	
  to	
  the	
  cultural	
  
level	
  (White	
  &	
  Klein,	
  2008).	
  	
  
9	
  

	
  
Family	
  systems	
  	
  
Systems	
  theory	
  has	
  been	
  used	
  in	
  several	
  studies	
  investigating	
  finance,	
  conflict,	
  and	
  
the	
  marriage	
  relationship.	
  A	
  major	
  tenet	
  of	
  systems	
  theory	
  is	
  that	
  when	
  one	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  
system	
  is	
  affected,	
  the	
  effects	
  are	
  felt	
  throughout	
  the	
  system.	
  Some	
  studies	
  have	
  referred	
  to	
  
this	
  as	
  the	
  “spillover	
  theory,”	
  postulating	
  that	
  an	
  experience	
  such	
  as	
  unemployment	
  will	
  
naturally	
  carry	
  over	
  into	
  another	
  area	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  spousal	
  relationship	
  (Kinnunen	
  &	
  
Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  “Unemployment	
  is	
  a	
  stressful	
  life	
  event	
  that	
  affects	
  not	
  only	
  individuals	
  
who	
  lose	
  their	
  job	
  but	
  also	
  their	
  families”	
  (Jones,	
  1992,	
  p.	
  59).	
  In	
  fact,	
  Vinoker,	
  Price,	
  and	
  
Caplan	
  (1996),	
  found	
  that	
  financial	
  strain	
  predicted	
  the	
  onset	
  of	
  depression	
  and	
  change	
  in	
  
the	
  normative	
  level	
  of	
  depression	
  in	
  the	
  unemployed	
  individual	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  
partner.	
  
	
  Others	
  state	
  that	
  components	
  of	
  a	
  system	
  are	
  interconnected,	
  in	
  fact,	
  it	
  is	
  their	
  
connection	
  that	
  creates	
  the	
  system.	
  Subsystems	
  exist	
  and	
  operate	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  interaction	
  
and	
  exchange	
  that	
  takes	
  place	
  between	
  various	
  levels	
  of	
  the	
  system	
  (Boss	
  et	
  al.,	
  1993;	
  
Griffore	
  &	
  Phenice,	
  2001).	
  With	
  this,	
  there	
  is	
  “mutual	
  influence,”	
  thus	
  the	
  components	
  of	
  
the	
  system	
  affect	
  one	
  another	
  (Boss	
  et	
  al.,	
  1993,	
  p.	
  332).	
  The	
  importance	
  of	
  money	
  to	
  the	
  
operation	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  system,	
  and	
  the	
  shared	
  nature	
  of	
  family	
  economic	
  resources,	
  results	
  
in	
  everyone	
  in	
  the	
  family	
  system	
  being	
  affected	
  by	
  exposure	
  to	
  economic	
  stressors	
  (Howe	
  
et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  
There	
  also	
  are	
  various	
  roles	
  and	
  responsibilities	
  assumed	
  by	
  each	
  member	
  in	
  the	
  
family	
  system.	
  A	
  role	
  is	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  norms,	
  expectations,	
  and	
  prescriptions	
  for	
  an	
  individual	
  in	
  a	
  
certain	
  position.	
  Husbands	
  and	
  wives	
  have	
  certain	
  roles	
  they	
  have	
  constructed	
  for	
  
themselves	
  and	
  one	
  another.	
  Roles	
  are	
  fluid	
  concepts,	
  changing	
  with	
  time	
  (Boss	
  et	
  al.,	
  

10	
  

	
  
1993).	
  Thus,	
  during	
  periods	
  of	
  high	
  stress	
  and	
  financial	
  tension,	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  period	
  of	
  
unemployment,	
  there	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  role	
  strain	
  and	
  change,	
  as	
  members	
  have	
  to	
  adjust	
  and	
  
take	
  on	
  new	
  roles.	
  Mattingly	
  and	
  Smith	
  (2010)	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  wives	
  of	
  husbands	
  who	
  had	
  
been	
  unemployed	
  during	
  the	
  current	
  economic	
  recession	
  were	
  two	
  times	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  
seek	
  employment	
  than	
  those	
  whose	
  husbands	
  remained	
  in	
  the	
  work	
  force.	
  This	
  represents	
  
a	
  functional	
  role	
  change	
  for	
  the	
  husbands	
  and	
  wives.	
  With	
  economic	
  loss	
  a	
  family	
  must	
  cut-­‐
back,	
  reallocate,	
  adapt,	
  and	
  manage	
  with	
  less,	
  and	
  inherent	
  in	
  these	
  behavioral	
  changes	
  are	
  
feelings	
  of	
  strain	
  (Feldman,	
  1996).	
  Persistent	
  role	
  strain	
  and	
  the	
  ensuing	
  individual	
  
problems	
  with	
  self-­‐concept	
  can	
  be	
  present	
  during	
  prolonged	
  periods	
  of	
  unemployment	
  
(Kokko	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  
Family	
  Stress	
  
Family	
  stress	
  theory	
  has	
  been	
  used	
  to	
  examine	
  unemployment	
  as	
  a	
  stressor,	
  and	
  its	
  
interaction	
  with	
  other	
  life	
  stressors	
  such	
  as	
  illness,	
  relationship	
  stress,	
  and	
  disruption	
  in	
  
family	
  functioning	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990).	
  A	
  stressor	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  an	
  event	
  that	
  elicits	
  a	
  change	
  
within	
  a	
  family	
  system.	
  Changes	
  to	
  the	
  system	
  can	
  include	
  adjusting	
  boundaries,	
  family	
  
structures,	
  goals,	
  processes,	
  roles,	
  and	
  values.	
  Within	
  the	
  economic	
  realm,	
  common	
  
stressors	
  are	
  aggregate	
  economic	
  decline,	
  loss	
  of	
  employment,	
  loss	
  of	
  savings,	
  decline	
  in	
  
level	
  of	
  wealth	
  or	
  status,	
  and	
  increase	
  in	
  debt.	
  These	
  stressors	
  can	
  cause	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  
disequilibrium	
  to	
  the	
  marital	
  or	
  family	
  system	
  (Boss,	
  2002).	
  Lavee,	
  McCubbin,	
  and	
  Olson	
  
(1987)	
  define	
  an	
  unanticipated,	
  acute	
  stressor	
  (also	
  referred	
  to	
  as	
  nonnormative	
  stressor)	
  
as	
  instances	
  such	
  as	
  rape,	
  murder,	
  war,	
  and	
  natural	
  disaster.	
  A	
  nonnormative	
  stress	
  can	
  
push	
  a	
  family	
  to	
  the	
  extreme	
  ends	
  of	
  adaptation.	
  Following	
  a	
  nonnormative	
  event,	
  a	
  family	
  
will	
  remain	
  in	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  decline	
  or	
  survive	
  and	
  grow	
  in	
  their	
  competence	
  (Boss).	
  There	
  also	
  

11	
  

	
  
are	
  persistent,	
  normative,	
  stressors	
  such	
  as	
  economic	
  depression,	
  unemployment,	
  chronic	
  
illness,	
  and	
  long-­‐term	
  separation	
  (Lavee	
  et	
  al.).	
  The	
  timing	
  of	
  normative	
  stressors	
  is	
  a	
  factor	
  
that	
  can	
  pose	
  considerable	
  risk.	
  If	
  a	
  normative	
  change	
  occurs	
  and	
  varies	
  from	
  personal,	
  
familial,	
  or	
  societal	
  expectation,	
  the	
  effects	
  will	
  be	
  increased.	
  Thus,	
  normative	
  stressors	
  are	
  
events	
  taking	
  place	
  off	
  the	
  standard	
  time	
  frame.	
  Further,	
  a	
  family	
  exposed	
  to	
  risk	
  with	
  few	
  
resources	
  will	
  have	
  more	
  difficulty	
  with	
  normative	
  stress	
  (Boss).	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  
that	
  these	
  stressors	
  (normative	
  and	
  nonnormative)	
  can	
  overlap,	
  compound,	
  or	
  pile	
  up.	
  In	
  
the	
  case	
  of	
  unemployment,	
  there	
  can	
  be	
  instances	
  of	
  acute	
  or	
  short-­‐term	
  unemployment,	
  or	
  
prolonged	
  and	
  persistent	
  unemployment.	
  Further,	
  there	
  are	
  occasions	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  
stressor	
  of	
  unemployment	
  is	
  anticipated	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  cases	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
  work	
  is	
  
completely	
  unanticipated	
  (e.g.	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1994;	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999;	
  Fox	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  
1998).	
  Both	
  acute	
  (nonnormative)	
  and	
  prolonged	
  (normative)	
  stressors	
  have	
  been	
  
hypothesized	
  and	
  seen	
  to	
  increase	
  personal	
  and	
  relational	
  conflict,	
  strain,	
  and	
  distress	
  
(Lavee	
  et	
  al.).	
  The	
  terms	
  stress	
  and	
  crisis	
  also	
  have	
  been	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  anticipation	
  of	
  
the	
  event.	
  A	
  crisis	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  an	
  immobilizing,	
  unanticipated	
  event,	
  while	
  stress	
  is	
  
destabilizing,	
  but	
  not	
  immobilizing	
  to	
  a	
  family	
  (Boss).	
  
Double	
  ABCX	
  model	
  
The	
  double	
  ABCX	
  model	
  is	
  an	
  adaptation	
  and	
  expansion	
  of	
  Hill’s	
  original	
  ABCX	
  
model	
  of	
  family	
  stress.	
  The	
  double	
  ABCX	
  model	
  makes	
  the	
  additions	
  of	
  the	
  pile	
  up	
  of	
  
demands	
  (aA	
  factor),	
  adaptive	
  resources	
  (bB	
  factor),	
  perception	
  (cC	
  factor),	
  and	
  family	
  
adaption,	
  which	
  spans	
  from	
  maladaptation	
  to	
  bonadaptation	
  (xX	
  factor).	
  The	
  pile	
  up	
  of	
  
demands	
  refers	
  to	
  stressors	
  accumulating.	
  These	
  demands	
  may	
  require	
  role	
  change,	
  
increase	
  strain,	
  and	
  pressure	
  family	
  boundaries	
  (Lavee,	
  McCubbin,	
  &	
  Patterson,	
  1985).	
  This	
  

12	
  

	
  
is	
  an	
  important	
  aspect	
  of	
  the	
  model;	
  family	
  stress	
  does	
  not	
  happen	
  in	
  isolation,	
  and	
  families	
  
rarely	
  deal	
  with	
  one	
  stress	
  at	
  a	
  time.	
  Further,	
  stress	
  is	
  intricate	
  and	
  evolves	
  with	
  time	
  
(Lavee	
  et	
  al.,	
  1987).	
  The	
  stressor	
  of	
  unemployment	
  brings	
  with	
  it	
  many	
  implications	
  for	
  
family	
  life,	
  including	
  family	
  role	
  change,	
  lifestyle	
  change,	
  and	
  expectation	
  change.	
  Walsh	
  
(2006)	
  gives	
  the	
  example	
  of	
  a	
  partner	
  in	
  a	
  marital	
  dyad	
  loosing	
  his	
  job,	
  triggering	
  the	
  loss	
  
of	
  their	
  home	
  and	
  the	
  forced	
  relocation	
  of	
  their	
  family.	
  This	
  would	
  require	
  children	
  to	
  
adapt	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  school,	
  new	
  neighborhood,	
  and	
  new	
  friends,	
  while	
  the	
  parents	
  are	
  
preoccupied	
  with	
  finding	
  work	
  and	
  other	
  outlets	
  for	
  resources.	
  Through	
  one	
  instance	
  of	
  
economic	
  stress	
  (e.g.	
  job	
  loss)	
  a	
  chain	
  of	
  stressors	
  pile-­‐up.	
  	
  
Family	
  adaptive	
  resources	
  include	
  both	
  the	
  established	
  family	
  resources	
  and	
  assets	
  
and	
  those	
  that	
  are	
  initiated	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  stressor.	
  Adaptive	
  resources	
  are	
  important	
  
because	
  they	
  mediate	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  pile	
  up	
  of	
  demands	
  and	
  the	
  family’s	
  
adaptation	
  to	
  the	
  crisis.	
  Levee	
  et	
  al.	
  (1985)	
  stated	
  that	
  a	
  family’s	
  resources	
  could	
  manifest	
  
through:	
  (a)	
  personal	
  resources	
  (e.g.	
  self-­‐esteem,	
  knowledge,	
  skills),	
  (b)	
  family	
  system	
  
resources	
  (e.g.	
  family	
  cohesion,	
  communication,	
  adaptability,	
  flexibility),	
  and	
  (c)	
  social	
  
support	
  (e.g.	
  people,	
  groups,	
  institutions	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  system).	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  
note	
  that	
  demands	
  and	
  resources	
  emerge	
  and	
  affect	
  multiple	
  levels	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  ecosystem,	
  
from	
  individual	
  members	
  to	
  the	
  community	
  context	
  (Boss,	
  2002).	
  Adaptive	
  resources	
  help	
  
families	
  deal	
  with	
  the	
  life	
  stress	
  and	
  crisis	
  and	
  thus	
  are	
  important	
  components	
  to	
  the	
  study	
  
of	
  family	
  stress	
  via	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  	
  
Family	
  stress	
  theory	
  delineates	
  between	
  the	
  objective	
  and	
  subjective	
  evaluations	
  of	
  
a	
  stressor.	
  The	
  subjective	
  appraisal	
  of	
  the	
  stressor	
  is	
  a	
  vital	
  indication	
  of	
  a	
  family’s	
  coping	
  
response.	
  The	
  subjective	
  evaluation	
  will	
  influence	
  the	
  family’s	
  behavior	
  and	
  adaptation	
  

13	
  

	
  
(Boss,	
  2002).	
  Perception	
  and	
  coherence	
  is	
  another	
  factor	
  that	
  mediates	
  the	
  relationship	
  
between	
  the	
  pile	
  up	
  of	
  demands	
  and	
  adaptation.	
  This	
  factor,	
  closely	
  akin	
  to	
  perceived	
  
economic	
  strain,	
  is	
  the	
  family’s	
  orientation	
  to	
  the	
  crisis.	
  This	
  represents	
  the	
  meaning	
  that	
  
the	
  family	
  applies	
  to	
  their	
  circumstances;	
  it	
  is	
  how	
  the	
  family	
  interprets	
  the	
  initial	
  stressor,	
  
the	
  pile	
  up	
  of	
  demands,	
  and	
  available	
  resources	
  (Lavee	
  et	
  al.,	
  1985).	
  The	
  application	
  of	
  
family	
  meaning	
  is	
  a	
  central	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  perception	
  process.	
  Family	
  meaning	
  is	
  a	
  collective	
  
interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  stressor	
  event	
  and	
  arises	
  from	
  a	
  family’s	
  definition	
  of	
  themselves	
  as	
  a	
  
unit,	
  the	
  surrounding	
  context,	
  and	
  the	
  family’s	
  worldview	
  (Boss).	
  Subjective	
  effects	
  have	
  
been	
  hypothesized	
  to	
  influence	
  the	
  family	
  system	
  even	
  more	
  than	
  the	
  objective	
  effects	
  of	
  
economic	
  pressure	
  (Kinnunen	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  This	
  points	
  to	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  the	
  
couple	
  or	
  the	
  family’s	
  definition	
  of	
  the	
  stressor.	
  How	
  do	
  they	
  see	
  or	
  perceive	
  the	
  pressure?	
  
What	
  does	
  it	
  mean	
  to	
  them?	
  (Walsh,	
  2006).	
  The	
  perception	
  and	
  meaning	
  applied	
  to	
  an	
  
event	
  will	
  render	
  a	
  family	
  able	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  the	
  challenge	
  or	
  feeling	
  vulnerable	
  (Boss).	
  The	
  
final	
  factor	
  in	
  the	
  double	
  ABCX	
  model	
  is	
  the	
  family’s	
  adaptation	
  or	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  the	
  crisis.	
  
This	
  will	
  result	
  in	
  either	
  the	
  family	
  continuing	
  in	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  imbalance	
  and	
  maladaptation,	
  
during	
  which	
  they	
  will	
  be	
  unable	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  demands	
  that	
  continue	
  to	
  pile	
  up,	
  or	
  in	
  
bonadaptation,	
  during	
  which	
  they	
  capably	
  meet	
  demands	
  (Lavee	
  et	
  al.,	
  1985).	
  
An	
  important	
  component	
  to	
  stress	
  theory	
  is	
  the	
  inclusion	
  of	
  protective	
  and	
  recovery	
  
factors.	
  Family	
  protective	
  factors	
  (FPF)	
  are	
  the	
  resources	
  that	
  a	
  family	
  taps	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  
endure	
  a	
  hardship.	
  Examples	
  of	
  protective	
  factors	
  include:	
  (a)	
  accord	
  or	
  cohesion	
  within	
  
the	
  family,	
  (b)	
  communication,	
  exchange	
  of	
  information,	
  ideas,	
  and	
  feelings,	
  (c)	
  financial	
  
management	
  (e.g.	
  sound	
  money	
  management,	
  consensus	
  among	
  partners,	
  contentment	
  
with	
  financial	
  status),	
  (d)	
  support	
  network	
  (e.g.	
  friends,	
  relatives,	
  social	
  groups,	
  church	
  

14	
  

	
  
groups),	
  and	
  (e)	
  traditions	
  (e.g.	
  holidays,	
  religious	
  events,	
  events	
  passed	
  through	
  
generations).	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  recognize	
  family	
  protective	
  factors,	
  as	
  they	
  are	
  resources	
  in	
  
place	
  for	
  families	
  which	
  can	
  help	
  relieve	
  stress.	
  Protective	
  factors	
  can	
  buffer	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  
stress	
  and	
  aide	
  families	
  in	
  stress	
  management	
  (McCubbin,	
  McCubbin,	
  Thompson,	
  Han,	
  and	
  
Allen,	
  1997).	
  Family	
  recovery	
  factors	
  (FRF)	
  are	
  utilized	
  after	
  a	
  crisis	
  situation,	
  frequently	
  in	
  
combination	
  with	
  protective	
  factors,	
  to	
  enable	
  family	
  resurgence	
  after	
  a	
  stress	
  or	
  crisis.	
  
Examples	
  of	
  some	
  recovery	
  factors	
  are:	
  (a)	
  family	
  support	
  and	
  esteem	
  building,	
  (b)	
  family	
  
optimism	
  and	
  mastery	
  (e.g.	
  maintaining	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  order),	
  (c)	
  family	
  advocacy	
  (e.g.	
  
collective	
  support),	
  and	
  (d)	
  family	
  meaning	
  (McCubbin	
  et	
  al.).	
  Protective	
  and	
  recovery	
  
factors	
  play	
  an	
  important	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  or	
  trajectory	
  a	
  stress	
  or	
  crisis	
  takes.	
  
Family	
  stress	
  theory	
  has	
  salient	
  areas	
  of	
  application	
  to	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  unemployment,	
  
economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Replete	
  through	
  research	
  is	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  
economic	
  strain	
  and	
  unemployment	
  are	
  stressful	
  life	
  events	
  with	
  complex	
  physical	
  and	
  
emotional	
  consequences	
  (e.g.	
  Falconier,	
  2010;	
  Howe	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  Kokko	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998;	
  
Lavee	
  et	
  al.,	
  1987).	
  Understanding	
  the	
  process	
  through	
  which	
  a	
  family	
  experiences	
  
economic	
  stress	
  allows	
  researchers	
  to	
  identify	
  pertinent	
  aspects	
  of	
  their	
  investigation.	
  
Stressors,	
  protective	
  and	
  recovery	
  resources,	
  perceptions,	
  and	
  adaptation	
  can	
  be	
  identified.	
  
Economic	
  factors	
  are	
  integrated	
  with	
  the	
  family,	
  and	
  thus	
  the	
  major	
  tenets	
  of	
  ecological,	
  
systems,	
  and	
  family	
  stress	
  theory	
  and	
  their	
  conceptual	
  roots	
  enhance	
  this	
  study.	
  
Hypotheses	
  
The	
  current	
  study	
  will	
  examine	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment,	
  perceived	
  
economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  and	
  their	
  influence	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
(See	
  Appendix	
  F	
  for	
  complete	
  list	
  of	
  research	
  questions,	
  hypotheses,	
  and	
  measures).	
  

15	
  

	
  
Studies	
  have	
  considered	
  duration	
  of	
  unemployment,	
  but	
  not	
  in	
  connection	
  with	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  studies	
  examining	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  have	
  
taken	
  directional	
  approaches	
  to	
  their	
  investigations.	
  Moreover,	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  studies	
  
investigating	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  even	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment,	
  have	
  concentrated	
  on	
  the	
  
effects	
  of	
  joblessness	
  on	
  mental	
  health	
  (Banks,	
  1995).	
  Feldman	
  (1996)	
  examined	
  the	
  
antecedents	
  and	
  consequences	
  of	
  underemployment	
  in	
  part	
  by	
  looking	
  at	
  the	
  correlation	
  
between	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  and	
  potential	
  underemployment.	
  Leeflang,	
  Klein-­‐
Hesselink,	
  &	
  Spruit	
  (1992)	
  examined	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment,	
  specifically	
  long-­‐term	
  
unemployment,	
  and	
  the	
  difference	
  in	
  experiences	
  between	
  rural	
  and	
  urban	
  settings	
  in	
  the	
  
Netherlands.	
  Kulik	
  (2001)	
  considered	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  in	
  association	
  with	
  job	
  
search	
  intensity	
  and	
  attitude.	
  In	
  Kulik’s	
  study,	
  gender	
  and	
  age	
  were	
  the	
  two	
  factors	
  
considered	
  as	
  potentially	
  affecting	
  the	
  variables	
  of	
  job	
  search	
  intensity	
  and	
  attitude.	
  
Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith	
  (2010)	
  examined	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  economic	
  
theory	
  in	
  a	
  study	
  focused	
  on	
  husband	
  unemployment	
  and	
  wives’	
  re-­‐entry	
  into	
  the	
  labor	
  
market.	
  In	
  their	
  study,	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  was	
  non-­‐directional;	
  however,	
  the	
  focus	
  of	
  
the	
  study	
  was	
  on	
  the	
  reaction	
  to	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  with	
  the	
  added	
  worker	
  effect.	
  	
  
This	
  study	
  includes	
  self-­‐reported	
  evaluations	
  of	
  participants	
  and	
  participants’	
  
spouses’	
  employment	
  status.	
  Feldman	
  (1996)	
  used	
  self-­‐report	
  measures	
  to	
  investigate	
  
underemployment.	
  Underemployment	
  exists	
  objectively	
  when	
  a	
  person	
  possesses	
  higher	
  
skills	
  or	
  training	
  at	
  a	
  level	
  that	
  exceeds	
  the	
  demands	
  of	
  their	
  present	
  occupation,	
  reflecting	
  
a	
  concrete	
  difference	
  between	
  qualifications	
  and	
  demands.	
  There	
  also	
  is	
  the	
  subjective	
  
perception	
  of	
  underemployment,	
  or	
  feeling	
  that	
  present	
  employment	
  is	
  not	
  fully	
  utilizing	
  
one’s	
  skills,	
  or	
  is	
  not	
  in	
  keeping	
  with	
  one’s	
  training	
  or	
  goals	
  (Fledman,	
  1996;	
  Khan	
  &	
  

16	
  

	
  
Morrow,	
  1991).	
  There	
  have	
  been	
  studies	
  that	
  utilized	
  individuals’	
  personal	
  evaluations	
  of	
  
their	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  status,	
  financial	
  situation,	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  stress	
  and	
  
strain	
  they	
  experienced,	
  and	
  the	
  prospects	
  seen	
  for	
  the	
  future	
  (Leeflang	
  et	
  al.,	
  1992).	
  Khan	
  
&	
  Morrow	
  found	
  that	
  underemployment	
  seems	
  to	
  relate	
  to	
  subjective	
  evaluation	
  rather	
  
than	
  objective	
  evaluation.	
  The	
  following	
  is	
  the	
  first	
  hypothesis:	
  
•

The	
  instance	
  of	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  (since	
  individuals	
  felt	
  
they	
  were	
  fully	
  employed)	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
(Hypothesis	
  1)	
  (Figure	
  1).	
  

Economic	
  stress	
  has	
  been	
  broken	
  down	
  into	
  two	
  categories:	
  objective	
  indicators	
  and	
  
subjective	
  indicators.	
  The	
  objective	
  indicators	
  are:	
  financial	
  deprivation	
  (e.g.	
  loss	
  of	
  income,	
  
decrease	
  in	
  income)	
  and	
  employment	
  volatility	
  (e.g.	
  unemployment,	
  underemployment).	
  
The	
  subjective	
  indicators	
  are	
  perceived	
  employment	
  uncertainty	
  and	
  economic	
  strain.	
  It	
  is	
  
the	
  personal	
  subjective	
  evaluation	
  of	
  one’s	
  financial	
  situation	
  (Voydanoff	
  et	
  al.,	
  1988).	
  
Many	
  studies	
  have	
  focused	
  on	
  whether	
  the	
  subjective	
  indicators	
  and	
  one’s	
  perceived	
  
financial	
  evaluation	
  have	
  the	
  power	
  to	
  control	
  the	
  totality	
  of	
  the	
  economic	
  distress	
  
experienced	
  (Hilton	
  &	
  Devall,	
  1997).	
  Vinokur	
  et	
  al.	
  (1996)	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  relationship	
  
between	
  objective	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  was	
  one	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  
objective	
  directly	
  contributed	
  to	
  the	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  subjective.	
  Subjective	
  perceptions	
  
can	
  create	
  economic	
  strain	
  especially	
  when	
  an	
  objective	
  loss	
  is	
  experienced	
  (Falconier	
  &	
  
Epstein,	
  2011).	
  Perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  has	
  been	
  chosen	
  as	
  the	
  measure	
  to	
  examine	
  in	
  
testing	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  the	
  chronic	
  effects	
  and	
  overall	
  levels	
  of	
  
tension	
  experienced	
  in	
  meeting	
  the	
  demands	
  of	
  economic	
  provision	
  (Hilton	
  &	
  Devall,	
  
1997).	
  The	
  following	
  is	
  the	
  second	
  hypothesis	
  with	
  two	
  associated	
  parts:	
  

17	
  

	
  
•

Perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  will	
  directly	
  effect	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
(Hypothesis	
  2a)	
  

•

Un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  will	
  have	
  an	
  indirect	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
through	
  the	
  mediation	
  of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  when	
  controlling	
  for	
  the	
  effect	
  
of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  (Hypothesis	
  2b)	
  (Figure	
  2)	
  	
  

The	
  effect	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  on	
  an	
  individual’s	
  health	
  is	
  a	
  controversial	
  subject	
  
that	
  has	
  been	
  debated	
  extensively.	
  However,	
  there	
  are	
  numerous	
  studies	
  that	
  support	
  the	
  
fact	
  that	
  religious	
  orientation	
  acts	
  as	
  a	
  protective	
  factor	
  for	
  life	
  stressors	
  (Clark	
  &	
  Lelkes,	
  
2008;	
  Marks,	
  Dollahite,	
  &	
  Baumgartner,	
  2010).	
  Shared	
  spiritual	
  beliefs	
  can	
  enhance,	
  
strengthen,	
  and	
  protect	
  a	
  marital	
  union	
  (Lehrer,	
  &	
  Chiswick,	
  1993).	
  Some	
  studies	
  have	
  
shown	
  that	
  religious	
  doctrine	
  adherence	
  by	
  both	
  partners	
  will	
  reduce	
  the	
  instance	
  of	
  
divorce.	
  This	
  lower	
  instance	
  of	
  divorce	
  among	
  dyads	
  committed	
  to	
  religious	
  faith	
  was	
  seen	
  
when	
  compared	
  to	
  non-­‐religious	
  unions	
  (Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Tarakeshwar,	
  &	
  Swank,	
  
2001).	
  High	
  levels	
  of	
  shared	
  religious	
  belief	
  between	
  marital	
  partners	
  also	
  has	
  been	
  
associated	
  with	
  greater	
  levels	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  greater	
  levels	
  of	
  commitment,	
  lower	
  
rates	
  of	
  divorce,	
  and	
  a	
  greater	
  ability	
  to	
  cope	
  with	
  stress	
  and	
  transition	
  (Clark	
  &	
  Lelkes;	
  
Mahoney	
  et	
  al.).	
  Family	
  stress	
  and	
  resilience	
  theory	
  considers	
  a	
  family’s	
  beliefs	
  and	
  value	
  
system	
  to	
  be	
  part	
  of	
  stress	
  management,	
  a	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  a	
  family	
  can	
  cope	
  with	
  stress	
  and	
  
crisis	
  (Patterson,	
  2002).	
  
There	
  are	
  many	
  explanations	
  for	
  how	
  religious	
  beliefs	
  insulate	
  marital	
  and	
  family	
  
relations.	
  First,	
  many	
  faiths	
  promote	
  family	
  centered	
  beliefs.	
  For	
  many	
  religions,	
  marriage	
  
is	
  intended	
  and	
  espoused	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  lifelong	
  union.	
  Many	
  religions	
  disseminate	
  teachings	
  
promoting	
  and	
  helping	
  to	
  facilitate	
  healthy	
  marriage	
  and	
  family	
  functioning.	
  Individuals	
  

18	
  

	
  
who	
  believe	
  that	
  marriage	
  is	
  a	
  lasting	
  and	
  permanent	
  bond	
  may	
  tolerate	
  problems,	
  and	
  
even	
  unsatisfactory	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  relationship,	
  compared	
  to	
  individuals	
  who	
  believe	
  
divorce	
  is	
  an	
  acceptable	
  option	
  (Lehrer	
  &	
  Chiswick,	
  1993;	
  Mahoney	
  et	
  al.,	
  2001;	
  Mahoney,	
  
Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999).	
  Secondly,	
  individuals	
  facing	
  marital	
  problems	
  or	
  marital	
  
dissolution	
  may	
  experience	
  feelings	
  of	
  guilt	
  and	
  remorse,	
  feeling	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  going	
  against	
  
God	
  and	
  their	
  beliefs.	
  Coupled	
  with	
  this,	
  individuals	
  may	
  fear	
  external	
  disapproval	
  from	
  
those	
  with	
  similar	
  values	
  and	
  beliefs	
  (Lehrer	
  &	
  Chiswick;	
  Mahoney	
  et	
  al.).	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  
note	
  that	
  these	
  influences	
  of	
  religious	
  faith	
  also	
  may	
  have	
  negative	
  effects	
  on	
  individual	
  and	
  
marital	
  satisfaction.	
  An	
  individual	
  may	
  stay	
  in	
  a	
  relationship	
  based	
  solely	
  on	
  religious	
  
dedication	
  and	
  fear	
  (Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.).	
  The	
  following	
  is	
  the	
  third	
  
hypothesis,	
  and	
  its	
  three	
  related	
  parts:	
  
•

Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
(Hypothesis	
  3a)	
  

•

Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  buffer,	
  or	
  moderate	
  the	
  mediating	
  effects	
  of	
  
economic	
  strain	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  (Hypothesis	
  3b)	
  

•

Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  serve	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource.	
  (Hypothesis	
  3c)	
  
(Figure	
  3)	
  

In	
  accordance	
  with	
  the	
  ecological	
  and	
  systems	
  theories	
  and	
  contextual	
  awareness,	
  
the	
  present	
  study	
  will	
  acknowledge	
  the	
  current	
  “Great	
  Recession”	
  as	
  a	
  contextual	
  influence.	
  
This	
  study	
  strives	
  to	
  recognize	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  context	
  and	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  occurrence	
  of	
  
un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  are	
  not	
  absent	
  from	
  
environmental	
  and	
  economic	
  contexts.	
  Economic	
  context,	
  specifically	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  the	
  
economy,	
  will	
  be	
  acknowledged	
  as	
  contributing	
  to	
  the	
  existing	
  problem.	
  Ohanian	
  (2010),	
  in	
  

19	
  

	
  
his	
  work	
  to	
  understand	
  two	
  of	
  the	
  greatest	
  financial	
  crises	
  in	
  U.S.	
  history,	
  the	
  Great	
  
Depression	
  and	
  the	
  current	
  “Great	
  Recession,”	
  stated	
  that	
  investigations	
  should	
  start	
  in	
  
understanding	
  labor	
  market	
  distortions.	
  This	
  work	
  points	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  problems	
  in	
  the	
  
labor	
  market	
  due	
  to	
  decline	
  in	
  employment	
  and	
  production	
  output	
  have	
  had	
  a	
  greater	
  
influence	
  on	
  these	
  “great”	
  economic	
  downturns	
  than	
  the	
  banking	
  or	
  financial	
  market	
  crises.	
  
In	
  her	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  tumultuous	
  economy	
  of	
  the	
  1980’s,	
  Voydanoff	
  (1990)	
  noted	
  that	
  shifts	
  
in	
  the	
  economy	
  affect	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  economy,	
  with	
  the	
  labor	
  market	
  and	
  level	
  of	
  
available	
  earnings	
  greatly	
  affected.	
  Research	
  and	
  governmental	
  data	
  illustrate	
  that	
  deep	
  
economic	
  recessions	
  and	
  economic	
  downturns	
  generate	
  high	
  rates	
  of	
  unemployment	
  and	
  
underemployment	
  (Feldman,	
  1996;	
  Isidore,	
  2009).	
  “Recession-­‐related	
  and	
  structural	
  
unemployment	
  creates	
  economic	
  deprivation	
  for	
  many	
  who	
  previously	
  worked	
  at	
  
seemingly	
  secure	
  jobs”	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990,	
  p.	
  1104).	
  Dooley,	
  Prause,	
  and	
  Ham-­‐Rowbottom	
  
(2000)	
  asserted	
  that	
  the	
  economic	
  context	
  or	
  surrounding	
  economic	
  climate	
  may	
  function	
  
as	
  an	
  aggregate	
  variable,	
  directly	
  influencing	
  individuals’	
  sense	
  of	
  well-­‐being	
  and	
  acting	
  as	
  
a	
  moderator	
  between	
  the	
  individuals	
  and	
  their	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  	
  
This	
  study	
  will	
  make	
  a	
  contribution	
  because	
  the	
  present	
  economic	
  times	
  have	
  
created	
  strain,	
  pressure,	
  conflict,	
  and	
  distress	
  in	
  many	
  marriages	
  and	
  family	
  systems.	
  It	
  is	
  
imperative	
  that	
  family	
  scholars	
  consider	
  this	
  issue,	
  especially	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  better	
  
understanding	
  the	
  process	
  through	
  which	
  heightened	
  economic	
  stress	
  due	
  to	
  periods	
  of	
  
un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  translate	
  to	
  marital	
  conflict	
  and	
  dissatisfaction.	
  Work	
  must	
  be	
  
done	
  to	
  examine	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  economic	
  crisis	
  on	
  our	
  nations’	
  marriages	
  and	
  
families,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  highlighting	
  the	
  effects	
  on	
  our	
  state	
  and	
  region.	
  
	
  

20	
  

	
  
Conceptual	
  Model	
  
Figures	
  1-­‐3	
  provide	
  visual	
  representations	
  of	
  the	
  hypotheses	
  for	
  the	
  present	
  study.	
  
The	
  hypotheses	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  foundations	
  of	
  ecological,	
  systems,	
  and	
  family	
  stress	
  
theory.	
  Figure	
  1	
  depicts	
  hypothesis	
  1,	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  directly	
  affecting	
  
marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  will	
  be	
  assessed	
  through	
  self-­‐
report.	
  Both	
  participant	
  self-­‐report	
  and	
  participants’	
  report	
  of	
  spousal	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  data	
  will	
  be	
  taken	
  together	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  degrees	
  of	
  freedom	
  available	
  
for	
  analysis.	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  will	
  determine	
  if	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  
directly	
  affects	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  	
  
Hypothesis	
  2	
  examined	
  two	
  additional	
  paradigms:	
  (a)	
  the	
  direct	
  relationship	
  
between	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  (hypothesis	
  2a),	
  and	
  (b)	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment’s	
  indirect	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  through	
  the	
  mediating	
  effect	
  of	
  
economic	
  strain,	
  when	
  controlling	
  for	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  (hypothesis	
  
2b).	
  Figure	
  2	
  depicts	
  hypothesis	
  2	
  (part	
  a	
  and	
  b)	
  picturing	
  both	
  the	
  direct	
  effect	
  from	
  
economic	
  strain	
  to	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  mediation	
  model.	
  
Hypothesis	
  3a	
  analyzed	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  and	
  belief	
  and	
  its	
  relationship	
  to	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  and	
  is	
  pictured	
  in	
  Figure	
  3	
  as	
  a	
  direct	
  effect.	
  Hypothesis	
  3b	
  examines	
  the	
  
moderating	
  effect	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief.	
  From	
  family	
  stress	
  theory,	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  will	
  be	
  examined	
  as	
  a	
  protective	
  factor,	
  buffering	
  or	
  moderating	
  the	
  
perception	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  (hypothesis	
  3c).	
  This	
  interaction	
  is	
  illustrated	
  as	
  moderating	
  
the	
  mediation	
  of	
  economic	
  strain.	
  	
  

21	
  

	
  
Economic	
  context	
  will	
  be	
  acknowledged	
  through	
  ecological	
  and	
  systems	
  theories	
  as	
  
having	
  an	
  effect	
  on	
  all	
  analyzed	
  variables.	
  This	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  a	
  measured	
  variable;	
  however,	
  
the	
  influence	
  of	
  context	
  will	
  be	
  recognized.	
  
An	
  Overview	
  of	
  the	
  Following	
  Chapters	
  
Chapter	
  II	
  contains	
  the	
  review	
  of	
  literature	
  and	
  will	
  cover	
  aspects	
  of	
  economic	
  stress	
  
and	
  strain,	
  unemployment	
  and	
  underemployment,	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  
marital	
  satisfaction,	
  gender	
  reactions	
  to	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  
and	
  belief.	
  Chapter	
  III	
  will	
  present	
  the	
  methodology	
  for	
  the	
  present	
  study.	
  This	
  chapter	
  will	
  
operationally	
  define	
  terms,	
  give	
  information	
  on	
  the	
  population,	
  and	
  give	
  population	
  
demographic	
  data.	
  Study	
  procedures	
  and	
  measures	
  also	
  will	
  be	
  defined,	
  and	
  the	
  chapter	
  
will	
  conclude	
  with	
  a	
  description	
  of	
  the	
  data	
  analysis	
  procedures.	
  

22	
  

	
  
CHAPTER	
  II	
  
REVIEW	
  OF	
  LITERATURE	
  
Two	
  important	
  conclusions	
  have	
  been	
  reached	
  through	
  the	
  empirical	
  data	
  on	
  
finance	
  and	
  family	
  relations:	
  (a)	
  money	
  plays	
  a	
  central	
  role	
  in	
  family	
  operations	
  and	
  
decision-­‐making,	
  and	
  further	
  plays	
  a	
  role	
  in	
  marital	
  relationship	
  satisfaction,	
  and	
  (b)	
  the	
  
centrality	
  of	
  money	
  in	
  couple	
  and	
  family	
  life	
  provides	
  an	
  impetus	
  for	
  scholars	
  beyond	
  the	
  
fields	
  of	
  business	
  and	
  economics,	
  especially	
  scholars	
  and	
  therapists	
  involved	
  in	
  family	
  
studies,	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  this	
  topic	
  (e.g.	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999;	
  Dakin	
  &	
  Wampler,	
  2008;	
  Dew,	
  
2008;	
  Kwon	
  et	
  al.,	
  2003;	
  Papp	
  et	
  al.,	
  2009).	
  	
  
Economic	
  Stress	
  
An	
  individual	
  or	
  couple	
  will	
  inevitably	
  be	
  affected	
  by	
  feelings	
  of	
  economic	
  and	
  
occupational	
  uncertainty,	
  stress,	
  and	
  strain	
  (Fox	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  1998).	
  During	
  economic	
  
downturns,	
  understanding	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  and	
  the	
  effect	
  that	
  it	
  has	
  on	
  the	
  
marital	
  and	
  family	
  systems	
  becomes	
  increasingly	
  pertinent	
  (Falconier,	
  2010).	
  Economic	
  
stress	
  has	
  been	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  inability	
  to	
  attend	
  to	
  various	
  financial	
  necessities	
  with	
  
accompanying	
  unsatisfactory	
  perceptions	
  of	
  one’s	
  economic	
  status,	
  which	
  results	
  in	
  
aversive	
  experiences	
  stemming	
  from	
  an	
  imbalance	
  in	
  financial	
  resources,	
  financial	
  
demands,	
  and	
  expectations	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999).	
  This	
  definition	
  also	
  has	
  been	
  applied	
  with	
  
the	
  term	
  economic	
  pressure,	
  an	
  indicator	
  of	
  a	
  family’s	
  ability	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  adverse	
  
economic	
  circumstances	
  to	
  provide	
  resources	
  and	
  meet	
  responsibilities	
  (Conger	
  &	
  Elder,	
  
1994;	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999).	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  will	
  refer	
  to	
  economic	
  stress.	
  
Economic	
  stress	
  is	
  a	
  multifaceted	
  issue	
  with	
  many	
  complex	
  objective	
  and	
  subjective	
  
implications	
  for	
  marital	
  relationships	
  (Kinnunen	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  Further,	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  

23	
  

	
  
(1990)	
  stated	
  that	
  economic	
  problems	
  were	
  exacerbated	
  by	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  they	
  have	
  direct	
  
and	
  indirect	
  effects	
  on	
  the	
  individual,	
  the	
  couple,	
  and	
  the	
  family	
  system.	
  One	
  indirect	
  effect	
  
of	
  economic	
  stress	
  can	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  the	
  attitudes	
  and	
  behaviors	
  of	
  other	
  family	
  members	
  and	
  
their	
  influence	
  on	
  the	
  marital	
  system.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  economic	
  stress	
  can	
  affect	
  a	
  marital	
  
system	
  by	
  influencing	
  the	
  environment	
  surrounding	
  the	
  couple	
  and	
  their	
  social	
  system	
  
(Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1994).	
  This	
  pressure	
  sends	
  marital	
  and	
  family	
  systems	
  out	
  of	
  homeostasis.	
  
Thus,	
  the	
  context	
  surrounding	
  a	
  couple	
  is	
  vital	
  to	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  couple	
  and	
  family	
  system,	
  
as	
  it	
  is	
  impossible	
  to	
  gain	
  a	
  thorough	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  without	
  consideration	
  of	
  
the	
  context	
  influencing	
  and	
  surrounding	
  them	
  (Boss	
  et	
  al.,	
  1993).	
  
The	
  family	
  stress	
  model	
  (FSM)	
  is	
  similar	
  to	
  other	
  family	
  stress	
  theories,	
  which	
  
attempt	
  to	
  explain	
  how	
  external	
  economic	
  pressure	
  affects	
  marital	
  or	
  family	
  relations	
  
(Kwon	
  et	
  al.,	
  2003).	
  Conger	
  and	
  Elder	
  (1994)	
  created	
  the	
  FSM	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  U.S.	
  1980	
  
economic	
  farming	
  crisis.	
  This	
  model	
  has	
  been	
  utilized	
  and	
  replicated	
  in	
  multiple	
  settings,	
  to	
  
analyze	
  multiple	
  economic	
  crises	
  in	
  various	
  cultures	
  (e.g.	
  Aytac	
  &	
  Rankin,	
  2009;	
  Conger	
  &	
  
Elder,	
  1994;	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999;	
  Kinnunen	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998;	
  Kwon	
  et	
  al.,	
  2003).	
  Kwon	
  et	
  
al.	
  broke	
  down	
  the	
  major	
  conclusions	
  drawn	
  by	
  the	
  FSM:	
  (a)	
  excessive	
  levels	
  of	
  economic	
  
pressure	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  positive	
  relationship	
  to	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  husband	
  and	
  wife	
  emotional	
  
distress,	
  (b)	
  husbands’	
  and	
  wives’	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  emotional	
  distress	
  are	
  positively	
  
associated	
  with	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  marital	
  conflict	
  and	
  strife,	
  (c)	
  Marital	
  conflict	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  
negative	
  relationship	
  with	
  levels	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  and	
  (d)	
  Emotional	
  distress	
  
experienced	
  by	
  husbands	
  and	
  wives	
  will	
  be	
  positively	
  related	
  to	
  one	
  another	
  (p.	
  319).	
  
The	
  family	
  stress	
  model	
  purports	
  that	
  economic	
  stress	
  will	
  adversely	
  affect	
  marital	
  
relationships	
  and	
  increase	
  the	
  likelihood	
  of	
  marital	
  instability.	
  Economic	
  stress	
  including	
  

24	
  

	
  
loss	
  of	
  work,	
  job	
  instability,	
  low	
  income,	
  high	
  debt	
  load,	
  and	
  increasing	
  financial	
  demands	
  
will	
  place	
  pressure	
  on	
  a	
  marital	
  system.	
  The	
  pressure	
  that	
  is	
  created	
  may	
  manifest	
  itself	
  in	
  
such	
  ways	
  as	
  the	
  inability	
  to	
  provide	
  necessities,	
  inability	
  to	
  meet	
  financial	
  responsibilities,	
  
or	
  having	
  to	
  cut	
  back	
  on	
  necessities.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  FSM,	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  these	
  stressors	
  
will	
  give	
  rise	
  to	
  a	
  psychological	
  meaning	
  attached	
  to	
  the	
  objective	
  hardship.	
  Thus,	
  both	
  the	
  
tangible	
  and	
  the	
  intangible	
  affect	
  the	
  marital	
  system	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  2010).	
  In	
  this	
  model,	
  
mediating	
  between	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  marital	
  conflict	
  is	
  economic	
  strain,	
  which	
  has	
  an	
  
indirect	
  influence	
  on	
  marital	
  problems.	
  Thus	
  the	
  emotional	
  distress	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  
economic	
  stress	
  affects	
  the	
  marital	
  system	
  (Aytac	
  &	
  Rankin,	
  2009).	
  In	
  their	
  study,	
  Kwon	
  et	
  
al.	
  (2003),	
  utilized	
  FSM	
  and	
  found	
  that	
  overall	
  economic	
  stress	
  was	
  connected	
  to	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  through	
  both	
  husbands’	
  and	
  wives’	
  emotional	
  reactions.	
  Partners	
  experienced	
  
marital	
  problems	
  from	
  their	
  emotional	
  distress.	
  FSM	
  plays	
  an	
  important	
  role	
  in	
  defining	
  
economic	
  stress	
  and	
  strain,	
  their	
  connection,	
  and	
  resulting	
  marital	
  stress	
  and	
  conflict.	
  	
  
Economic	
  stress	
  affects	
  the	
  entire	
  family	
  system,	
  as	
  money	
  pervasively	
  touches	
  all	
  
aspects	
  of	
  a	
  family’s	
  life.	
  Economic	
  stress	
  is	
  therefore	
  a	
  problem	
  that	
  can	
  become	
  
entrenched	
  in	
  the	
  system.	
  Even	
  if	
  the	
  stress	
  is	
  only	
  being	
  directly	
  experienced	
  by	
  one	
  
member,	
  problems,	
  pressure,	
  and	
  dysfunction	
  have	
  a	
  pervasive	
  influence	
  on	
  all	
  members	
  
(Boss	
  et	
  al.,	
  1993).	
  Studies	
  conducted	
  in	
  both	
  the	
  U.S.	
  and	
  Japan	
  show	
  that	
  parental	
  marital	
  
quality	
  affects	
  children’s	
  well-­‐being	
  (Yamato,	
  2008).	
  According	
  to	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  (1994)	
  
economic	
  pressure	
  has	
  direct	
  and	
  indirect	
  effects	
  on	
  marital	
  quality	
  and	
  the	
  parent-­‐child	
  
relationship.	
  The	
  direct	
  effects	
  come	
  through	
  parental	
  conflict	
  that	
  centers	
  on	
  finance,	
  and	
  
the	
  indirect	
  effects	
  were	
  parental	
  psychological	
  problems	
  such	
  as,	
  depression,	
  anger,	
  and	
  
hostility.	
  Parental	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  can	
  cause	
  parents	
  to	
  react	
  to	
  their	
  children	
  

25	
  

	
  
with	
  hostility	
  and	
  frustration	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.).	
  Some	
  of	
  the	
  strongest	
  effects	
  on	
  child	
  well-­‐
being	
  come	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  economic	
  pressure	
  and	
  the	
  effect	
  it	
  has	
  on	
  parental	
  role	
  quality.	
  
Parents	
  subjected	
  to	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  economic	
  pressure	
  may	
  be	
  distracted,	
  preoccupied	
  and	
  
unable	
  to	
  dedicate	
  the	
  necessary	
  time	
  to	
  their	
  children	
  (White	
  &	
  Rogers,	
  2000).	
  The	
  
instance	
  and	
  influence	
  of	
  economic	
  stress	
  on	
  the	
  family	
  system	
  is	
  both	
  inevitable	
  and	
  
invasive.	
  
Economic	
  Strain	
  
Economic	
  strain	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception	
  or	
  evaluation	
  that	
  can	
  create	
  
distress	
  toward	
  one’s	
  financial	
  situation	
  (Falconier	
  &	
  Epstein,	
  2011).	
  Fox	
  and	
  Chancey	
  
(1998),	
  found	
  that	
  three	
  economic	
  factors:	
  (a)	
  perceived	
  economic	
  well-­‐being,	
  (b)	
  partner’s	
  
job	
  instability,	
  and	
  (c)	
  conflict,	
  accounted	
  for	
  one	
  fourth	
  of	
  the	
  psychological	
  distress	
  that	
  
couples	
  reported	
  feeling	
  within	
  their	
  marriages	
  (p.	
  747).	
  Perceptions	
  of	
  economic	
  stress	
  
play	
  a	
  mediating	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  amount	
  and	
  intensity	
  of	
  pressure	
  that	
  is	
  felt	
  by	
  the	
  family	
  
system.	
  How	
  a	
  couple	
  feels	
  about	
  their	
  financial	
  situation/status	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  feel	
  
regarding	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  resources	
  has	
  a	
  direct	
  correlation	
  to	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  (Clark-­‐Nicolas	
  &	
  Gray-­‐Little,	
  1991).	
  Furthermore,	
  a	
  couple,	
  during	
  the	
  current	
  
recession,	
  who	
  was	
  experiencing	
  economic	
  strain	
  prior	
  is	
  susceptible	
  to	
  having	
  that	
  strain	
  
exacerbated	
  (Falconier	
  &	
  Epstein,	
  2011).	
  In	
  their	
  study,	
  Fox	
  and	
  Chancey	
  (1998)	
  found	
  that	
  
one	
  in	
  five	
  of	
  their	
  respondents	
  perceived	
  difficulty	
  living	
  at	
  their	
  present	
  financial	
  level,	
  
with	
  their	
  present	
  economic	
  resources.	
  Another	
  one	
  in	
  five	
  felt	
  extremely	
  insecure	
  with	
  
regard	
  to	
  their	
  economic	
  status,	
  and	
  30%	
  reported	
  the	
  perception	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  “very	
  
poor	
  or	
  just	
  getting	
  by”	
  (p.	
  734).	
  The	
  power	
  of	
  perception	
  has	
  been	
  seen	
  across	
  numerous	
  
studies	
  as	
  the	
  perception	
  (negative	
  or	
  positive)	
  that	
  a	
  family	
  has	
  of	
  their	
  economic	
  status,	
  

26	
  

	
  
and	
  sufficiency	
  can	
  be	
  altered	
  through	
  the	
  assessment	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  (Kinnunen	
  &	
  
Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  Economic	
  strain	
  is	
  a	
  relative	
  concept	
  that	
  due	
  to	
  its	
  subjective	
  nature	
  can	
  
take	
  on	
  diverse	
  forms	
  across	
  individual	
  and	
  family	
  appraisal	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990).	
  In	
  contrast	
  
to	
  economic	
  stress,	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  is	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  
stressor.	
  This	
  is	
  an	
  evaluation	
  that	
  can	
  change	
  due	
  to	
  circumstances	
  and	
  family	
  
characteristics.	
  
Economic	
  strain	
  has	
  been	
  seen	
  as	
  the	
  perception	
  of	
  economic	
  stress,	
  which	
  includes	
  
emotional,	
  behavioral,	
  and	
  cognitive	
  reactions	
  to	
  the	
  financial	
  imbalance	
  or	
  inability	
  to	
  
meet	
  needs	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1990).	
  It	
  also	
  has	
  been	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  experiences	
  of	
  
depression,	
  anxiety,	
  and	
  low	
  levels	
  of	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  well-­‐being	
  and	
  has	
  been	
  seen	
  to	
  
mediate	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  unemployment,	
  low	
  income,	
  and	
  psychological	
  well-­‐
being	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990;	
  Voydanoff	
  et	
  al.,	
  1988).	
  Kinnunen	
  and	
  Pulkkinen	
  (1998)	
  state	
  that	
  
economic	
  strain	
  is	
  a	
  subjective	
  evaluation	
  of	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  difficulty	
  meeting	
  family	
  system	
  
needs	
  with	
  available	
  resources.	
  The	
  inability	
  to	
  meet	
  needs	
  due	
  to	
  insufficient	
  resources	
  is	
  
a	
  primary	
  source	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  resulting	
  in	
  marital	
  conflict	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1990;	
  
Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1994;	
  Papp	
  et	
  al.,	
  2009).	
  Strain	
  also	
  can	
  be	
  experienced	
  through	
  the	
  perceived	
  
failure	
  to	
  meet	
  expectations	
  (Stack	
  &	
  Wasserman,	
  2007).	
  The	
  perception	
  of	
  economic	
  
strain	
  is	
  not	
  concerned	
  with	
  numbers	
  (e.g.	
  level	
  of	
  income,	
  assets	
  and	
  liabilities),	
  but	
  rather	
  
how	
  persons	
  deal	
  mentally,	
  physically,	
  and	
  emotionally	
  with	
  the	
  economic	
  loss	
  or	
  change	
  
they	
  are	
  experiencing	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990).	
  It	
  is	
  the	
  subjective	
  interpretation	
  that	
  is	
  the	
  focal	
  
point.	
  
Many	
  studies	
  have	
  shown	
  that	
  subjective	
  economic	
  factors	
  are	
  more	
  highly	
  
correlated	
  to	
  marital	
  quality	
  than	
  are	
  objective	
  factors	
  (Clark-­‐Nicolas	
  &	
  Gray-­‐Little,	
  1991;	
  

27	
  

	
  
Fox	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  1998).	
  An	
  individual	
  or	
  family	
  is	
  affected	
  through	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception	
  
of	
  objective	
  economic	
  stress	
  (e.g.	
  unemployment,	
  low	
  income,	
  inadequate	
  resources).	
  This	
  
perception	
  disrupts	
  the	
  roles	
  and	
  routines	
  of	
  a	
  family	
  system,	
  and	
  perceived	
  economic	
  
stress	
  affects	
  familial	
  interactions	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  an	
  individual’s	
  judgment	
  of	
  relationship	
  
quality	
  (Johnson	
  &	
  Booth,	
  1990).	
  The	
  family	
  system	
  is	
  affected	
  by	
  the	
  subjective	
  
assessment	
  of	
  the	
  stress	
  and	
  the	
  resulting	
  changes	
  that	
  must	
  be	
  made	
  to	
  the	
  system	
  
(Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1994).	
  This	
  is	
  important	
  because	
  changes	
  in	
  one	
  area	
  of	
  a	
  family	
  system	
  
influence	
  all	
  other	
  areas	
  of	
  the	
  system	
  (White	
  &	
  Klein,	
  2008).	
  Stack	
  and	
  Wasserman	
  (2007)	
  
defined	
  vicarious	
  strain	
  in	
  their	
  research	
  as	
  being	
  connected	
  to	
  or	
  affected	
  by	
  strain	
  that	
  is	
  
present	
  in	
  the	
  lives	
  of	
  individuals	
  in	
  one’s	
  social	
  circle.	
  Thus,	
  strain	
  that	
  is	
  felt	
  by	
  one’s	
  
family	
  member	
  or	
  spouse	
  can	
  be	
  vicariously	
  transferred;	
  a	
  partner’s	
  experience	
  of	
  strain	
  
will	
  be	
  felt	
  by	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  significant	
  other	
  and	
  family	
  system.	
  Economic	
  strain	
  also	
  can	
  be	
  
anticipated	
  as	
  one	
  awaits	
  a	
  loss	
  or	
  reduction	
  in	
  resources.	
  The	
  anticipation	
  of	
  a	
  financial	
  
loss	
  (e.g.	
  loss	
  of	
  job,	
  loss	
  of	
  part	
  or	
  all	
  income,	
  loss	
  of	
  benefits)	
  can	
  initiate	
  the	
  incidence	
  of	
  
strain	
  and	
  in	
  some	
  cases	
  exacerbate	
  the	
  resulting	
  feelings.	
  	
  Further,	
  vicarious	
  and	
  
anticipated	
  strain	
  can	
  cluster	
  with	
  other	
  forms	
  of	
  strain	
  (e.g.	
  relationship	
  strain)	
  to	
  
intensify	
  the	
  effects.	
  Economic	
  strain	
  affects	
  everyone	
  in	
  the	
  system;	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  dynamic	
  concept	
  
that	
  can	
  be	
  transferred,	
  vicariously	
  experienced,	
  and	
  anticipated.	
  
Papp	
  et	
  al.	
  (2009)	
  point	
  to	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  perception	
  by	
  stating	
  that	
  even	
  affluent	
  
families	
  with	
  adequate	
  resource	
  levels	
  are	
  not	
  exempt	
  from	
  conflict	
  and	
  dissatisfaction	
  
centering	
  on	
  finance.	
  Expectations	
  in	
  the	
  family	
  could	
  be	
  skewed,	
  exceeding	
  available	
  
resources;	
  perceptions	
  of	
  security	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  present.	
  Overall,	
  researchers	
  stated	
  that	
  
money	
  is	
  always	
  limited;	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  scare	
  resource,	
  and	
  there	
  always	
  will	
  be	
  times	
  of	
  actual	
  or	
  

28	
  

	
  
perceived	
  insufficiency	
  (Papp	
  et	
  al.).	
  Thus,	
  objective	
  economic	
  factors	
  have	
  an	
  influence	
  on	
  
the	
  martial	
  relationship;	
  however,	
  mediating	
  this	
  relationship	
  is	
  the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  
present	
  economic	
  distress	
  is	
  seen	
  to	
  affect	
  future	
  economic	
  prospects.	
  If	
  the	
  economic	
  
stress	
  extends	
  into	
  the	
  future,	
  the	
  couple	
  may	
  experience	
  a	
  greater	
  amount	
  of	
  present	
  
distress	
  (Fox	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  1998).	
  Perception	
  of	
  economic	
  reality	
  is	
  a	
  salient	
  factor.	
  A	
  family’s	
  
perception	
  of	
  their	
  situation,	
  regardless	
  of	
  the	
  validity,	
  is	
  a	
  powerful	
  motivator	
  for	
  their	
  
behavior.	
  
Unemployment	
  &	
  Underemployment	
  	
  
	
  

Unemployment	
  and	
  its	
  effects	
  on	
  the	
  physical,	
  mental,	
  emotional,	
  and	
  relational	
  

aspects	
  of	
  family	
  life	
  has	
  been	
  investigated	
  worldwide	
  (e.g.	
  Aytac	
  &	
  Rankin,	
  2009;	
  Banks,	
  
1995;	
  Kokko	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998;	
  Kwon	
  et	
  al.,	
  2003).	
  Employment	
  makes	
  up	
  an	
  integral	
  part	
  
of	
  an	
  individual’s	
  identity,	
  self-­‐esteem,	
  sense	
  of	
  accomplishment,	
  social	
  interaction	
  and	
  
network	
  maintenance,	
  and	
  standard	
  of	
  living.	
  When	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  disruption	
  in	
  employment	
  
each	
  of	
  these	
  areas	
  suffers	
  (Voydanoff	
  et	
  al.,	
  1988).	
  Leeflang	
  et	
  al.	
  (1992)	
  conceptualized	
  
unemployment	
  as,	
  “…a	
  social	
  phenomenon	
  which	
  restructures	
  the	
  unemployed	
  social	
  
position	
  into	
  a	
  multiple	
  deprived	
  position.	
  Such	
  a	
  position	
  is	
  characterized	
  by	
  a	
  relative	
  
lack	
  of	
  sufficient	
  resources	
  to	
  cope	
  with	
  continuing	
  daily	
  hassles	
  and	
  problems”	
  (p.	
  342).	
  
The	
  number	
  one	
  risk	
  factor	
  for	
  severe	
  economic	
  distress	
  and	
  poverty	
  is	
  unemployment	
  
(Edin	
  &	
  Kissane,	
  2010).	
  Underemployment	
  also	
  poses	
  great	
  risk	
  to	
  individuals.	
  In	
  an	
  article	
  
discussing	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  underemployment,	
  its	
  influence	
  was	
  described	
  by	
  Fleck	
  (2011),	
  
“…being	
  overqualified,	
  underpaid,	
  or	
  working	
  part	
  time	
  will	
  likely	
  have	
  long-­‐term	
  
consequences	
  on	
  a	
  worker’s	
  marketability,	
  self	
  confidence	
  and	
  future	
  earnings”	
  (p.	
  17).	
  The	
  
underemployed,	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  is	
  a	
  group	
  that	
  has	
  grown	
  and	
  

29	
  

	
  
felt	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  economic	
  recession	
  in	
  an	
  unprecedented	
  manner.	
  Fleck	
  (2011),	
  in	
  her	
  
article	
  on	
  underemployment,	
  spoke	
  of	
  how	
  individuals	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  economy	
  are	
  making	
  
ends	
  meet,	
  “…laid	
  off	
  managers	
  now	
  work	
  as	
  cashiers.	
  Unemployed	
  teachers	
  are	
  delivering	
  
pizzas.	
  Engineers	
  are	
  fixing	
  computers”	
  (p.16).	
  In	
  the	
  current	
  economy,	
  both	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  place	
  individuals,	
  families,	
  and	
  intimate	
  relationships	
  at	
  risk.	
  
Regardless	
  of	
  socioeconomic	
  status,	
  employment	
  represents	
  stability,	
  potential,	
  and	
  
order	
  for	
  family	
  life	
  (Voydanoff	
  et	
  al.,1988).	
  A	
  family	
  system	
  relies	
  on	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  
family	
  to	
  fulfill	
  the	
  worker-­‐earner	
  role,	
  and	
  a	
  family’s	
  standard	
  of	
  living	
  is	
  determined	
  by	
  
earner	
  provisions.	
  Resources	
  are	
  acquired	
  and	
  family	
  systems	
  subsist	
  through	
  the	
  
economic	
  activity	
  of	
  family	
  members	
  (e.g.	
  employment,	
  income	
  acquisition).	
  In	
  many	
  ways	
  
the	
  atmosphere	
  and	
  quality	
  of	
  family	
  life	
  is	
  determined	
  by	
  both	
  the	
  worker	
  and	
  earner	
  
aspects	
  of	
  employment	
  and	
  income	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990).	
  Steady	
  employment	
  is	
  a	
  way	
  of	
  
gaining	
  monetary	
  provision,	
  and	
  money	
  is	
  inextricably	
  tied	
  to	
  life,	
  thus	
  issues	
  surrounding	
  
money	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  transforming	
  influence	
  on	
  intimate	
  interpersonal	
  relationships	
  and	
  
family	
  life.	
  
Length	
  of	
  Unemployment/Underemployment	
  
	
  

According	
  to	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  statistics	
  (BLS)	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  is	
  

defined	
  as	
  being	
  jobless	
  for	
  27	
  weeks	
  and	
  above.	
  The	
  number	
  of	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployed	
  for	
  
October	
  2010	
  was	
  6.1	
  million,	
  a	
  figure	
  down	
  from	
  the	
  6.8	
  million	
  reported	
  in	
  the	
  month	
  of	
  
May.	
  Of	
  unemployed	
  persons,	
  41.7%	
  reported	
  being	
  jobless	
  for	
  27	
  weeks	
  or	
  more	
  in	
  
September	
  2010,	
  and	
  nearly	
  half	
  of	
  all	
  unemployed	
  individuals	
  (45.9%)	
  have	
  been	
  out	
  of	
  
the	
  work	
  force	
  longer	
  than	
  six	
  months	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.;	
  Murray,	
  2010).	
  
When	
  underemployed	
  individuals	
  or	
  involuntary	
  part-­‐time	
  workers	
  were	
  considered,	
  the	
  

30	
  

	
  
figures	
  were	
  even	
  more	
  discouraging.	
  In	
  the	
  month	
  of	
  October	
  (2010),	
  the	
  underemployed	
  
rose	
  by	
  612,000	
  to	
  a	
  figure	
  of	
  more	
  than	
  9	
  million	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.).	
  The	
  
Center	
  for	
  American	
  Progress	
  stated	
  that	
  the	
  average	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  reported	
  for	
  
May	
  2009,	
  a	
  figure	
  that	
  has	
  recently	
  increased,	
  was	
  historically	
  the	
  highest	
  level	
  since	
  the	
  
BLS	
  began	
  collecting	
  that	
  data	
  in	
  1948	
  (Murray,	
  2010;	
  Weller,	
  2009).	
  Murray	
  (2010)	
  states	
  
that	
  2009-­‐2010	
  duration	
  of	
  unemployment	
  figures	
  even	
  surpass	
  the	
  worst	
  figures	
  of	
  the	
  
1980	
  recession.	
  During	
  that	
  time,	
  only	
  one	
  in	
  four	
  individuals	
  was	
  unemployed	
  longer	
  than	
  
six	
  months.	
  Additionally,	
  Murray	
  reports	
  that	
  approximately	
  seven	
  million	
  Americans	
  have	
  
been	
  looking	
  for	
  work,	
  in	
  some	
  capacity,	
  for	
  27	
  weeks	
  or	
  more,	
  and	
  4.7	
  million	
  of	
  those	
  
individuals	
  have	
  been	
  out	
  of	
  work	
  for	
  one	
  year	
  or	
  greater.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  BLS	
  duration	
  of	
  
unemployment	
  data,	
  the	
  two	
  highest	
  concentrations	
  of	
  unemployed	
  workers	
  are	
  15	
  weeks	
  
and	
  over	
  (8,458	
  September	
  2010)	
  and	
  27	
  weeks	
  and	
  over	
  (6,123	
  September	
  2010)	
  (Bureau	
  
of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.).	
  This	
  can	
  be	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  average	
  duration	
  of	
  unemployment	
  
in	
  the	
  second	
  quarter	
  of	
  1989	
  at	
  11.9	
  weeks	
  (Voydanoff,	
  1990).	
  Individuals	
  during	
  this	
  
“Great	
  Recession”	
  have	
  remained	
  unemployed	
  for	
  longer	
  durations	
  than	
  ever	
  before	
  in	
  
history	
  (Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith,	
  2010).	
  
	
  

Within	
  this	
  group	
  of	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployed	
  individuals,	
  older	
  workers	
  on	
  average	
  

have	
  been	
  out	
  of	
  work	
  longer.	
  Individuals	
  between	
  the	
  ages	
  of	
  65-­‐69,	
  have	
  been	
  out	
  of	
  
work	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  49.8	
  weeks	
  (Murray,	
  2010).	
  Employees	
  in	
  the	
  sectors	
  of	
  production,	
  
tool	
  production,	
  woodworking,	
  and	
  food	
  processing	
  have	
  been	
  out	
  of	
  work	
  38.1	
  weeks	
  
(median	
  figure).	
  Workers	
  in	
  the	
  areas	
  of	
  management,	
  general	
  business,	
  and	
  financial	
  
management	
  and	
  operation	
  have	
  been	
  out	
  of	
  work	
  for	
  32.3	
  (median	
  figure)	
  (Murray,	
  
2010).	
  

31	
  

	
  
Research	
  consistently	
  supports	
  the	
  adverse	
  effects	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  on	
  
family	
  and	
  marital	
  systems	
  (e.g.	
  Banks,	
  1995;	
  Kulik,	
  2001;	
  Leeflang	
  et	
  al.,	
  1992).	
  However,	
  
the	
  research	
  is	
  mixed	
  as	
  to	
  whether	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  difference	
  in	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  long	
  and	
  short-­‐
term	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  Jones	
  (1992)	
  stated	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  potentially	
  vast	
  
differences	
  between	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  and	
  short-­‐term	
  
unemployment.	
  While	
  both	
  acute	
  and	
  chronic	
  instances	
  of	
  unemployment	
  are	
  said	
  to	
  have	
  
distressing	
  effects	
  on	
  individuals,	
  research	
  has	
  not	
  specifically	
  quantified	
  the	
  differences.	
  
The	
  inconsistent	
  results	
  may	
  be	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  variation	
  between	
  lengths	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  studied,	
  how	
  the	
  lengths	
  were	
  operationally	
  defined,	
  and	
  consequences	
  
or	
  associations	
  that	
  were	
  investigated	
  in	
  combination	
  with	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  (Leeflang	
  et	
  al.,	
  1992).	
  Additionally,	
  individuals	
  may	
  react	
  differently	
  
toward	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  unemployment.	
  Their	
  perceptions	
  or	
  evaluations	
  may	
  vary	
  at	
  different	
  
times	
  during	
  the	
  spell	
  of	
  unemployment	
  (Kulik,	
  2001).	
  There	
  are	
  numerous	
  factors	
  that	
  
could	
  explain	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  cohesion	
  among	
  studies	
  examining	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  
unemployment.	
  
Some	
  research	
  states	
  that	
  a	
  long	
  duration	
  of	
  unemployment	
  will	
  have	
  increased	
  
adverse	
  effects	
  on	
  mental	
  health,	
  as	
  it	
  represents	
  a	
  chronic	
  stressor,	
  leaving	
  an	
  individual	
  in	
  
a	
  constant	
  state	
  of	
  distress	
  (Broman	
  et	
  al.,	
  1995).	
  Murray	
  (2010)	
  in	
  her	
  article	
  on	
  Chronic	
  
Joblessness	
  quoted	
  Richard	
  Moran,	
  a	
  Michigan	
  native	
  who	
  once	
  worked	
  in	
  the	
  auto-­‐
industry	
  and	
  has	
  been	
  unemployed	
  for	
  over	
  two	
  years,	
  “It’s	
  very	
  depressing	
  when	
  your	
  
daughter’s	
  got	
  two	
  jobs,	
  your	
  wife’s	
  got	
  a	
  good	
  job,	
  and	
  you	
  can’t	
  find	
  anything”	
  (p.	
  [2]).	
  
Moran	
  went	
  on	
  to	
  say,	
  “It	
  seems	
  like	
  no	
  matter	
  what	
  I	
  do,	
  it	
  fizzles”	
  (p.	
  [2]).	
  Long-­‐term	
  
unemployment	
  leaves	
  an	
  individual	
  or	
  family	
  system	
  exposed	
  to	
  a	
  large	
  spectrum	
  of	
  

32	
  

	
  
financial	
  problems,	
  which	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  numerous	
  physical,	
  mental,	
  and	
  relationship	
  
stressors	
  (Leeflang	
  et	
  al.,	
  1992).	
  Over	
  the	
  two	
  years	
  of	
  his	
  unemployment	
  Moran	
  has	
  dealt	
  
with	
  anxiety,	
  shame,	
  and	
  generally	
  feeling	
  overwhelmed.	
  He	
  has	
  found	
  help	
  and	
  comfort	
  
through	
  free	
  therapy	
  sessions	
  that	
  are	
  offered	
  through	
  a	
  nearby	
  college,	
  and	
  the	
  anti-­‐
anxiety	
  medication	
  he	
  now	
  takes	
  (Murray,	
  2010).	
  Kokko	
  and	
  Pulkkinen	
  (1998)	
  found	
  that	
  
when	
  comparing	
  short-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  with	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment,	
  the	
  group	
  that	
  
had	
  been	
  unemployed	
  for	
  a	
  shorter	
  duration	
  had	
  higher	
  levels	
  of	
  self-­‐esteem	
  than	
  the	
  long-­‐
term	
  unemployed.	
  However,	
  Howe	
  et	
  al.	
  (2004)	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  initial	
  period	
  following	
  
unemployment	
  is	
  critical	
  to	
  establishing	
  responses,	
  restructuring	
  roles,	
  and	
  addressing	
  
financial	
  and	
  relational	
  disruption.	
  Kulik	
  (2001)	
  found	
  that	
  those	
  who	
  were	
  unemployed	
  
for	
  two	
  to	
  three	
  months	
  reported	
  a	
  greater	
  frequency	
  of	
  psychological	
  stress	
  than	
  those	
  
unemployed	
  for	
  less	
  than	
  two	
  months	
  or	
  over	
  six	
  months.	
  These	
  results	
  would	
  suggest	
  that	
  
short-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  (two-­‐three	
  months)	
  has	
  a	
  greater	
  psychological	
  effect	
  on	
  
individuals	
  than	
  temporary	
  unemployment	
  (less	
  than	
  two	
  months)	
  and	
  longer	
  duration	
  
unemployment	
  (over	
  six	
  months).	
  Leeflang	
  et	
  al.	
  (1992)	
  reached	
  two	
  conclusions	
  with	
  
regard	
  to	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment:	
  (a)	
  a	
  prolonged	
  period	
  of	
  unemployment	
  
was	
  associated	
  with	
  adverse	
  health	
  effects,	
  and	
  this	
  result	
  was	
  independent	
  of	
  any	
  
confounding	
  factors,	
  and	
  (b)	
  in	
  general	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  tended	
  to	
  have	
  greater	
  
effects	
  on	
  mental	
  health	
  compared	
  to	
  physical	
  health.	
  It	
  has	
  been	
  shown	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  
adverse	
  effects	
  when	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  is	
  considered	
  with	
  mental	
  health	
  status	
  and	
  
emotional	
  well-­‐being	
  (e.g.	
  Kokko	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998;	
  Leeflang	
  et	
  al.,	
  1992;	
  Marlar,	
  2010;	
  
Vinokur	
  et	
  al.,	
  1996).	
  However,	
  even	
  among	
  individuals	
  experiencing	
  what	
  would	
  be	
  
considered	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment,	
  there	
  is	
  variance,	
  as	
  each	
  subject	
  will	
  have	
  different	
  

33	
  

	
  
external	
  factors	
  mediating	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  unemployment	
  and	
  distress	
  (Leeflang	
  
et	
  al.).	
  There	
  is	
  research	
  to	
  support	
  both	
  long	
  and	
  short-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  having	
  
adverse	
  effects	
  on	
  individual	
  and	
  family	
  life.	
  
Research,	
  consistent	
  with	
  stress	
  theory	
  states	
  that	
  unpredicted	
  and	
  unprecedented	
  
economic	
  stress	
  may	
  have	
  increased	
  negative	
  effects	
  on	
  individuals	
  and	
  families	
  as	
  they	
  are	
  
not	
  prepared	
  for	
  it.	
  This	
  may	
  have	
  greater	
  acute	
  effects	
  (Kwon	
  et	
  al.,	
  2003).	
  In	
  fact,	
  the	
  
effects	
  of	
  unemployment	
  may	
  be	
  present	
  even	
  before	
  an	
  individual	
  has	
  actually	
  lost	
  his	
  or	
  
her	
  job.	
  Anticipation	
  of	
  job	
  loss	
  can	
  incite	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  unemployment	
  through	
  greatly	
  
increased	
  levels	
  of	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  (Leeflang	
  et	
  al.,	
  1992).	
  Another	
  factor	
  affecting	
  an	
  
individual’s	
  perception	
  is	
  the	
  context	
  or	
  perceived	
  context	
  that	
  surrounds	
  the	
  individual.	
  
According	
  to	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  recently	
  unemployed,	
  they	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  predict	
  their	
  future	
  and	
  
have	
  a	
  plan	
  for	
  re-­‐entry	
  into	
  the	
  labor	
  market	
  and	
  were	
  not	
  as	
  greatly	
  affected	
  by	
  the	
  
incidence	
  of	
  unemployment	
  (Banks,	
  1995).	
  These	
  findings	
  point	
  to	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  
context	
  in	
  influencing	
  an	
  individual’s	
  perception	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  financial	
  reality.	
  
Researchers	
  have	
  tracked	
  the	
  cycle	
  of	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  and	
  levels	
  of	
  
psychological	
  distress.	
  However,	
  not	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  estimations	
  are	
  consistent	
  across	
  studies.	
  
One	
  assessment	
  states	
  that	
  around	
  six	
  months	
  (about	
  27	
  weeks)	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  
psychological	
  distress.	
  After	
  the	
  six-­‐month	
  mark,	
  psychological	
  distress	
  tends	
  to	
  stabilize,	
  
and	
  then	
  increases	
  again	
  around	
  15	
  months	
  (Kokko	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  Gallup	
  revealed	
  
findings	
  from	
  their	
  survey	
  of	
  worry,	
  stress,	
  and	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment;	
  individuals’	
  
unemployed	
  for	
  more	
  than	
  six	
  months	
  had	
  increased	
  adverse	
  emotional	
  effects.	
  In	
  the	
  poll,	
  
55%	
  of	
  those	
  unemployed	
  for	
  more	
  than	
  six	
  months	
  said	
  they	
  experienced	
  much	
  stress	
  and	
  
worry	
  the	
  previous	
  day.	
  This	
  is	
  compared	
  to	
  46%	
  of	
  individuals	
  unemployed	
  less	
  than	
  six	
  

34	
  

	
  
months,	
  and	
  40%	
  unemployed	
  for	
  less	
  than	
  a	
  month	
  (Marlar,	
  2010).	
  Kulik	
  (2001)	
  reports	
  
that	
  within	
  this	
  “cycle,”	
  job	
  search	
  frequency	
  and	
  intensity	
  increase	
  steadily	
  during	
  the	
  first	
  
three	
  months	
  of	
  unemployment	
  and	
  then	
  decrease	
  steadily	
  past	
  that	
  point.	
  In	
  contrast	
  to	
  
Kokko	
  &	
  Pulkkinen’s	
  (1998)	
  findings,	
  Kulik	
  (2001)	
  declared	
  that	
  psychological	
  distress	
  
increases	
  until	
  three	
  months	
  of	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  after	
  that	
  point	
  it	
  steadily	
  decreased.	
  
Additionally,	
  according	
  to	
  Kulik,	
  stress	
  levels	
  were	
  low	
  up	
  until	
  two	
  months	
  and	
  also	
  when	
  
the	
  individual	
  passed	
  six	
  months.	
  The	
  researcher	
  suggested	
  that	
  the	
  patterns	
  of	
  low	
  stress	
  
may	
  be	
  due	
  to	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  initial	
  period	
  of	
  unemployment	
  (until	
  two	
  months)	
  as	
  
temporary	
  with	
  improvement	
  on	
  the	
  horizon.	
  However,	
  after	
  a	
  prolonged	
  period	
  of	
  
unemployment	
  (past	
  six	
  months)	
  an	
  individual	
  may	
  become	
  discouraged	
  and	
  accustomed	
  
to	
  the	
  situation.	
  Similarly,	
  Banks	
  (1995)	
  stated	
  that	
  a	
  common	
  response	
  to	
  long-­‐term	
  
unemployment	
  is	
  “resigned	
  adaptation,”	
  during	
  which	
  an	
  individual	
  may	
  withdraw	
  from	
  
searching	
  for	
  a	
  job	
  and	
  become	
  hopeless	
  (p.	
  41).	
  Some	
  have	
  referred	
  to	
  this	
  as	
  the	
  
“discouraged	
  worker	
  effect”	
  (Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith,	
  2010).	
  
Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  
White	
  and	
  Rogers	
  (2000),	
  concluded	
  that	
  a	
  couple’s	
  level	
  of	
  earnings	
  and	
  
employment	
  had	
  a	
  positive	
  effect	
  on	
  their	
  marital	
  quality,	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  and	
  their	
  
children’s	
  outcomes.	
  Conversely,	
  the	
  loss	
  or	
  inadequacy	
  of	
  resources	
  can	
  have	
  an	
  adverse	
  
effect	
  on	
  the	
  emotional	
  state	
  of	
  an	
  individual	
  and	
  dyad.	
  The	
  lack	
  of	
  proper	
  resources	
  also	
  
can	
  produce	
  outcomes	
  such	
  as	
  depression,	
  anxiety,	
  anger,	
  and	
  aggression.	
  Howe	
  et	
  al.	
  
(2004)	
  described	
  ways	
  of	
  examining	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  relational	
  distress,	
  stating	
  that	
  
following	
  an	
  event	
  like	
  unemployment	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  “cascade	
  of	
  stressors”	
  (p.	
  640).	
  During	
  
times	
  of	
  economic	
  pressure,	
  hostile	
  behavior	
  can	
  occur	
  between	
  couples,	
  as	
  partners	
  

35	
  

	
  
attempt	
  to	
  regain	
  power	
  and	
  control	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1994).	
  In	
  their	
  research	
  on	
  economic	
  
and	
  marital	
  quality	
  in	
  farm	
  families,	
  Johnson	
  and	
  Booth	
  (1990)	
  found	
  that	
  distress	
  
resulting	
  from	
  adverse	
  economic	
  conditions	
  had	
  a	
  significant	
  effect	
  on	
  changing	
  levels	
  of	
  
depression.	
  Inversely,	
  changing	
  levels	
  of	
  depression	
  were	
  seen	
  as	
  intervening	
  variables,	
  
influencing	
  thoughts	
  of	
  divorce.	
  Further,	
  when	
  thoughts	
  of	
  divorce	
  and	
  marital	
  
communication	
  were	
  investigated	
  as	
  dependent	
  variables,	
  and	
  economic	
  stress	
  as	
  the	
  
independent	
  variable,	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  significant	
  effect.	
  Partners	
  experiencing	
  distress	
  can	
  
transfer	
  their	
  distress	
  to	
  other	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  system	
  and	
  in	
  doing	
  so	
  the	
  distress	
  
may	
  be	
  reinforced	
  in	
  the	
  originating	
  member,	
  reducing	
  the	
  quality	
  and	
  satisfaction	
  of	
  the	
  
relationship	
  (Howe	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  In	
  fact,	
  there	
  is	
  much	
  support	
  for	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  stress	
  
related	
  to	
  hardship	
  has	
  an	
  elevated	
  risk	
  of	
  producing	
  marital	
  conflict	
  (Conger	
  et	
  al.,	
  1994).	
  
Conflict	
  over	
  money	
  can	
  even	
  lead	
  to	
  divorce	
  (Zagorsky,	
  2003).	
  However,	
  this	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  
the	
  case	
  for	
  every	
  marriage.	
  For	
  some	
  stable	
  marriages,	
  the	
  incidence	
  of	
  unemployment	
  
may	
  act	
  to	
  strengthen	
  the	
  relationship,	
  while	
  those	
  already	
  experiencing	
  personal	
  or	
  
relational	
  distress	
  may	
  find	
  that	
  unemployment	
  incites	
  conflict	
  and	
  relational	
  strain	
  or	
  
dissolution	
  (Jones,	
  1992).	
  Consistent	
  with	
  family	
  stress	
  theory,	
  a	
  family’s	
  available	
  
resources	
  and	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  stressor	
  (unemployment)	
  plays	
  a	
  role	
  in	
  whether	
  a	
  family	
  
survives	
  and	
  grows	
  or	
  continues	
  in	
  crisis.	
  
In	
  their	
  study	
  on	
  economic	
  resources	
  and	
  marital	
  quality	
  in	
  African	
  American	
  
couples,	
  Clark-­‐Nicolas	
  and	
  Gray-­‐Little	
  (1991)	
  found	
  elements	
  that	
  both	
  positively	
  and	
  
negatively	
  affected	
  husbands’	
  and	
  wives’	
  marital	
  quality.	
  Factors	
  included	
  economic	
  
stability,	
  distribution	
  of	
  household	
  tasks,	
  opportunity	
  for	
  personal	
  development,	
  and	
  the	
  
parenting	
  role.	
  For	
  women,	
  perceived	
  economic	
  stability	
  was	
  a	
  salient	
  factor	
  affecting	
  level	
  

36	
  

	
  
of	
  marital	
  quality	
  and	
  satisfaction.	
  For	
  husbands,	
  the	
  opportunity	
  for	
  personal	
  development	
  
was	
  rated	
  high	
  in	
  significance.	
  Number	
  of	
  children	
  also	
  was	
  an	
  important	
  indicator,	
  as	
  
husbands	
  had	
  higher	
  levels	
  of	
  satisfaction	
  when	
  they	
  had	
  fewer	
  children	
  (Clark-­‐Nicolas	
  &	
  
Gray-­‐Little).	
  Yamato	
  (2008)	
  looked	
  at	
  economic	
  recession,	
  levels	
  of	
  income	
  in	
  martial	
  
dyads,	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  in	
  Japan.	
  He	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  factors	
  that	
  influence	
  satisfaction	
  
differed	
  with	
  gender	
  and	
  level	
  of	
  income.	
  The	
  traditional	
  husband-­‐breadwinner	
  and	
  wife-­‐
homemaker	
  structure	
  in	
  Japan	
  was	
  forced	
  to	
  change	
  for	
  many	
  families	
  during	
  economic	
  
recession.	
  Many	
  wives	
  had	
  to	
  enter	
  the	
  work	
  force	
  in	
  an	
  “off-­‐time”	
  manner,	
  leaving	
  
housework	
  and	
  childcare	
  duties.	
  Changing	
  roles	
  created	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  in	
  the	
  family	
  
system.	
  Yamato	
  looked	
  exclusively	
  at	
  working	
  Japanese	
  women	
  (those	
  contributing	
  less	
  
than	
  30%	
  to	
  the	
  family	
  income	
  and	
  those	
  contributing	
  over	
  30%)	
  and	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  martial	
  
satisfaction,	
  specifically	
  with	
  their	
  husband’s	
  level	
  of	
  support,	
  household	
  care,	
  and	
  
childcare.	
  He	
  found	
  that	
  levels	
  of	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  paternal	
  involvement	
  were	
  affected	
  by	
  
the	
  wives’	
  level	
  of	
  income.	
  Low	
  earners	
  desired	
  more	
  emotional	
  support	
  and	
  paternal	
  play	
  
with	
  children,	
  while	
  higher	
  earners	
  desired	
  emotional	
  support	
  and	
  help	
  in	
  household	
  care	
  
(Yamato).	
  	
  
Kinnunen	
  and	
  Pulkkenen	
  (1998)	
  investigated	
  marital	
  quality	
  and	
  marital	
  stress	
  in	
  
Finnish	
  marital	
  couples.	
  They	
  found	
  that	
  a	
  secure	
  and	
  stable	
  economic	
  position	
  (e.g.	
  
adequate	
  income,	
  career	
  satisfaction)	
  plays	
  a	
  principle	
  role	
  in	
  women’s	
  feelings	
  of	
  
satisfaction,	
  security,	
  and	
  independence.	
  Furthermore,	
  career	
  success	
  and	
  stability	
  played	
  a	
  
very	
  important	
  role,	
  and	
  women	
  who	
  had	
  unstable	
  careers	
  showed	
  greater	
  levels	
  of	
  
depression	
  and	
  higher	
  levels	
  of	
  hostility	
  towards	
  their	
  partners.	
  For	
  men,	
  having	
  a	
  stable	
  
career	
  was	
  the	
  most	
  essential	
  factor	
  dictating	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  positive	
  outcomes.	
  Thus,	
  

37	
  

	
  
unemployment	
  represented	
  a	
  large	
  threat,	
  increasing	
  negative	
  effects,	
  depression,	
  and	
  
hostility	
  (Kinnunen	
  &	
  Pulkkenen).	
  The	
  results	
  of	
  Dakin	
  &	
  Wampler’s	
  (2008)	
  study	
  
confirmed	
  a	
  large	
  body	
  of	
  research,	
  that	
  economic	
  stress	
  (e.g.	
  unemployment,	
  
underemployment,	
  loss	
  of	
  recourses,	
  mounting	
  debt)	
  has	
  a	
  negative	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  
Gender	
  Reactions	
  
	
  

Historically,	
  the	
  investigation	
  of	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  

has	
  predominately	
  focused	
  on	
  male	
  workers	
  (Howe	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004).	
  However,	
  in	
  recent	
  years	
  
women	
  as	
  workers	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  wives’	
  responses	
  (e.g.	
  physical	
  and	
  emotional,	
  level	
  of	
  
support,	
  participation	
  in	
  the	
  work	
  force)	
  to	
  their	
  husbands’	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  have	
  
been	
  considered	
  in	
  research	
  (e.g.	
  Broman	
  et	
  al.,	
  1995;	
  Falconier,	
  2010;	
  Howe	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  
Jones,	
  1992;	
  Kulik,	
  2001;	
  Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith,	
  2010).	
  The	
  dominant,	
  historical	
  thought	
  has	
  
been	
  that	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  would	
  react	
  differently	
  to	
  the	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  stress	
  of	
  
unemployment.	
  This	
  was	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  had	
  different	
  social	
  roles	
  
and	
  thus	
  different	
  experiences,	
  and	
  a	
  different	
  set	
  of	
  stressors	
  (Mills,	
  Grasmick,	
  Morgan,	
  &	
  
Wenk,	
  1992).	
  However,	
  with	
  the	
  changing	
  landscape	
  of	
  the	
  workforce	
  and	
  women’s	
  
participation	
  greatly	
  increased,	
  thoughts	
  about	
  men	
  and	
  women’s	
  reaction	
  to	
  
unemployment	
  have	
  evolved.	
  
Kwon	
  et	
  al.	
  (2003)	
  found	
  a	
  direct	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  marital	
  
distress.	
  This	
  may	
  be	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  decline	
  in	
  family	
  finances,	
  especially	
  among	
  male	
  worker-­‐
earners,	
  in	
  a	
  culture	
  that	
  prizes	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  male	
  as	
  breadwinner.	
  The	
  researchers	
  pointed	
  
to	
  the	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  male	
  workers’	
  role	
  as	
  the	
  chief	
  contributing	
  factor	
  to	
  the	
  higher	
  levels	
  
of	
  marital	
  conflict.	
  Similar	
  results	
  were	
  found	
  in	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  Turkish	
  couples	
  experiencing	
  

38	
  

	
  
financial	
  crisis.	
  A	
  direct	
  effect	
  was	
  seen	
  from	
  economic	
  strain	
  to	
  marital	
  problems.	
  
However,	
  gender	
  mediated	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  marital	
  distress,	
  
as	
  the	
  men	
  in	
  the	
  study	
  were	
  not	
  significantly	
  affected	
  by	
  economic	
  strain.	
  The	
  author	
  
stated	
  that	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  the	
  Kwon	
  et	
  al.	
  (2003)	
  study,	
  and	
  the	
  culture	
  of	
  Korea,	
  in	
  Turkey	
  
there	
  is	
  the	
  cultural	
  prescription	
  of	
  men	
  as	
  the	
  dominate	
  breadwinner	
  and	
  women	
  as	
  the	
  
homemakers.	
  Thus,	
  men	
  spend	
  more	
  time	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  household	
  engaging	
  in	
  activities	
  
that	
  may	
  help	
  buffer	
  economic	
  strain	
  (Aytac	
  et	
  al.,	
  2009).	
  Cultural	
  and	
  environmental	
  
context	
  plays	
  an	
  important	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  examination	
  of	
  gender	
  roles,	
  expectations,	
  and	
  
reactions	
  to	
  economic	
  stress.	
  
Within	
  the	
  cultural	
  and	
  historic	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  
unemployment	
  and	
  gender	
  may	
  be	
  different	
  from	
  similar	
  studies	
  in	
  other	
  cultures	
  and	
  
settings.	
  In	
  one	
  study,	
  husbands’	
  job	
  insecurity	
  was	
  related	
  to	
  wives’	
  evaluation	
  of	
  marital	
  
conflict,	
  thoughts	
  of	
  divorce,	
  and	
  perceived	
  satisfaction	
  (Fox	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  1998).	
  Howe	
  et	
  al.	
  
(2004)	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  relational	
  effects	
  of	
  women’s	
  unemployment	
  were	
  weaker	
  when	
  
compared	
  to	
  men’s	
  unemployment.	
  Women,	
  however,	
  experienced	
  the	
  same	
  level	
  of	
  
personal	
  distress	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  unemployment	
  as	
  their	
  male	
  counterparts.	
  Broman	
  et	
  al.	
  
(1995)	
  found	
  that	
  male	
  and	
  female	
  responses	
  to	
  unemployment	
  were	
  similar.	
  The	
  
researchers	
  did	
  control	
  for	
  class	
  and	
  occupation	
  type	
  (e.g.	
  blue	
  collar,	
  white	
  collar),	
  and	
  the	
  
similarities	
  between	
  the	
  sexes	
  significantly	
  outweighed	
  the	
  differences.	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  
(1994)	
  found	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  gender	
  difference	
  between	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  in	
  their	
  
experience	
  of	
  economic	
  stress.	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  state	
  that	
  previous	
  studies	
  may	
  have	
  found	
  
highly	
  bifurcated	
  gender	
  results;	
  however,	
  with	
  changes	
  in	
  female	
  work	
  force	
  participation	
  
and	
  power	
  there	
  have	
  been	
  many	
  changes	
  in	
  the	
  experiences	
  of	
  contemporary	
  families.	
  

39	
  

	
  
For	
  both	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  perceived	
  economic	
  well-­‐being	
  affects	
  their	
  health,	
  
specifically	
  their	
  evaluation	
  of	
  their	
  health.	
  Further,	
  perceived	
  economic	
  well-­‐being	
  was	
  the	
  
number	
  one	
  influence	
  on	
  their	
  family’s	
  overall	
  well-­‐being	
  (Fox	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  1998;	
  Clark-­‐
Nicolas	
  &	
  Gray-­‐Little,	
  1991)	
  While	
  looking	
  at	
  husband	
  and	
  wife	
  psychological	
  well-­‐being,	
  
Mills	
  et	
  al.	
  (1992)	
  found	
  that	
  regardless	
  of	
  spouses’	
  occupational	
  status,	
  both	
  sexes	
  respond	
  
in	
  the	
  same	
  way	
  to	
  economic	
  strain.	
  Kulik’s	
  (2001)	
  results	
  echoed	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  
very	
  few	
  differences	
  between	
  male	
  and	
  female	
  responses	
  to	
  unemployment;	
  however,	
  the	
  
researcher’s	
  findings	
  differed	
  from	
  Borman	
  et	
  al.,	
  in	
  that	
  women	
  in	
  the	
  study	
  reported	
  a	
  
greater	
  decline	
  in	
  their	
  overall	
  health	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  unemployment.	
  Consistent	
  with	
  this	
  
finding,	
  Falconier	
  (2010)	
  found	
  that	
  both	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  become	
  more	
  depressed	
  and	
  
anxious	
  when	
  faced	
  with	
  economic	
  strain;	
  however,	
  women’s	
  anxiety	
  and	
  men’s	
  depression	
  
respectively	
  were	
  the	
  significant	
  factors	
  affecting	
  their	
  feelings	
  of	
  aggression	
  and	
  distress.	
  
In	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  there	
  are	
  many	
  similarities	
  between	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  
and	
  their	
  reactions	
  to	
  economic	
  stress.	
  The	
  differences	
  that	
  exist	
  pertain	
  to	
  health	
  
outcomes	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  incidence	
  of	
  depression	
  and	
  anxiety.	
  
Religious	
  Affilation/Belief	
  
Religion	
  has	
  been	
  seen	
  as	
  a	
  buffer,	
  protecting	
  individuals	
  from	
  extreme	
  life	
  change	
  
(e.g.	
  job	
  loss,	
  relationship	
  loss)	
  and	
  disappointments	
  (Clark	
  &	
  Lelkes,	
  2008).	
  Marks	
  et	
  al.	
  
(2010)	
  state	
  in	
  their	
  study	
  on	
  finance,	
  faith,	
  and	
  family	
  that	
  active	
  faith	
  can	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  built	
  
in	
  support	
  system	
  for	
  families.	
  Higher	
  religious	
  participation,	
  especially	
  through	
  
attendance,	
  by	
  either	
  wives	
  or	
  the	
  marital	
  dyad	
  has	
  been	
  seen	
  to	
  decrease	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  
possible	
  divorce	
  (Mahoney,	
  2010).	
  Individuals	
  experiencing	
  hardship	
  can	
  lean	
  on	
  the	
  
extended	
  support	
  system	
  they	
  have	
  in	
  their	
  “church	
  family.”	
  Multiple	
  individuals,	
  in	
  Marks	
  

40	
  

	
  
et	
  al.	
  qualitative	
  study,	
  commented	
  on	
  the	
  support	
  of	
  their	
  church	
  during	
  troubled	
  times	
  
through	
  offered	
  comfort,	
  prayers,	
  resource	
  donations,	
  and	
  monetary	
  donations.	
  One	
  
individual	
  commented	
  on	
  the	
  emotional,	
  physical,	
  and	
  monetary	
  support	
  given,	
  “I	
  never	
  
ever	
  had	
  to	
  want	
  for	
  anything,	
  because	
  someone	
  [from	
  my	
  church	
  family]	
  was	
  always	
  there	
  
helping	
  out…”	
  (p.	
  443).	
  
Adherence	
  to	
  a	
  faith	
  can	
  alter	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  a	
  person	
  or	
  a	
  family	
  system	
  
evaluates	
  financial	
  hardship.	
  One	
  participant,	
  in	
  the	
  Marks	
  et	
  al.	
  (2010)	
  study,	
  remarked	
  on	
  
her	
  family’s	
  understanding	
  and	
  devotion	
  to	
  a	
  higher	
  power,	
  “[We]	
  work	
  together,	
  
understanding	
  that	
  God	
  is	
  in	
  charge	
  of	
  everything	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  do	
  in	
  a	
  household”(p.	
  
442).	
  One	
  church	
  support	
  group	
  Keenan	
  (2009)	
  visited	
  opened	
  their	
  meeting	
  with	
  this	
  
prayer,	
  “Lord,	
  we	
  ask	
  that	
  the	
  struggle	
  we	
  endure	
  in	
  our	
  search	
  for	
  new	
  work	
  can	
  indeed	
  
transform	
  our	
  lives	
  and	
  make	
  us	
  better	
  people”	
  (p.	
  1).	
  Through	
  the	
  support,	
  networking,	
  
and	
  techniques	
  taught,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  belief	
  in	
  a	
  higher	
  power	
  and	
  higher	
  purpose.	
  This	
  belief	
  in	
  
purpose	
  extends	
  to	
  seeing	
  a	
  purpose	
  and	
  having	
  hope	
  through	
  times	
  of	
  great	
  difficulty.	
  The	
  
ability	
  for	
  a	
  family	
  to	
  re-­‐frame	
  and	
  alter	
  the	
  meaning	
  attached	
  to	
  an	
  experience	
  plays	
  an	
  
important	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  family’s	
  adaptation.	
  A	
  family’s	
  worldview,	
  the	
  view	
  that	
  they	
  have	
  of	
  
the	
  external	
  world,	
  is	
  a	
  major	
  source	
  of	
  meaning	
  that	
  stems	
  from	
  the	
  family’s	
  religious	
  and	
  
cultural	
  beliefs	
  (Boss,	
  2002).	
  
Lehrer	
  and	
  Chiswick	
  (1993)	
  found	
  that	
  religious	
  faith	
  was	
  a	
  superior	
  buffer	
  when	
  
married	
  couples	
  shared	
  complementary	
  views.	
  When	
  couples	
  had	
  interfaith	
  (differing	
  
faiths	
  coming	
  together,	
  between	
  groups)	
  unions	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  higher	
  instance	
  of	
  divorce,	
  
compared	
  to	
  couples	
  sharing	
  intrafaith	
  (same	
  faith	
  coming	
  together,	
  within	
  group)	
  unions.	
  
Religious	
  similarity	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  concept,	
  as	
  many	
  familial	
  decisions	
  such	
  as,	
  

41	
  

	
  
childrearing,	
  management	
  of	
  the	
  finances,	
  and	
  leisure	
  activities	
  may	
  be	
  influenced	
  by	
  the	
  
religious	
  affiliation	
  and	
  belief	
  of	
  the	
  marital	
  partners	
  (Heaton	
  &	
  Pratt,	
  1990).	
  Couples	
  with	
  
mutual	
  religious	
  beliefs	
  have	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  lower	
  divorce	
  rates;	
  
however,	
  agreement	
  between	
  faiths	
  can	
  vary	
  in	
  degree	
  (Lehrer	
  &	
  Chiswick;	
  Mahoney	
  et	
  al.,	
  
2001).	
  There	
  may	
  be	
  a	
  difference	
  in	
  religious	
  observances,	
  the	
  exclusiveness	
  of	
  religious	
  
beliefs,	
  and	
  the	
  weight	
  and	
  level	
  of	
  participation	
  that	
  each	
  individual	
  places	
  on	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  
faith.	
  These	
  factors	
  affect	
  the	
  magnitude	
  of	
  similarity	
  or	
  dissimilarity	
  within	
  a	
  religious	
  
union	
  (Lehrer	
  &	
  Chiswick).	
  A	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  church	
  attendance	
  among	
  partners	
  has	
  been	
  
associated	
  with	
  lower	
  divorce	
  rates.	
  Connections	
  also	
  have	
  been	
  made	
  between	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  
involvement	
  in	
  religious	
  faith	
  and	
  global	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  (Mahoney	
  et	
  al.).	
  Heaton	
  and	
  
Pratt	
  (1990)	
  found	
  that	
  couples	
  who	
  reported	
  religious	
  homogamy	
  (same	
  religious	
  
affiliation)	
  also	
  reported	
  higher	
  levels	
  of	
  marital	
  happiness	
  and	
  stability.	
  High	
  levels	
  of	
  
religiousness	
  tend	
  to	
  produce	
  or	
  be	
  connected	
  with	
  traditional	
  family	
  roles	
  and	
  
maintenance	
  of	
  that	
  traditional	
  family	
  relationship.	
  However,	
  while	
  research	
  has	
  
consistently	
  supported	
  this,	
  it	
  has	
  failed	
  to	
  thoroughly	
  investigate	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  religion	
  in	
  a	
  
family	
  experiencing	
  distress	
  (Mahoney,	
  2010).	
  Religious	
  involvement,	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  greatest	
  
religious	
  predictors	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  (Mahoney	
  et	
  al.).	
  Shared	
  religious	
  involvement	
  
may	
  strengthen	
  the	
  marital	
  relationship	
  and	
  level	
  of	
  satisfaction	
  by	
  increasing	
  the	
  time	
  that	
  
partners	
  spend	
  together,	
  increasing	
  opportunities	
  for	
  meaningful	
  discussion,	
  providing	
  
support	
  for	
  values,	
  and	
  yielding	
  significant	
  mutual	
  experiences	
  (Heaton	
  &	
  Pratt,	
  1990;	
  
Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999).	
  
The	
  families	
  in	
  the	
  Marks	
  et	
  al.	
  (2010)	
  study	
  were	
  realistic	
  about	
  the	
  pressure	
  that	
  
issues	
  of	
  money	
  placed	
  on	
  their	
  household,	
  with	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  individuals	
  in	
  the	
  study	
  stating	
  

42	
  

	
  
that	
  monetary	
  and	
  child	
  rearing	
  issues	
  were	
  the	
  two	
  leading	
  stressors	
  in	
  their	
  lives.	
  This	
  is	
  
supported	
  by	
  research:	
  children	
  and	
  money	
  are	
  the	
  two	
  leading	
  causes	
  of	
  conflict	
  in	
  marital	
  
systems	
  (Zagorsky,	
  2003).	
  Multiple	
  individuals	
  said	
  that	
  money	
  was	
  a	
  top	
  disagreement	
  for	
  
them	
  and	
  their	
  spouses;	
  monetary	
  issues	
  presented	
  barriers	
  to	
  work	
  around	
  for	
  many	
  
marriages.	
  One	
  man	
  said,	
  “[Money]	
  is	
  the	
  number	
  one	
  fight—Money—and	
  if	
  you	
  can	
  
navigate	
  that	
  particular	
  obstacle,	
  you	
  will	
  do	
  well	
  [in	
  marriage]”	
  (p.	
  445).	
  However,	
  for	
  
most	
  families	
  in	
  the	
  study,	
  reliance	
  on	
  a	
  higher	
  power	
  and	
  support	
  from	
  their	
  “church	
  
family”	
  helped	
  to	
  transform	
  their	
  troubled	
  times	
  into	
  times	
  of	
  deep	
  reflection,	
  and	
  reliance	
  
on	
  things	
  outside	
  of	
  themselves.	
  This	
  is	
  echoed	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  statements:	
  “[During	
  
financial	
  challenges],	
  God	
  has	
  a	
  way	
  of	
  helping	
  you	
  to	
  understand	
  that	
  money	
  is	
  not	
  what	
  
it’s	
  all	
  about;”	
  “As	
  long	
  as	
  you	
  have…people	
  loving	
  you	
  and	
  praying	
  with	
  you	
  and	
  sharing	
  
with	
  you,	
  you	
  can	
  get	
  through	
  almost	
  anything…”	
  (p.	
  448-­‐449).	
  
The	
  present	
  study	
  investigates	
  whether	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  and	
  belief	
  work	
  to	
  
moderate	
  the	
  mediating	
  effect	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Mahoney	
  (2010)	
  
stated	
  that	
  through	
  her	
  research	
  relating	
  to	
  religion	
  and	
  the	
  family,	
  “almost	
  no	
  research	
  has	
  
directly	
  addressed	
  how	
  general	
  religiousness	
  or	
  specific	
  spiritual	
  beliefs	
  and	
  behaviors	
  
may	
  operate,	
  for	
  better	
  or	
  worse,	
  when	
  family	
  crises	
  do	
  arise”	
  (p.	
  818).	
  Thus,	
  the	
  present	
  
study	
  addresses	
  this	
  important	
  and	
  under-­‐researched	
  area.	
  

43	
  

	
  
CHAPTER	
  III	
  
METHODOLOGY	
  
The	
  purpose	
  of	
  this	
  study	
  was	
  to	
  examine	
  marital	
  system	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  the	
  
influence	
  that	
  the	
  duration	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  have	
  on	
  the	
  system.	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  analyzed	
  the	
  broad	
  question:	
  Does	
  
the	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  endured	
  by	
  the	
  marital	
  system	
  affect	
  a	
  couple’s	
  overall	
  marital	
  
satisfaction?	
  Subsequent	
  questions	
  of	
  variable	
  interaction	
  and	
  potential	
  mediating	
  and	
  
moderating	
  effects	
  also	
  were	
  addressed.	
  This	
  study	
  focused	
  on	
  marital	
  dyads	
  located	
  in	
  
Southeastern	
  Michigan.	
  This	
  area	
  has	
  seen	
  a	
  dramatic	
  economic	
  downturn	
  and	
  an	
  
unemployment	
  rate	
  that	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  highest	
  in	
  the	
  nation.	
  This	
  study	
  utilized	
  self-­‐report	
  
survey	
  measures	
  to	
  gather	
  information	
  pertaining	
  to	
  demographics,	
  unemployment	
  status	
  
or	
  perception	
  of	
  underemployment,	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  in	
  months,	
  
economic	
  strain,	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  and	
  belief,	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  The	
  data	
  were	
  
gathered	
  through	
  partnerships	
  with	
  several	
  local	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan	
  faith	
  
communities.	
  
Conceptual	
  &	
  Operational	
  Definitions	
  
Marriage	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  The	
  state	
  of	
  being	
  married;	
  relation	
  between	
  husband	
  and	
  wife;	
  
married	
  life;	
  wedlock;	
  matrimony.	
  
Satisfaction	
  	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Satisfying	
  or	
  being	
  satisfied.	
  Something	
  that	
  satisfies;	
  specif.,	
  a)	
  
anything	
  that	
  brings	
  gratification,	
  pleasure,	
  or	
  contentment.	
  
	
  

44	
  

	
  
Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  This	
  study	
  will	
  examine	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  Dyadic	
  
Adjustment	
  Scale	
  (DAS)	
  (Spanier,	
  1976).	
  
Unemployed	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Not	
  employed;	
  without	
  work.	
  Not	
  being	
  used;	
  idle.	
  
Underemployed	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Inadequately	
  employed;	
  esp.,	
  employed	
  at	
  less	
  than	
  full	
  time	
  so	
  that,	
  
usually,	
  one	
  had	
  a	
  low	
  standard	
  of	
  living.	
  Working	
  at	
  low-­‐skilled,	
  poorly	
  paid	
  jobs	
  when	
  one	
  
is	
  trained	
  for,	
  or	
  could	
  be	
  trained	
  for,	
  more	
  skilled	
  work.	
  
Unemployment	
  &	
  Underemployment	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  Individual’s	
  perception	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  job	
  status	
  and	
  report	
  on	
  
spouse’s	
  job	
  status.	
  Employment,	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  underemployment	
  will	
  be	
  
operational	
  defined	
  as	
  positioned	
  on	
  a	
  continuum.	
  This	
  will	
  allow	
  for	
  a	
  more	
  accurate	
  
understanding	
  of	
  present	
  circumstances.	
  Each	
  individual	
  will	
  be	
  asked,	
  “How	
  long	
  it	
  has	
  
been	
  since	
  you	
  felt	
  that	
  you	
  were	
  fully	
  employed?”	
  
Length	
  of	
  Unemployment	
  &	
  Underemployment	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  Short-­‐term	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  less	
  than	
  27	
  weeks,	
  and	
  long-­‐
term	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  more	
  than	
  27	
  weeks	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.).	
  
Respondents	
  will	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  report	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  time	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  since	
  they	
  and/or	
  their	
  
spouses	
  felt	
  they	
  were	
  fully	
  employed.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

45	
  

	
  
Objective	
  	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Of	
  or	
  having	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  a	
  known	
  or	
  perceived	
  object	
  as	
  distinguished	
  
from	
  something	
  existing	
  only	
  in	
  the	
  mind	
  of	
  the	
  subject,	
  or	
  person	
  thinking.	
  Being,	
  or	
  
regarded	
  as	
  being	
  independent	
  of	
  the	
  mind;	
  real;	
  actual.	
  
Objective	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  Un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  is	
  seen	
  as	
  the	
  objective	
  instance	
  of	
  job	
  loss.	
  
	
  Stress	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Strain	
  or	
  straining	
  force;	
  specif.,	
  3.	
  a)	
  mental	
  or	
  physical	
  tension	
  or	
  
strain	
  b)	
  urgency,	
  pressure,	
  etc.	
  causing	
  this.	
  
Economic	
  Stress	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  In	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  economic	
  stress	
  is	
  used	
  as	
  a	
  term	
  to	
  refer	
  to	
  
the	
  objective	
  stress	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  This	
  study	
  will	
  look	
  at	
  economic	
  stress	
  as	
  
an	
  objective	
  instance	
  and	
  economic	
  strain	
  as	
  a	
  subjective	
  perception.	
  Un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  was	
  the	
  variable	
  measured.	
  
Economic	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Of	
  or	
  having	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  the	
  management	
  of	
  the	
  income,	
  expenditures,	
  
etc.	
  of	
  a	
  household,	
  private	
  business,	
  community,	
  or	
  government.	
  
Strain	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  To	
  be	
  or	
  become	
  strained.	
  To	
  be	
  subjected	
  to	
  great	
  stress	
  or	
  
pressure.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

46	
  

	
  
Subjective	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Affected	
  by,	
  or	
  produced	
  by	
  the	
  mind	
  or	
  a	
  particular	
  state	
  of	
  mind;	
  of	
  
or	
  resulting	
  from	
  the	
  feelings	
  or	
  temperament	
  of	
  the	
  subject,	
  or	
  person	
  thinking;	
  not	
  
objective;	
  personal	
  [a	
  subjective	
  judgment].	
  
Subjective	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  the	
  perception,	
  understanding,	
  or	
  processing	
  of	
  the	
  objective.	
  
Economic	
  strain	
  is	
  seen	
  as	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  objective	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment.	
  
Economic	
  Strain	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  The	
  subjective	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  objective	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment.	
  The	
  Family	
  Economic	
  Strain	
  Scale	
  (FESS)	
  (Hilton	
  &	
  Devall,	
  1997)	
  was	
  
utilized	
  to	
  measure	
  economic	
  strain.	
  
Religious	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  Characterized	
  by	
  adherence	
  to	
  religion	
  or	
  a	
  religion;	
  devout;	
  pious;	
  
godly.	
  Of	
  concerned	
  with,	
  appropriate	
  to,	
  or	
  teaching	
  religion.	
  
Affiliation	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  An	
  affiliating	
  or	
  being	
  affiliated;	
  connection,	
  as	
  with	
  an	
  organization,	
  
club,	
  etc.	
  
Belief	
  
Conceptual	
  Definition:	
  The	
  state	
  of	
  believing;	
  conviction	
  or	
  acceptance	
  that	
  certain	
  things	
  
are	
  true	
  or	
  real.	
  Faith,	
  esp.	
  religious	
  faith	
  (Guralnik,	
  1986).	
  
	
  
	
  

47	
  

	
  
Religious	
  Affiliation	
  &	
  Belief	
  
Operational	
  Definition:	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  will	
  examine	
  four	
  aspects	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  
and	
  belief:	
  (a)	
  religious	
  participation,	
  (b)	
  level	
  of	
  religiosity	
  and	
  spirituality,	
  (c)	
  level	
  of	
  
religious	
  participation	
  with	
  spouse,	
  and	
  (d)	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  and	
  spousal	
  agreement.	
  
These	
  aspects	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  and	
  belief	
  will	
  be	
  assessed	
  through	
  the	
  Religion	
  and	
  
Spirituality	
  scales	
  created	
  by	
  Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell,	
  Swank,	
  Scott,	
  Emery	
  et	
  al.	
  
(1999).	
  
Population	
  
The	
  focus	
  of	
  this	
  study	
  was	
  marital	
  systems	
  with	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  partner	
  unemployed	
  in	
  
Southeastern	
  Michigan.	
  Exclusion	
  criteria	
  were:	
  (a)	
  individuals	
  under	
  the	
  age	
  of	
  18,	
  (b)	
  
individuals	
  who	
  could	
  not	
  answer	
  how	
  long	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  since	
  they	
  felt	
  they	
  were	
  fully	
  
employed	
  (e.g.	
  having	
  full-­‐time	
  satisfactory	
  employment),	
  and	
  (c)	
  individuals	
  who	
  are	
  not	
  
part	
  of	
  a	
  marital	
  dyad	
  (e.g.	
  single,	
  divorced).	
  Subjects	
  were	
  recruited	
  through	
  the	
  help	
  of	
  
area	
  church	
  programs.	
  Access	
  to	
  area	
  church	
  programs	
  was	
  through	
  the	
  Career	
  Transition	
  
Support	
  Ministries	
  (CTSM)	
  of	
  South	
  East	
  Michigan	
  and	
  related	
  faith-­‐based	
  networks.	
  CTSM	
  
provides	
  support	
  for	
  jobseekers	
  and	
  ministry	
  leaders,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  offering	
  current	
  
information	
  for	
  employers,	
  and	
  information	
  for	
  jobseekers	
  on	
  potential	
  employment	
  
opportunities.	
  Within	
  CTSM	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  job	
  support	
  network	
  with	
  over	
  20	
  participating	
  
church	
  programs	
  and	
  locations	
  spanning	
  the	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan	
  area.	
  CTSM’s	
  mission	
  
is,	
  “Equipping	
  churches	
  to	
  foster	
  prosperous	
  career	
  choices”	
  with	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  this	
  
resource	
  network,	
  “To	
  create	
  and	
  share	
  resources	
  that	
  equip	
  our	
  fellow	
  stewards	
  to	
  
understand	
  needs	
  and	
  empower	
  life	
  affecting	
  change”	
  (Career	
  Transition	
  Support	
  
Ministries,	
  n.d.a.).	
  Mike	
  Whelan	
  (2010),	
  a	
  founding	
  member	
  and	
  present	
  coordinator	
  of	
  the	
  

48	
  

	
  
CTSM	
  network,	
  said	
  that	
  individuals	
  reeling	
  from	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
  employment	
  are	
  frequently	
  
shell-­‐shocked	
  with	
  worries	
  and	
  concerns	
  about	
  the	
  future	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  present	
  emotional	
  and	
  
even	
  spiritual	
  wounds.	
  For	
  Whelan,	
  these	
  individuals	
  are	
  in	
  need	
  of	
  support,	
  guidance,	
  and	
  
compassion.	
  Many	
  of	
  the	
  leaders	
  of	
  the	
  CTSM	
  groups	
  have	
  experience	
  in	
  the	
  field,	
  with	
  
financial	
  and	
  job	
  training	
  expertise,	
  while	
  others	
  have	
  personal	
  experience	
  and	
  empathy	
  for	
  
job	
  loss.	
  Whelan	
  stated	
  that	
  all	
  leaders,	
  regardless	
  of	
  their	
  background,	
  approach	
  each	
  case	
  
in	
  a	
  human	
  way,	
  leading	
  with	
  compassion.	
  
Additional	
  sources	
  of	
  church	
  group	
  support	
  were	
  accessed	
  through	
  other	
  connected	
  
groups	
  in	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan.	
  These	
  are	
  groups	
  such	
  as	
  Our	
  Lady	
  of	
  Good	
  Counsel’s	
  
OLGC	
  career	
  group	
  and	
  The	
  Shrine	
  Career	
  Network.	
  Both	
  of	
  these	
  career	
  groups	
  have	
  
associations	
  with	
  many	
  area	
  churches	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  churches	
  in	
  the	
  CTSM	
  network.	
  The	
  OLGC	
  
career	
  group	
  has	
  access	
  and	
  distribution	
  to	
  300	
  members,	
  while	
  The	
  Shrine	
  Career	
  
Network	
  works	
  through	
  two	
  interactive	
  groups	
  and	
  has	
  access	
  to	
  over	
  1,100	
  unemployed	
  
individuals.	
  
Area	
  church	
  program	
  contacts	
  provide	
  support,	
  help,	
  and	
  training	
  to	
  the	
  
unemployed	
  population.	
  These	
  programs	
  help	
  with	
  career	
  planning,	
  networking,	
  resume	
  
writing,	
  interviewing	
  skills,	
  conducting	
  “mock”	
  interviews,	
  learning	
  personal	
  marketing,	
  
sharing	
  up-­‐to-­‐date	
  employment	
  information,	
  advice,	
  and	
  connections.	
  The	
  researcher,	
  with	
  
help	
  from	
  the	
  contacts,	
  disseminated	
  a	
  study	
  flyer/letter	
  to	
  their	
  populations	
  in	
  advance	
  of	
  
the	
  conducted	
  research.	
  Participation	
  requests	
  also	
  were	
  posted	
  on	
  available	
  career	
  
ministry	
  on-­‐line	
  networks	
  and	
  group	
  sites.	
  This	
  document	
  introduced	
  the	
  study	
  purpose	
  as	
  
well	
  as	
  what	
  would	
  be	
  required	
  through	
  participation	
  in	
  the	
  study,	
  and	
  presented	
  the	
  
researcher’s	
  contact	
  information.	
  

49	
  

	
  
Population	
  characteristics	
  
The	
  sample	
  for	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  was	
  drawn	
  from	
  networks	
  of	
  career	
  support	
  
groups	
  which	
  are	
  offered	
  through	
  faith-­‐based	
  institutions.	
  While	
  all	
  individuals	
  are	
  
welcome	
  at	
  each	
  group	
  regardless	
  of	
  their	
  religious	
  beliefs,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  need	
  for	
  information	
  
regarding	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  religious	
  beliefs,	
  marital	
  status,	
  and	
  economic	
  strain.	
  The	
  effect	
  
faith	
  can	
  have	
  on	
  these	
  factors	
  must	
  be	
  recognized.	
  Keenan	
  (2009)	
  talked	
  about	
  the	
  
increase	
  in	
  church	
  support	
  groups	
  helping	
  the	
  unemployed	
  during	
  this	
  recent	
  economic	
  
crisis.	
  These	
  groups	
  give	
  assistance	
  through	
  curricula,	
  training,	
  and	
  providing	
  employment	
  
resources	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  a	
  reliance	
  on	
  prayer	
  and	
  fellowship	
  with	
  others	
  enduring	
  the	
  same	
  
struggle.	
  The	
  groups	
  speak	
  with	
  honesty,	
  and	
  as	
  comrades,	
  share	
  their	
  journey	
  of	
  
unemployment.	
  Concerning	
  group	
  sharing	
  and	
  support,	
  a	
  participant	
  remarked	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  
helpful	
  to	
  know	
  others	
  were	
  feeling	
  and	
  experiencing	
  the	
  same	
  things.	
  The	
  Career	
  
Transition	
  Support	
  network	
  states,	
  “We’ve	
  [all]	
  experienced	
  the	
  same	
  disappointments	
  and	
  
challenges”	
  (Career	
  Transition	
  Support	
  Ministries,	
  n.d.a.).	
  The	
  CTSM	
  approaches	
  job	
  change	
  
as	
  something	
  complex	
  and	
  multifaceted,	
  an	
  issue	
  which	
  must	
  be	
  met	
  with	
  reliance	
  on	
  
community	
  and	
  spiritual	
  guidance.	
  	
  
Population	
  Demographics	
  
Two	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan	
  counties,	
  Oakland	
  and	
  Wayne,	
  made	
  up	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  
the	
  support	
  group	
  locations.	
  Other	
  counties	
  such	
  as	
  Livingston,	
  Macomb,	
  and	
  Washtenaw	
  
also	
  are	
  represented.	
  Both	
  Oakland	
  and	
  Wayne	
  County	
  are	
  prominent	
  areas	
  of	
  
Southeastern	
  Michigan,	
  and	
  the	
  two	
  largest	
  counties	
  in	
  the	
  state,	
  with	
  populations	
  over	
  a	
  
million.	
  Macomb	
  County,	
  with	
  a	
  population	
  of	
  866,155,	
  is	
  the	
  next	
  largest	
  (Localistia.com,	
  
n.d.a.).	
  In	
  2009,	
  Oakland	
  County	
  had	
  a	
  population	
  of	
  1,205,	
  508.	
  Within	
  this	
  population	
  

50	
  

	
  
there	
  was	
  an	
  estimated	
  89.3%	
  of	
  individuals	
  who	
  had	
  graduated	
  from	
  high	
  school,	
  while	
  
38.2%	
  had	
  a	
  bachelor’s	
  degree	
  or	
  higher.	
  Among	
  the	
  population,	
  in	
  2000,	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  
household	
  ownership	
  rate	
  of	
  74.7%.	
  The	
  median	
  household	
  income	
  in	
  2008	
  (inflation	
  
adjusted)	
  was	
  $69,152,	
  and	
  the	
  family	
  income	
  (inflation	
  adjusted)	
  was	
  $87,944,	
  income	
  
figures	
  significantly	
  higher	
  than	
  the	
  state	
  household	
  median	
  of	
  $48,606.	
  Among	
  the	
  top	
  ten	
  
highest	
  income-­‐earning	
  cities	
  in	
  the	
  state,	
  five	
  are	
  located	
  in	
  Oakland	
  County	
  (Bloomfield	
  
Hills,	
  Franklin,	
  West	
  Bloomfield,	
  Huntington	
  Woods,	
  and	
  Rochester),	
  including	
  the	
  top	
  
three	
  highest	
  grossing	
  areas,	
  and	
  two	
  are	
  located	
  within	
  Wayne	
  County	
  (Grosse	
  Ile	
  and	
  
Grosse	
  Pointe)	
  (Localistia.com,	
  n.d.a.).	
  In	
  2008,	
  8%	
  of	
  the	
  population	
  of	
  Oakland	
  County	
  
was	
  below	
  poverty,	
  and	
  5.3%	
  of	
  families	
  were	
  below	
  the	
  poverty	
  level	
  (U.S.	
  Census	
  Bureau,	
  
n.d.a.	
  a).	
  In	
  2009,	
  Wayne	
  County	
  had	
  a	
  population	
  of	
  1,925,848.	
  Of	
  the	
  county’s	
  population,	
  
77%	
  had	
  completed	
  high	
  school,	
  and	
  17.2%	
  had	
  a	
  bachelor’s	
  degree	
  or	
  higher.	
  In	
  2000,	
  
Wayne	
  County	
  had	
  a	
  66.6%	
  household	
  ownership	
  compared	
  to	
  73.8%	
  through	
  the	
  state.	
  
The	
  median	
  household	
  income	
  in	
  2008	
  (inflation	
  adjusted)	
  was	
  $43,925,	
  and	
  the	
  median	
  
family	
  income	
  (inflation	
  adjusted)	
  was	
  $54,706.	
  Wayne	
  County	
  had	
  15.6%	
  of	
  families	
  living	
  
below	
  the	
  poverty	
  level	
  in	
  2008,	
  and	
  20%	
  of	
  individuals	
  living	
  below	
  poverty,	
  a	
  mark	
  
higher	
  than	
  the	
  Michigan	
  state	
  average	
  of	
  14.4%	
  (U.S.	
  Census	
  Bureau,	
  n.d.a	
  b).	
  The	
  
unemployment	
  rate	
  in	
  both	
  counties	
  is	
  above	
  the	
  nation’s	
  average	
  of	
  9.6%.	
  As	
  of	
  September	
  
2010,	
  Oakland	
  County	
  had	
  a	
  12.2%	
  unemployment	
  rate,	
  and	
  Wayne	
  county	
  had	
  a	
  14.4%	
  
unemployment	
  rate.	
  (Michigan	
  Labor	
  Market	
  Information,	
  n.d.a.).	
  
The	
  Oakland	
  County	
  data	
  book	
  2009	
  stated	
  that	
  two	
  factors	
  in	
  combination	
  were	
  
responsible	
  for	
  the	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  unemployment	
  the	
  county	
  has	
  suffered:	
  (a)	
  the	
  resizing	
  of	
  
prominent	
  auto	
  producers	
  (General	
  Motors	
  and	
  Chrysler),	
  and	
  (b)	
  the	
  national	
  reduction	
  in	
  

51	
  

	
  
residential	
  and	
  commercial	
  construction.	
  These	
  two	
  industries	
  are	
  vital	
  to	
  the	
  county’s	
  
economy,	
  and	
  both	
  experienced	
  severe	
  downsizing	
  and	
  resizing	
  during	
  the	
  current	
  
economic	
  downturn.	
  Oakland	
  County	
  is	
  home	
  to	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  large	
  automobile	
  
manufacturers,	
  automobile	
  parts	
  suppliers,	
  and	
  businesses	
  that	
  produce	
  various	
  auto	
  
products	
  necessary	
  for	
  production,	
  such	
  as	
  foam	
  products,	
  gaskets,	
  packing	
  and	
  sealing	
  
devices,	
  rubber	
  products,	
  and	
  other	
  auto	
  related	
  components.	
  Many	
  leading	
  automotive	
  
suppliers	
  are	
  located	
  within	
  Oakland	
  county	
  such	
  as	
  Delphi,	
  Lear,	
  and	
  BorgWarner,	
  and	
  the	
  
majority	
  of	
  durable	
  goods	
  manufactures	
  in	
  the	
  county	
  participate	
  in	
  the	
  automotive	
  
industry	
  (Oakland	
  County	
  Data	
  Book,	
  n.d.a.).	
  The	
  prominence	
  of	
  the	
  auto	
  industry	
  in	
  this	
  
area	
  must	
  be	
  acknowledge	
  as	
  many	
  individuals	
  lost	
  their	
  job	
  or	
  were	
  downsized	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  
prevalent	
  problems	
  in	
  the	
  industry	
  as	
  a	
  whole.	
  
The	
  two	
  counties	
  that	
  make	
  up	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  support	
  group	
  locations	
  were	
  
chosen	
  due	
  to	
  their	
  prominence	
  in	
  the	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan	
  area.	
  These	
  two	
  counties	
  
have	
  the	
  largest	
  populations	
  in	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  Michigan,	
  with	
  populations	
  that	
  are	
  
demographically	
  and	
  economically	
  diverse.	
  Additionally,	
  both	
  Oakland	
  and	
  Wayne	
  county	
  
have	
  felt	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  “Great	
  Recession”	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  visible	
  examples	
  of	
  
recessionary	
  decline	
  throughout	
  the	
  state	
  and	
  Southeastern	
  region.	
  
Procedures	
  
This	
  study	
  utilized	
  self-­‐report	
  survey	
  questionnaires.	
  The	
  surveys	
  were	
  given	
  in	
  
confidentiality,	
  with	
  no	
  identifying	
  information	
  requested.	
  Names	
  and	
  all	
  other	
  identifiers	
  
were	
  kept	
  confidential;	
  random	
  participant	
  numbers	
  were	
  assigned	
  to	
  each	
  survey	
  and	
  
utilized.	
  Surveys	
  had	
  a	
  cover	
  sheet	
  protecting	
  each	
  individual’s	
  data	
  from	
  being	
  seen	
  by	
  
others.	
  Surveys	
  were	
  placed	
  in	
  a	
  receptacle	
  when	
  completed,	
  sealed	
  and	
  taken	
  by	
  the	
  

52	
  

	
  
researcher.	
  The	
  cover	
  sheet	
  and	
  closed	
  drop	
  box	
  allowed	
  each	
  individual	
  to	
  keep	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  
information	
  private	
  and	
  confidential.	
  The	
  researcher	
  arranged	
  to	
  attend	
  meetings	
  at	
  each	
  
of	
  the	
  church	
  program	
  locations.	
  The	
  researcher,	
  while	
  on	
  location,	
  disseminated	
  all	
  
measures,	
  the	
  welcome	
  letter	
  and	
  directions	
  (Appendix	
  D),	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  letters	
  of	
  informed	
  
consent	
  (Appendix	
  E).	
  All	
  information	
  was	
  contained	
  within	
  the	
  survey	
  packets.	
  Survey	
  
instructions	
  were	
  scripted	
  and	
  read	
  by	
  the	
  researcher,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  survey	
  
packet,	
  informing	
  participants	
  of	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  the	
  study	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  specific	
  directions	
  for	
  
involvement.	
  Participants	
  completed	
  the	
  survey	
  at	
  the	
  church	
  facility.	
  	
  
Accommodations	
  were	
  made	
  for	
  church	
  facilities	
  where	
  support	
  groups	
  do	
  not	
  
actively	
  meet,	
  but	
  encouragement,	
  assistance,	
  and	
  resources	
  are	
  shared	
  with	
  the	
  
unemployed	
  population.	
  These	
  are	
  sites	
  where	
  applicable	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  population	
  are	
  
receiving	
  support	
  through	
  informal	
  channels.	
  In	
  these	
  instances,	
  confidential,	
  self-­‐
addressed,	
  survey	
  packets	
  were	
  disseminated.	
  Surveys	
  were	
  completed	
  and	
  mailed	
  to	
  the	
  
researcher.	
  The	
  researchers	
  contact	
  information	
  was	
  present,	
  and	
  any	
  questions	
  or	
  
concerns	
  were	
  directed	
  to	
  the	
  researcher.	
  	
  
The	
  data	
  retrieved	
  from	
  all	
  surveys	
  was	
  stored	
  and	
  analyzed	
  on	
  the	
  researcher’s	
  
computer	
  database,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  password-­‐protected	
  system.	
  This	
  information	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  
complete	
  thesis	
  research.	
  The	
  researcher,	
  research	
  advisor,	
  and	
  the	
  university	
  institutional	
  
review	
  board	
  were	
  the	
  only	
  individuals	
  with	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  raw	
  data.	
  The	
  results	
  of	
  this	
  
study	
  will	
  be	
  published	
  or	
  presented	
  at	
  professional	
  meetings,	
  but	
  the	
  identities	
  of	
  all	
  
research	
  participants	
  will	
  remain	
  anonymous.	
  After	
  each	
  survey	
  was	
  completed	
  and	
  
handed	
  in,	
  the	
  researcher	
  took	
  each	
  survey	
  and	
  assign	
  it	
  a	
  numerical	
  code	
  (e.g.	
  1,	
  2,	
  3).	
  
These	
  codes	
  were	
  then	
  used,	
  and	
  the	
  corresponding	
  data	
  entered.	
  

53	
  

	
  
Informed	
  consent	
  was	
  obtained	
  from	
  each	
  willing	
  participant.	
  The	
  consent	
  was	
  a	
  
written	
  explanation	
  of	
  the	
  project,	
  procedures,	
  risks,	
  benefits,	
  confidentiality,	
  an	
  
explanation	
  of	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  voluntary	
  participation	
  and	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  withdrawal,	
  researcher	
  
and	
  university	
  IRB	
  contact	
  information,	
  and	
  a	
  consent	
  statement	
  with	
  participant	
  
signature,	
  name,	
  and	
  date.	
  The	
  consent	
  forms	
  were	
  given	
  to	
  each	
  participant	
  by	
  the	
  
researcher,	
  directions	
  on	
  the	
  form	
  were	
  read	
  by	
  the	
  researcher,	
  and	
  each	
  participant	
  
received	
  a	
  copy	
  of	
  the	
  informed	
  consent	
  to	
  keep.	
  Forms	
  were	
  collected	
  and	
  given	
  to	
  the	
  
researcher.	
  Questions	
  regarding	
  the	
  study	
  were	
  answered	
  while	
  the	
  researcher	
  was	
  on	
  site	
  
and	
  through	
  the	
  researcher’s	
  contact	
  information,	
  which	
  was	
  present	
  on	
  the	
  recruiting	
  
flyer/letter,	
  on	
  the	
  informed	
  consent	
  document,	
  and	
  read	
  aloud	
  and	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  
welcome	
  and	
  directions	
  letter.	
  Consent	
  forms	
  also	
  were	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  mailer	
  packet	
  with	
  
one	
  copy	
  to	
  submit	
  to	
  the	
  researcher	
  and	
  one	
  copy	
  for	
  the	
  participant	
  to	
  keep	
  as	
  a	
  
reference.	
  

	
  

Measure	
  of	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  
Participants	
  were	
  asked	
  to	
  report	
  on	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  time	
  since	
  they	
  felt	
  they	
  were	
  fully	
  
employed.	
  Each	
  participant	
  was	
  either	
  unemployed	
  or	
  underemployed;	
  this	
  information	
  
was	
  gathered	
  through	
  the	
  individual’s	
  perception	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  Dooley	
  et	
  al.	
  
(2000)	
  remarked	
  that	
  a	
  continuum	
  from	
  employment	
  to	
  unemployment	
  was	
  a	
  better	
  
conceptualization	
  than	
  the	
  traditional	
  dichotomy	
  of	
  employed	
  and	
  unemployed.	
  Moving	
  
away	
  from	
  the	
  nominal	
  categorization	
  of	
  either	
  full	
  employment	
  or	
  complete	
  
unemployment	
  allows	
  for	
  the	
  complex	
  nature	
  of	
  employment	
  and	
  economic	
  stress	
  to	
  be	
  
seen.	
  The	
  BLS	
  (n.d.a.)	
  description	
  of	
  who	
  is	
  considered	
  employed	
  states,	
  “Not	
  all	
  the	
  wide	
  
range	
  of	
  job	
  situations	
  in	
  the	
  American	
  economy	
  fit	
  neatly	
  into	
  a	
  given	
  category”	
  (p.	
  1).	
  For	
  

54	
  

	
  
these	
  reasons,	
  Dooley	
  et	
  al.	
  examined	
  the	
  unemployed,	
  involuntary	
  part-­‐time	
  workers,	
  and	
  
employed	
  with	
  poverty	
  wages	
  in	
  their	
  study.	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  operationalized	
  
employment,	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  underemployment	
  as	
  lying	
  on	
  a	
  continuum,	
  and	
  not	
  
exclusive	
  categories.	
  Both	
  unemployment	
  and	
  underemployment	
  were	
  considered	
  for	
  the	
  
present	
  study	
  to	
  gain	
  a	
  thorough	
  picture	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  economic	
  situation.	
  
Underemployment	
  was	
  included	
  through	
  the	
  individual’s	
  subjective	
  perception.	
  	
  
The	
  length	
  of	
  time	
  the	
  participants	
  have	
  considered	
  themselves	
  in	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  status	
  also	
  was	
  asked.	
  The	
  length	
  of	
  time	
  was	
  reported	
  in	
  months.	
  The	
  
Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  statistics	
  (n.d.a.)	
  defines	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  as	
  being	
  jobless	
  for	
  27	
  
weeks	
  and	
  above.	
  Thus,	
  for	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  short-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  was	
  considered	
  as	
  
unemployment	
  with	
  duration	
  less	
  than	
  27	
  weeks,	
  while	
  long-­‐term	
  unemployment	
  will	
  
follow	
  the	
  BLS	
  definition	
  of	
  27	
  weeks	
  and	
  above.	
  
Demographic	
  questions	
  also	
  was	
  asked	
  of	
  each	
  participant.	
  This	
  measure	
  included	
  
the	
  participants’	
  age,	
  gender,	
  level	
  of	
  education,	
  ethnicity,	
  town	
  or	
  city	
  of	
  residence,	
  time	
  
living	
  in	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  residence,	
  and	
  number	
  of	
  years	
  married.	
  
Measure	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
Marital	
  satisfaction	
  was	
  measured	
  using	
  the	
  Dyadic	
  Adjustment	
  Scale	
  (DAS)	
  
(Spanier,	
  1976).	
  The	
  DAS	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  utilized,	
  well-­‐known,	
  and	
  well-­‐respected	
  
measures	
  of	
  relationship	
  adjustment	
  in	
  the	
  field.	
  This	
  measure	
  has	
  become	
  a	
  standard	
  
when	
  assessing	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Numerous	
  studies	
  have	
  employed	
  the	
  DAS	
  in	
  their	
  
research	
  (e.g.	
  Dakin	
  &	
  Wampler,	
  2008;	
  Howe	
  et	
  al.,	
  2004;	
  Kazak,	
  Jarmas,	
  &	
  Snitzer,	
  1988;	
  
Kinnunen	
  &	
  Feldt,	
  2004;	
  Vinokur	
  et	
  al.,	
  1998).	
  According	
  to	
  Spanier	
  (1976)	
  this	
  32-­‐item	
  
measure	
  has	
  ease	
  of	
  use	
  as	
  it	
  can	
  be	
  completed	
  in	
  minutes,	
  incorporated	
  with	
  other	
  self-­‐

55	
  

	
  
report	
  measures,	
  and	
  even	
  adapted	
  for	
  use	
  in	
  qualitative	
  interviews.	
  The	
  items	
  contained	
  
on	
  the	
  scale	
  are	
  designed	
  to	
  assess	
  an	
  individual’s	
  perception	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  relationship	
  
adjustment	
  and	
  functioning.	
  The	
  DAS	
  measures	
  four	
  dimensions	
  of	
  relationship	
  
adjustment:	
  (a)	
  consensus	
  on	
  matters	
  and	
  importance	
  of	
  marital	
  functioning,	
  (b)	
  dyadic	
  
satisfaction,	
  (c)	
  dyadic	
  cohesion,	
  and	
  (d)	
  affectional	
  expression.	
  These	
  dimensions	
  were	
  
obtained	
  through	
  factor	
  analysis.	
  	
  
Questions	
  on	
  the	
  DAS	
  begin	
  with	
  rating	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  agreement	
  that	
  one	
  has	
  with	
  his	
  
or	
  her	
  partner	
  (on	
  a	
  6-­‐point	
  Likert	
  scale,	
  from	
  “always	
  agree”	
  to	
  “always	
  disagree”)	
  on	
  
matters	
  such	
  as,	
  “Handling	
  family	
  finance;”	
  “Amount	
  of	
  time	
  spent	
  together;”	
  or	
  “Career	
  
decisions.”	
  This	
  first	
  section	
  contains	
  15	
  questions.	
  The	
  scale	
  goes	
  on	
  to	
  ask	
  other	
  questions	
  
such	
  as,	
  “How	
  often	
  do	
  you	
  and	
  your	
  partner	
  quarrel?”	
  “Do	
  you	
  confide	
  in	
  your	
  mate?”	
  
“How	
  often	
  do	
  you	
  or	
  your	
  mate	
  leave	
  the	
  house	
  after	
  a	
  fight?”	
  There	
  are	
  seven	
  questions	
  in	
  
the	
  second	
  section;	
  these	
  questions	
  are	
  also	
  ranked	
  on	
  a	
  6-­‐point	
  Likert	
  scale,	
  ranging	
  from	
  
“all	
  of	
  time”	
  to	
  “never.”	
  Subsequent	
  sections	
  inquire	
  about	
  physical	
  connection	
  and	
  shared	
  
interests	
  (5-­‐point	
  scale),	
  time	
  and	
  emotions	
  shared	
  (6-­‐point	
  scale),	
  questions	
  centering	
  on	
  
love	
  and	
  sex,	
  a	
  rating	
  of	
  happiness	
  (6-­‐point	
  scale),	
  and	
  a	
  summation	
  statement	
  describing	
  
the	
  future	
  of	
  the	
  relationship.	
  Scores	
  on	
  the	
  DAS	
  range	
  from	
  0-­‐151with	
  a	
  typical	
  mean	
  
score	
  of	
  114.8	
  (SD=17.8).	
  The	
  scale	
  is	
  evaluated	
  with	
  higher	
  scores	
  representing	
  better	
  
marital	
  adjustment,	
  and	
  lower	
  scores	
  correlating	
  to	
  lower	
  marital	
  adjustment	
  or	
  
satisfaction	
  (Spanier).	
  
The	
  DAS	
  has	
  proven	
  reliability	
  and	
  validity.	
  When	
  the	
  measure	
  was	
  first	
  released	
  it	
  
went	
  through	
  extensive	
  testing	
  for	
  content,	
  criterion,	
  and	
  construct	
  validity,	
  and	
  reliability,	
  
with	
  each	
  subscale	
  tested	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  scale	
  as	
  a	
  whole.	
  To	
  determine	
  construct	
  validity	
  

56	
  

	
  
the	
  scale	
  was	
  tested	
  against	
  another	
  well-­‐established	
  measure,	
  the	
  Locke-­‐Wallace	
  Marital	
  
Adjustment	
  Scale.	
  The	
  correlation	
  between	
  married	
  participants	
  who	
  took	
  both	
  scales	
  was	
  
.86,	
  while	
  the	
  correlation	
  between	
  divorced	
  individuals	
  .88,	
  and	
  the	
  total	
  sample	
  
correlation	
  was	
  .93	
  (p<	
  .001).	
  Spanier	
  (1988)	
  stated	
  that	
  part	
  of	
  establishing	
  validity	
  came	
  
from	
  sampling	
  married	
  and	
  divorced	
  individuals	
  and	
  testing	
  the	
  scale’s	
  ability	
  to	
  
discriminate	
  between	
  the	
  two	
  samples.	
  Cronbach’s	
  coefficient	
  alpha	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  determine	
  
the	
  levels	
  of	
  scale	
  reliability.	
  The	
  dyadic	
  consensus	
  subscale	
  contains	
  13	
  items	
  and	
  has	
  an	
  
alpha	
  of	
  .90,	
  the	
  dyadic	
  satisfaction	
  scale	
  has	
  10	
  questions	
  and	
  an	
  alpha	
  of	
  .94,	
  dyadic	
  
cohesion	
  has	
  5	
  questions	
  and	
  an	
  alpha	
  of	
  .86,	
  and	
  the	
  affectional	
  expression	
  subscale	
  with	
  4	
  
questions	
  has	
  an	
  alpha	
  of	
  .73.	
  Taken	
  together,	
  the	
  total	
  scale	
  has	
  a	
  level	
  of	
  reliability	
  at	
  .96	
  
(Spanier,	
  1976)	
  (See	
  Appendix	
  A	
  for	
  complete	
  scale).	
  
While	
  the	
  DAS	
  is	
  a	
  proven	
  measure	
  of	
  marital	
  adjustment,	
  it	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  free	
  from	
  
critique.	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  common	
  concerns	
  with	
  the	
  DAS	
  is	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  subscales	
  as	
  distinct	
  
and	
  separate	
  measures.	
  In	
  their	
  study	
  Kazak	
  et	
  al.	
  (1988)	
  tested	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  the	
  DAS	
  to	
  be	
  
broken	
  down	
  into	
  separate,	
  testable,	
  subscales.	
  Their	
  results	
  revealed	
  the	
  same	
  four	
  factor	
  
breakdown	
  as	
  Spanier	
  (1976)	
  however,	
  they	
  argued	
  that	
  only	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  four	
  factors	
  
accounted	
  for	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  variance	
  (74.5%),	
  while	
  the	
  other	
  three	
  only	
  accounted	
  for	
  
10%	
  of	
  the	
  variance.	
  In	
  the	
  conclusion	
  to	
  their	
  study,	
  Kazak	
  et	
  al.	
  urged	
  that	
  the	
  DAS	
  be	
  
utilized	
  as	
  a	
  global	
  measure,	
  diagnosing	
  general	
  dimensions	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Spanier	
  
(1988)	
  responded	
  to	
  Kazak	
  et	
  al.	
  saying	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  that	
  all	
  researchers	
  know	
  what	
  
any	
  given	
  measure	
  can	
  do	
  and	
  what	
  its	
  limitations	
  are;	
  any	
  measure	
  must	
  be	
  used	
  with	
  a	
  
degree	
  of	
  caution.	
  He	
  then	
  reiterated	
  the	
  extensive	
  reliability,	
  validity,	
  and	
  theory	
  testing	
  
that	
  was	
  conducted	
  during	
  the	
  formation	
  of	
  the	
  scale.	
  Spanier	
  (1988)	
  admitted	
  that	
  the	
  DAS	
  

57	
  

	
  
is	
  a	
  measure	
  best	
  used	
  in	
  its	
  entirety,	
  globally,	
  as	
  it	
  has	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  subscale	
  and	
  inter-­‐
item	
  correlation.	
  The	
  DAS	
  is	
  a	
  measure	
  that	
  yields	
  a	
  reliable	
  and	
  valid	
  general	
  diagnosis	
  of	
  
relationship	
  quality.	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  utilized	
  the	
  whole	
  32-­‐item	
  DAS	
  measure	
  as	
  global	
  
assessment	
  of	
  marital	
  adjustment	
  and	
  satisfaction.	
  
In	
  answering	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  whether	
  the	
  DAS	
  is	
  a	
  global	
  measure	
  best	
  used	
  in	
  its	
  
entirety,	
  or	
  a	
  measure	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  broken	
  down	
  by	
  each	
  of	
  its	
  subscales,	
  Busby,	
  
Christensen,	
  Crane	
  and	
  Larson	
  (1995)	
  created	
  the	
  Revised	
  Dyadic	
  Adjustment	
  Scale	
  
(RDAS).	
  Their	
  tests	
  of	
  the	
  RDAS	
  revealed	
  it	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  reliable	
  and	
  valid	
  14-­‐item	
  measure.	
  
However,	
  there	
  are	
  two	
  important	
  areas	
  of	
  marital	
  adjustment	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  covered	
  in	
  the	
  
new	
  measure.	
  The	
  areas	
  are	
  marital	
  finance	
  and	
  marital	
  communication	
  (p.	
  297).	
  The	
  lack	
  
of	
  satisfactory	
  coverage	
  on	
  two	
  important	
  areas	
  of	
  marital	
  life	
  is	
  of	
  concern.	
  Thus,	
  the	
  
present	
  study	
  utilized	
  the	
  original	
  DAS	
  (Spanier),	
  as	
  the	
  revised	
  version	
  does	
  not	
  
adequately	
  cover	
  two	
  extremely	
  pertinent	
  topics	
  for	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  
and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  	
  
	
  

Measure	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  
Perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  was	
  measured	
  using	
  the	
  Family	
  Economic	
  Strain	
  Scale	
  

(FESS)	
  (Hilton	
  &	
  Devall,	
  1997).	
  The	
  concept	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  is	
  one	
  that	
  is	
  well	
  defined	
  
and	
  utilized	
  in	
  research;	
  however,	
  a	
  universal,	
  standardized	
  measure	
  has	
  long	
  been	
  absent.	
  
The	
  original	
  version	
  of	
  the	
  FESS	
  was	
  a	
  17-­‐item	
  measure	
  with	
  questions	
  ranging	
  on	
  a	
  5-­‐
point	
  Likert	
  scale.	
  The	
  scale	
  contained	
  items	
  specifically	
  created	
  for	
  the	
  measure	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
items	
  adapted	
  from	
  other	
  researchers	
  (e.g.	
  Mills	
  et	
  al.,	
  1992;	
  Voydanoff	
  &	
  Donnelly,	
  1988;	
  
Voydanoff	
  et	
  al.,	
  1988).	
  The	
  revised	
  scale	
  was	
  pilot	
  tested,	
  and	
  further	
  revisions	
  were	
  made	
  
in	
  connection	
  with	
  the	
  test	
  results.	
  A	
  13-­‐item	
  measure	
  remained	
  and	
  accounted	
  for	
  47.7%	
  

58	
  

	
  
of	
  the	
  variance,	
  with	
  an	
  alpha	
  coefficient	
  ranging	
  from	
  .92	
  -­‐	
  .95.	
  The	
  scale	
  was	
  seen	
  to	
  
measure	
  economic	
  strain	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  well-­‐accepted	
  operational	
  definition	
  
(subjective	
  evaluation	
  of	
  objective	
  economic	
  stress;	
  perception	
  of	
  financial	
  inadequacy	
  due	
  
to	
  one’s	
  financial	
  position).	
  After	
  pilot	
  testing,	
  the	
  13-­‐item	
  measure	
  was	
  re-­‐tested	
  for	
  
validity	
  and	
  reliability.	
  Cronbach’s	
  alpha	
  reliability	
  coefficient	
  for	
  the	
  newly	
  defined	
  scale	
  
was	
  .95,	
  and	
  construct	
  validity	
  was	
  also	
  proven	
  through	
  theory	
  and	
  hypothesis	
  testing	
  
(Hilton	
  &	
  Devall).	
  	
  
The	
  first	
  12-­‐items	
  on	
  the	
  FESS	
  scale	
  ask	
  questions	
  regarding	
  the	
  type,	
  duration,	
  and	
  
effect	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  on	
  the	
  individual;	
  the	
  questions	
  have	
  a	
  5-­‐point	
  Likert	
  scale	
  and	
  
range	
  from	
  “Never”	
  to	
  “Almost	
  Always.”	
  Examples	
  of	
  questions	
  in	
  this	
  section	
  of	
  the	
  scale	
  
are:	
  “In	
  general,	
  it	
  is	
  hard	
  for	
  me	
  and	
  my	
  family	
  to	
  live	
  on	
  our	
  present	
  income;”	
  “I	
  
experience	
  money	
  problems;”	
  “I	
  worry	
  about	
  financial	
  matters;”	
  and	
  “I	
  have	
  to	
  put	
  off	
  
getting	
  medical	
  care	
  for	
  family	
  members	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  expense.”	
  The	
  final	
  question	
  of	
  the	
  
measure	
  asks	
  participants	
  to	
  rank	
  where	
  they	
  believe	
  their	
  current	
  income	
  places	
  them	
  in	
  
comparison	
  to	
  other	
  families	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  This	
  question	
  is	
  on	
  a	
  5-­‐point	
  scale	
  
ranging	
  from	
  “Far	
  below	
  average”	
  to	
  “Far	
  above	
  average”	
  (Hilton	
  &	
  Devall,	
  1997;	
  p.	
  270-­‐
271).	
  The	
  scoring	
  on	
  the	
  survey	
  ranges	
  from	
  0-­‐65	
  with	
  a	
  typical	
  mean	
  score	
  of	
  28	
  
(SD=7.75).	
  The	
  FESS	
  is	
  scored	
  along	
  the	
  guidelines	
  established	
  by	
  Hilton	
  and	
  Devall;	
  the	
  
last	
  question	
  is	
  reverse	
  scored,	
  and	
  all	
  answer	
  choices	
  are	
  tallied.	
  Higher	
  total	
  scale	
  scores	
  
represent	
  higher	
  levels	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  (See	
  Appendix	
  B	
  for	
  complete	
  scale).	
  Falconier	
  
(2010)	
  employed	
  the	
  FESS	
  in	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  links	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  
psychological	
  aggression	
  in	
  Argentinean	
  couples.	
  Falconier	
  and	
  Epstein	
  (2011)	
  
recommended	
  FESS	
  to	
  counselors	
  and	
  practitioners	
  assessing	
  financial	
  strain.	
  For	
  their	
  

59	
  

	
  
study	
  the	
  FESS	
  was	
  translated	
  into	
  Castellano	
  Spanish.	
  The	
  FESS	
  combined	
  with	
  the	
  
researcher’s	
  dyadic	
  approach	
  gave	
  increased	
  support	
  to	
  the	
  results.	
  
Measure	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  
The	
  questionnaire	
  created	
  to	
  measure	
  the	
  religious	
  and	
  spiritual	
  realm	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  
measures	
  created	
  by	
  Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.	
  (1999).	
  In	
  their	
  study,	
  a	
  more	
  
delineated	
  assessment	
  of	
  individual	
  religiousness	
  and	
  participation,	
  religious	
  agreement	
  
between	
  partners,	
  joint	
  religious	
  activities,	
  and	
  measurement	
  of	
  a	
  couple’s	
  religious	
  
evaluation	
  of	
  their	
  union	
  was	
  created.	
  Previous	
  research	
  has	
  mainly	
  focused	
  on	
  single	
  
global	
  item	
  measures	
  such	
  as	
  assessing	
  church	
  attendance,	
  spousal	
  agreement,	
  and	
  spousal	
  
participation.	
  Thus,	
  many	
  areas	
  of	
  spiritual	
  life	
  and	
  the	
  intersection	
  between	
  religiosity	
  and	
  
spirituality	
  had	
  not	
  been	
  measured.	
  Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.	
  designed	
  the	
  
measures	
  based	
  on	
  two	
  constructs,	
  “joint	
  religious	
  activity”	
  and	
  the	
  “sanctification	
  of	
  
marriage”	
  (p.	
  322).	
  Joint	
  participation	
  examines	
  how	
  often	
  partners	
  act	
  together	
  in	
  
religious	
  or	
  spiritual	
  activities	
  or	
  events.	
  This	
  construct	
  delves	
  deep	
  into	
  shared	
  belief	
  and	
  
participation,	
  examining	
  things	
  such	
  as:	
  (a)	
  joint	
  prayer,	
  (b)	
  discussion	
  of	
  spiritual	
  beliefs	
  
and	
  ideas,	
  (c)	
  discussion	
  of	
  God’s	
  will	
  for	
  life	
  and	
  marriage,	
  (d)	
  attending	
  church	
  services,	
  
and	
  (e)	
  engaging	
  in	
  religious	
  events,	
  fellowship,	
  and	
  holidays.	
  The	
  second	
  construct	
  
investigates	
  a	
  couple’s	
  application	
  of	
  spirituality	
  to	
  their	
  marriage,	
  and	
  the	
  spiritual	
  
characteristics	
  used	
  when	
  defining	
  their	
  partnership.	
  The	
  researchers	
  divided	
  this	
  
construct	
  into	
  two	
  categories:	
  (a)	
  viewing	
  marriage	
  as	
  having	
  sacred	
  qualities,	
  and	
  (b)	
  
defining	
  marriage	
  as	
  a	
  manifestation	
  of	
  God.	
  
	
  

The	
  current	
  study	
  employed	
  three	
  of	
  the	
  five	
  measures	
  created	
  by	
  Mahoney,	
  

Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.	
  (1999)	
  including	
  individual	
  religiosity,	
  joint	
  religious	
  activities,	
  and	
  

60	
  

	
  
religious	
  homogamy.	
  All	
  questions	
  on	
  the	
  included	
  measures	
  are	
  worded	
  in	
  a	
  neutral	
  
manner	
  to	
  avoid	
  bias	
  in	
  either	
  direction.	
  Four	
  items	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  frequently	
  used	
  in	
  
psychological	
  and	
  religious	
  research	
  measure	
  individual	
  religiousness.	
  These	
  four	
  items	
  
make	
  up	
  the	
  first	
  scale	
  of	
  individual	
  religiousness.	
  The	
  first	
  two	
  items	
  are	
  rated	
  on	
  a	
  seven-­‐
point	
  Likert	
  scale	
  (from	
  never	
  to	
  once	
  a	
  day),	
  (a)	
  frequency	
  of	
  attending	
  religious	
  services	
  
in	
  the	
  past	
  year,	
  and	
  (b)	
  frequency	
  of	
  prayer	
  outside	
  of	
  church.	
  The	
  other	
  two	
  items	
  on	
  the	
  
scale	
  asked	
  participants	
  to	
  give	
  a	
  global	
  self-­‐report	
  on	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  religiosity	
  and	
  
spirituality;	
  these	
  questions	
  are	
  ranked	
  on	
  five-­‐point	
  scales	
  (from	
  not	
  at	
  all	
  
religious/spiritual	
  to	
  very	
  religious/very	
  spiritual)	
  (p.	
  326).	
  Question	
  ratings	
  are	
  summed,	
  
and	
  the	
  resulting	
  total	
  score	
  reflects	
  an	
  individual’s	
  religiousness.	
  
A	
  13-­‐item	
  measure	
  was	
  used	
  to	
  evaluate	
  joint	
  religious	
  activity.	
  Questions	
  on	
  this	
  
measure	
  are	
  ranked	
  on	
  a	
  seven-­‐point	
  scale	
  (from	
  never	
  to	
  very	
  often)	
  and	
  assess	
  the	
  
shared	
  nature	
  of	
  such	
  activities	
  as	
  praying	
  together,	
  discussing	
  beliefs,	
  talking	
  about	
  God’s	
  
will	
  and	
  role	
  for	
  the	
  marriage,	
  attending	
  church	
  services,	
  classes,	
  or	
  functions,	
  and	
  
recognizing	
  and	
  celebrating	
  religious	
  holidays.	
  Items	
  include:	
  (a)	
  My	
  spouse	
  and	
  I	
  pray	
  
together,	
  (b)	
  My	
  spouse	
  and	
  I	
  talk	
  about	
  our	
  moral	
  and	
  spiritual	
  issues,	
  (c)	
  My	
  spouse	
  and	
  I	
  
go	
  to	
  Bible	
  study	
  together,	
  and	
  (d)	
  My	
  spouse	
  and	
  I	
  engage	
  in	
  religious	
  rituals	
  together	
  (e.g.	
  
fasting,	
  meditation)	
  (Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.,	
  p.	
  337).	
  Question	
  ratings	
  are	
  
summed	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  total.	
  
Religious	
  homogamy,	
  which	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  couples	
  sharing	
  the	
  same	
  faith	
  and	
  
belonging	
  to	
  the	
  same	
  denomination,	
  were	
  measured	
  based	
  on	
  Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  
et	
  al.	
  measure.	
  However,	
  questions	
  were	
  rewritten	
  into	
  two	
  self-­‐report	
  items.	
  Participants	
  
were	
  asked	
  to	
  report	
  their	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  (e.g.	
  Catholic,	
  Protestant,	
  Jewish,	
  other,	
  no	
  

61	
  

	
  
affiliation),	
  and	
  then	
  asked	
  about	
  their	
  partner’s	
  affiliation.	
  This	
  determined	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  
congruence	
  between	
  the	
  spouses	
  and	
  their	
  religious	
  affiliation.	
  In	
  conjunction	
  with	
  
Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.,	
  couples	
  who	
  are	
  “religiously	
  homogamous”	
  was	
  defined	
  
as	
  having	
  matching	
  affiliation	
  between	
  the	
  above	
  categories,	
  while	
  couples	
  classified	
  as	
  
“religiously	
  heterogamous”	
  will	
  have	
  differing	
  affiliation	
  (p.	
  326).	
  	
  
In	
  their	
  study,	
  Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell	
  et	
  al.	
  found	
  through	
  their	
  random	
  
sample	
  of	
  couples	
  born	
  between	
  1995-­‐1996	
  (identified	
  through	
  birth	
  records)	
  that	
  41%	
  of	
  
women	
  identified	
  themselves	
  as	
  Roman	
  Catholic,	
  47%	
  were	
  Protestant,	
  3%	
  were	
  Jewish,	
  
4%	
  identified	
  with	
  the	
  “other”	
  category,	
  and	
  5%	
  had	
  no	
  affiliation.	
  For	
  the	
  men	
  in	
  their	
  
study,	
  38%	
  were	
  Roman	
  Catholic,	
  47%	
  were	
  Protestant,	
  0%	
  were	
  Jewish,	
  6%	
  categorized	
  
themselves	
  as	
  “other”,	
  and	
  9%	
  reported	
  no	
  religious	
  affiliation.	
  Additionally,	
  within	
  their	
  
sample	
  of	
  97	
  couples,	
  69%	
  were	
  classified	
  as	
  religiously	
  homogamous.	
  (See	
  Appendix	
  C	
  for	
  
complete	
  scale).	
  
Economic	
  context	
  
For	
  this	
  study,	
  economic	
  context	
  was	
  acknowledged	
  in	
  connection	
  with	
  its	
  influence	
  
on	
  economic	
  matters	
  (e.g.	
  job	
  status,	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain)	
  and	
  its	
  association	
  with	
  
ecological	
  and	
  systems	
  theories,	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  guiding	
  theoretical	
  framework	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  
study.	
  The	
  broad	
  economic	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  time,	
  the	
  economic	
  recession,	
  must	
  be	
  
considered	
  as	
  an	
  important	
  influence	
  on	
  the	
  variables	
  being	
  tested:	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  and	
  belief,	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
Thus,	
  for	
  this	
  study,	
  economic	
  context	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  current	
  economic	
  recession	
  will	
  be	
  
recognized	
  through	
  the	
  demographic	
  and	
  governmental	
  data	
  previously	
  presented.	
  
	
  

62	
  

	
  
Analysis	
  
	
  

Frequency	
  and	
  descriptive	
  statistics	
  were	
  reported	
  for	
  the	
  demographic	
  data	
  

provided	
  by	
  the	
  participants.	
  These	
  data	
  helped	
  profile	
  the	
  sample.	
  Descriptive	
  statistics	
  
also	
  were	
  run	
  to	
  determine	
  the	
  mean,	
  minimum,	
  and	
  maximum	
  total	
  scale	
  scores	
  of	
  the	
  
DAS	
  and	
  FESS	
  measures.	
  In	
  addition,	
  linear	
  regression,	
  tested	
  the	
  relationships	
  of	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  to:	
  (a)	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  (b)	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  
(c)	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief.	
  	
  
	
  

Further	
  analysis	
  was	
  preformed	
  through	
  the	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  test	
  of	
  mediation,	
  and	
  

tests	
  of	
  moderated-­‐mediation.	
  The	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  determined	
  whether	
  variations	
  
in	
  the	
  independent	
  or	
  predictor	
  variable	
  significantly	
  explained	
  variations	
  in	
  the	
  mediating	
  
variable,	
  and	
  similarly	
  if	
  variations	
  in	
  the	
  mediating	
  variable	
  significantly	
  explained	
  
variations	
  in	
  the	
  dependent	
  variable.	
  The	
  regression	
  tests	
  utilized	
  in	
  testing	
  the	
  moderated-­‐
mediation	
  determined	
  whether	
  the	
  mediating	
  effect	
  was	
  amplified	
  or	
  suppressed	
  by	
  the	
  
presence	
  of	
  the	
  moderator.	
  Through	
  the	
  regression	
  models	
  and	
  the	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  
Significance,	
  it	
  was	
  determined	
  if	
  relationships	
  were	
  present	
  between	
  the	
  variables,	
  and	
  
the	
  amount	
  of	
  variance	
  explained	
  in	
  the	
  dependent	
  variable.	
  
Fritz	
  and	
  MacKinnon	
  (2007)	
  identified	
  through	
  their	
  survey	
  of	
  the	
  literature	
  and	
  
power	
  analysis	
  simulations,	
  three	
  tests	
  of	
  stepwise	
  mediation	
  that	
  showed	
  increased	
  
power.	
  Of	
  those,	
  the	
  researchers	
  recommend	
  the	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  test	
  as	
  one	
  that	
  should	
  
be	
  used	
  due	
  to	
  its	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  power.	
  Mallinckrodt,	
  Abraham,	
  Wei,	
  and	
  Russell	
  (2006)	
  
demonstrated	
  that	
  the	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  maintains	
  a	
  strong	
  balance	
  between	
  Type	
  1	
  
error	
  rates	
  and	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  statistical	
  power.	
  More	
  specifically,	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  yields	
  
.80	
  power	
  even	
  with	
  smaller	
  sample	
  sizes;	
  in	
  fact,	
  it	
  detects	
  large	
  effects	
  with	
  sample	
  sizes	
  

63	
  

	
  
as	
  small	
  as	
  50	
  and	
  medium	
  effects	
  with	
  samples	
  around	
  100	
  while	
  maintaining	
  normal	
  
Type	
  1	
  error	
  rates.	
  Low	
  Type	
  1	
  error	
  rates	
  and	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  power	
  with	
  smaller	
  samples	
  
are	
  the	
  primary	
  reasons	
  why	
  the	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  is	
  considered	
  the	
  recommended	
  
causal	
  steps	
  test	
  of	
  mediation	
  (Fritz	
  and	
  MacKinnon,	
  2007;	
  MacKinnon,	
  Lockwood,	
  
Hoffman,	
  West,	
  &	
  Sheets,	
  2002).	
  The	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  utilizes	
  multiple	
  regression	
  
models	
  structured	
  in	
  a	
  stepwise	
  fashion	
  to	
  determine	
  if	
  mediation	
  is	
  present.	
  This	
  test	
  
requires	
  a	
  significant	
  relationship	
  between:	
  (a)	
  the	
  predictor	
  variable	
  and	
  the	
  proposed	
  
mediator,	
  and	
  (b)	
  the	
  mediator	
  on	
  the	
  outcome	
  variable	
  while	
  controlling	
  for	
  the	
  predictor	
  
variable.	
  If	
  both	
  relationships	
  (a	
  &	
  b)	
  are	
  significant,	
  mediation	
  is	
  present	
  (Fritz	
  &	
  
MacKinnon,	
  2007).	
  	
  
	
  

Analysis	
  of	
  the	
  first	
  hypothesis	
  utilized	
  linear	
  regression,	
  with	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  

underemployment	
  as	
  a	
  predictor	
  and	
  martial	
  satisfaction	
  as	
  the	
  outcome	
  variable.	
  The	
  
second	
  hypothesis	
  tested	
  two	
  parts:	
  hypothesis	
  2a	
  and	
  hypothesis	
  2b.	
  Hypothesis	
  2a	
  stated	
  
that	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  direct	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
Regression	
  analysis	
  was	
  run	
  to	
  test	
  hypothesis	
  2a.	
  Hypothesis	
  2b	
  examined	
  the	
  mediating	
  
effect	
  of	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  between	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  This	
  hypothesis	
  employed	
  the	
  casual	
  steps	
  method	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  
(described	
  above),	
  which	
  tested	
  the	
  relationships	
  between	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  and	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  The	
  
final	
  hypothesis	
  tested	
  three	
  parts:	
  hypothesis	
  3a,	
  3b,	
  and	
  3c.	
  Hypothesis	
  3a	
  asserted	
  that	
  
religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  would	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Regression	
  
analysis	
  was	
  run	
  to	
  test	
  this	
  hypothesis.	
  The	
  regression	
  model	
  for	
  hypothesis	
  3a	
  included	
  
the	
  mediation	
  variables	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  an	
  additional	
  independent	
  

64	
  

	
  
variable.	
  Hypotheses	
  3b	
  tested	
  the	
  moderating	
  effect	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  on	
  the	
  
mediator	
  of	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain.	
  A	
  series	
  of	
  regression	
  analyses	
  were	
  preformed	
  to	
  
test	
  the	
  moderation.	
  The	
  results	
  from	
  the	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  also	
  were	
  utilized,	
  for	
  the	
  
third	
  hypothesis,	
  to	
  determine	
  if	
  there	
  was	
  significant	
  mediation.	
  Hypothesis	
  3c	
  stated	
  that	
  
religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  would	
  function	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource,	
  protecting	
  couples	
  
against	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  economic	
  strain.	
  This	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  examined	
  through	
  analysis	
  of	
  
the	
  direction	
  of	
  the	
  moderating	
  effect.	
  

65	
  

	
  
CHAPTER	
  IV	
  
RESULTS	
  
Sample	
  Means	
  &	
  Frequencies	
  
	
  

The	
  present	
  study	
  had	
  a	
  sample	
  size	
  of	
  100	
  participants.	
  There	
  were	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  102	
  

participants	
  who	
  took	
  the	
  survey	
  measure;	
  however,	
  two	
  outlying	
  cases	
  were	
  deleted,	
  as	
  
the	
  employment	
  criteria	
  in	
  these	
  cases	
  did	
  not	
  match	
  the	
  aim	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  study.	
  The	
  
length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  given	
  in	
  these	
  cases	
  had	
  the	
  participants	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  workforce	
  for	
  
the	
  majority	
  of	
  their	
  lives,	
  indicating	
  extenuating	
  circumstances	
  or	
  conscious	
  decisions	
  to	
  
remain	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  workforce.	
  The	
  aim	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  was	
  to	
  investigate	
  
unemployment	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  the	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics	
  (BLS)	
  definition.	
  This	
  definition	
  
states	
  that	
  unemployed	
  individuals	
  are	
  looking	
  and	
  available	
  for	
  work;	
  they	
  are	
  
unemployed	
  due	
  to	
  circumstance	
  and	
  not	
  choice.	
  The	
  outlying	
  cases	
  that	
  were	
  deleted	
  from	
  
the	
  present	
  study	
  indicated	
  lengths	
  of	
  unemployment	
  that	
  fell	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  the	
  BLS	
  
definition	
  of	
  individuals	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  labor	
  force.	
  An	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  would	
  be	
  an	
  
individual	
  who	
  has	
  neither	
  held	
  a	
  job	
  nor	
  looked	
  for	
  a	
  job	
  due	
  to	
  choice	
  or	
  disability	
  
(Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.).	
  
The	
  mean	
  age	
  of	
  the	
  sample	
  was	
  50.8,	
  with	
  the	
  mean	
  number	
  of	
  years	
  married	
  at	
  
20.5.	
  Table	
  1	
  depicts	
  the	
  results.	
  The	
  sample	
  was	
  predominately	
  Caucasian/white	
  (71%),	
  
and	
  the	
  second	
  largest	
  group	
  was	
  African	
  American	
  (20%).	
  All	
  other	
  ethnicities	
  together	
  
made	
  up	
  only	
  9%	
  of	
  the	
  sample.	
  Thirty-­‐two	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  sample	
  had	
  obtained	
  a	
  
bachelor’s	
  degree,	
  and	
  29%	
  had	
  a	
  graduate	
  or	
  professional	
  degree.	
  This	
  gives	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  61%	
  
of	
  the	
  sample	
  educated	
  beyond	
  a	
  secondary	
  school	
  level.	
  The	
  years	
  lived	
  at	
  current	
  
residence	
  were	
  high,	
  with	
  63%	
  of	
  the	
  sample	
  living	
  more	
  than	
  10	
  years	
  at	
  their	
  place	
  of	
  

66	
  

	
  
residence.	
  Fifty-­‐three	
  precent	
  of	
  participants	
  classified	
  themselves	
  as	
  unemployed.	
  Spousal	
  
employment	
  status	
  had	
  45%	
  fully	
  employed	
  and	
  53%	
  in	
  the	
  categories	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  collectively.	
  The	
  mean	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  for	
  
participants	
  was	
  26	
  months,	
  while	
  the	
  mean	
  length	
  for	
  spouses	
  was	
  18	
  months.	
  Combined	
  
participant	
  and	
  spouse	
  “family”	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  had	
  a	
  mean	
  of	
  44	
  
months.	
  Frequencies	
  for	
  family	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  had	
  6%	
  of	
  the	
  sample	
  at	
  
12	
  months,	
  9%	
  at	
  24	
  months,	
  and	
  7%	
  at	
  36	
  months.	
  Thirty-­‐five	
  percent	
  of	
  participants	
  
reported	
  that	
  they	
  and/or	
  their	
  spouses	
  had	
  been	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployed	
  for	
  24	
  months	
  and	
  
below.	
  Over	
  half	
  (55%)	
  of	
  the	
  combined	
  participant	
  and	
  spousal	
  length	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployed	
  data	
  was	
  reported	
  at	
  36	
  months	
  and	
  below.	
  The	
  mean	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  for	
  spouses	
  was	
  18	
  months;	
  however,	
  49%	
  of	
  spouses	
  were	
  currently	
  
employed,	
  while	
  73%	
  of	
  spouses	
  were	
  ranked	
  at	
  24	
  months	
  and	
  below.	
  Eighty	
  percent	
  of	
  
the	
  sample	
  identified	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  in	
  the	
  categories	
  of	
  Catholic	
  and	
  protestant	
  
(Christian	
  non-­‐catholic).	
  Further,	
  75%	
  of	
  participants	
  reported	
  they	
  share	
  the	
  same	
  
religious	
  affiliation	
  as	
  their	
  spouse,	
  which	
  represents	
  a	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  religious	
  homogamy.	
  
Complete	
  demographic	
  frequencies	
  are	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  2.	
  Within	
  this	
  sample,	
  participants	
  
mean	
  DAS	
  scores	
  were	
  103.8	
  (SD	
  =	
  23.8).	
  Further,	
  the	
  mean	
  FESS	
  scale	
  score	
  for	
  
participants	
  was	
  36.6	
  (SD=10.1).	
  	
  
Table	
  1	
  
	
  
Mean	
  Age	
  and	
  Number	
  of	
  Years	
  Married	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Age	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
Years	
  married	
  

	
  

	
  

Mean	
   	
  

SD	
  

	
  

	
  

50.8	
   	
  

9.8	
  

	
  

	
  

20.5	
   	
  

12.7	
  
67	
  

	
  
	
  
Table	
  2	
  
	
  
Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Demographic	
  Data	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
f	
  
	
  
	
  
African	
  American	
  	
   	
  
	
  
20	
  
	
  
	
  
Asian/Pacific	
  Islander	
  
	
  
2	
  
	
  
	
  
Caucasian/White	
   	
  
	
  
71	
  
	
  
	
  
Hispanic	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
4	
  
	
  
	
  
Multiracial	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
1	
  
	
  
	
  
Native	
  American	
  
	
  
	
  
2	
  
	
  
	
  
Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Level	
  of	
  Education	
  

	
  
%	
  

	
  

cum	
  %	
  

20.0	
   	
  

20.0	
  

2.0	
  

	
  

22.0	
  

71.0	
   	
  

93.0	
  

4.0	
  

	
  

97.0	
  

1.0	
  

	
  

98.0	
  

2.0	
  

	
  

100.0	
  

Less	
  than	
  9th	
  grade	
   	
  
	
  
1	
  
	
  
1.0	
   	
  
1.0	
  
	
  
12th	
  grade,	
  no	
  diploma	
  
	
  
3	
  
	
  
3.0	
   	
  
4.0	
  
	
  
High	
  school	
  graduate	
  
	
  
7	
  
	
  
7.0	
   	
  
11.0	
  
	
  
Some	
  college,	
  no	
  degree	
  
	
  
19	
  
	
  
19.0	
   	
  
30.0	
  
	
  
Associate	
  degree	
  
	
  
	
  
9	
  
	
  
9.0	
   	
  
39.0	
  
	
  
Bachelor’s	
  degree	
   	
  
	
  
32	
  
	
  
32.0	
   	
  
71.0	
  
	
  
Graduate	
  or	
  professional	
  degree	
   29	
  
	
  
29.0	
   	
  
100.0	
  
	
  
Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Number	
  of	
  Years	
  at	
  Current	
  Residence	
  	
  
Fewer	
  than	
  2	
  yrs	
  
	
  
2-­‐5	
  yrs	
  
	
  
	
  
6-­‐10	
  yrs	
  
	
  
	
  
More	
  than	
  10	
  yrs	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

10	
  

	
  

10.0	
   	
  

10.0	
  

	
  

	
  

12	
  

	
  

12.0	
   	
  

22.2	
  

	
  

	
  

14	
  

	
  

14.0	
   	
  

36.4	
  

	
  

	
  

63	
  

	
  

63.0	
   	
  

100.0	
  

68	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
Table	
  2	
  cont’d	
  
	
  
Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Participant’s	
  Employment	
  Status	
  
f	
  

	
  

%	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
Fully	
  employed	
  
	
  
	
  
7	
  
	
  
7.0	
   	
  
	
  
Unemployed	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
53	
  
	
  
53.0	
   	
  
	
  
Underemployed	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
40	
  
	
  
40.0	
   	
  
(not	
  in	
  full	
  or	
  satisfactory	
  employment)	
  
	
  
Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Spouse’s	
  Employment	
  Status	
  
Fully	
  employed	
  
	
  
	
  
45	
  
	
  
	
  
Unemployed	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
24	
  
	
  
	
  
Underemployed	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
29	
  
	
  
(not	
  in	
  full	
  or	
  satisfactory	
  employment)	
  
	
  
Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Religious	
  Affiliation	
  

cum	
  %	
  
7.0	
  
60.0	
  
100.0	
  

	
  

45.0	
   	
  

45.9	
  

24.0	
   	
  

70.4	
  

29.0	
   	
  

100.0	
  

Catholic	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
32	
  
	
  
32.0	
   	
  
32.0	
  
	
  
Protestant	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
48	
  
	
  
48.0	
   	
  
80.0	
  
(Christian	
  non-­‐catholic)	
  
	
  
Jewish	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
2	
  
	
  
2.0	
   	
  
82.0	
  
	
  
Other	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
6	
  
	
  
6.0	
   	
  
88.0	
  
(Muslim,	
  Buddhist)	
  
	
  
No	
  Affiliation	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
12	
  
	
  
12.0	
   	
  
100.0	
  
	
  
Frequency	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Shared	
  Religious	
  Affiliation	
  Between	
  Spouses	
  
Yes	
  
	
  
No	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

75	
  

	
  

75.0	
   	
  

75.0	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

25	
  

	
  

25.0	
   	
  

100.0	
  

	
  

69	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  1	
  
•

The	
  instance	
  of	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  (since	
  individuals	
  felt	
  
they	
  were	
  fully	
  employed)	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
(Hypothesis	
  1)	
  (Figure	
  1).	
  

The	
  first	
  hypothesis	
  asserted	
  that	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  would	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  
effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  The	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  set	
  as	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  relationship	
  
between	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Taking	
  the	
  data	
  from	
  both	
  
participant	
  and	
  participant’s	
  spousal	
  report	
  to	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  employment,	
  a	
  new	
  variable	
  
representing	
  family	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  status	
  was	
  created	
  and	
  utilized	
  to	
  test	
  the	
  
first	
  hypothesis.	
  The	
  family	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  variable	
  represents	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  both	
  
members	
  of	
  the	
  marital	
  dyad.	
  Thus,	
  the	
  marital	
  dyad	
  was	
  the	
  unit	
  of	
  analysis	
  as	
  the	
  
participant	
  informed	
  on	
  both	
  their	
  employment	
  status	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  their	
  spouse.	
  After	
  the	
  
responses	
  were	
  combined	
  and	
  the	
  new	
  variable	
  was	
  formed,	
  a	
  regression	
  analysis	
  with	
  the	
  
outcome	
  variable	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  was	
  performed	
  (marital	
  satisfaction	
  =	
  α	
  +	
  
β1(un/underemployment)+ε).	
  The	
  results	
  of	
  this	
  analysis	
  revealed	
  that	
  there	
  was	
  no	
  
significant	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  Thus,	
  the	
  first	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  not	
  supported,	
  and	
  the	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  
failed	
  to	
  be	
  rejected.	
  Table	
  3	
  depicts	
  the	
  results.	
  
Table	
  3	
  
	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)	
  
	
  
Variable	
  
B	
  
SE	
  
t	
  
Family	
  un-­‐or	
  
-­‐.048	
  
.065	
  
-­‐.735	
  
underemployment	
  

70	
  

Sig.	
  (p)	
  
.464	
  

	
  
Table	
  3	
  cont’d	
  
	
  
Note.	
  *p<	
  .01.	
  **p<	
  0.05.	
  ***p<	
  0.01.	
  
R2	
  =	
  .005	
  
Hypothesis	
  2	
  
•

Perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  will	
  directly	
  affect	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
(Hypothesis	
  2a)	
  

•

Un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  will	
  have	
  an	
  indirect	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
through	
  the	
  mediation	
  of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  when	
  controlling	
  for	
  the	
  effect	
  
of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  (Hypothesis	
  2b)	
  (Figure	
  2)	
  	
  

The	
  second	
  hypothesis	
  had	
  two	
  parts,	
  a	
  and	
  b.	
  Hypothesis	
  2a	
  stated	
  economic	
  strain	
  
will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  and	
  the	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  set	
  as	
  there	
  is	
  
no	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Regression	
  analysis	
  was	
  
conducted	
  testing	
  the	
  direct	
  effect	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  (marital	
  
satisfaction	
  =	
  α+β1(economic	
  strain)+ε).	
  Hypothesis	
  2a	
  was	
  supported;	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  
significant	
  direct	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  resulting	
  in	
  
rejection	
  of	
  the	
  null	
  hypothesis.	
  Table	
  4	
  has	
  the	
  results	
  from	
  the	
  analysis.	
  Economic	
  strain	
  
accounted	
  for	
  11%	
  of	
  the	
  variance.	
  
Table	
  4	
  
	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)	
  
	
  
Variable	
  
B	
  
SE	
  
t	
  
Economic	
  
-­‐.784	
  
.224	
  
-­‐3.509	
  
Strain	
  
Note.	
  *p<	
  .01.	
  **p<	
  0.05.	
  ***p<	
  0.01.	
  
R2	
  =	
  .110	
  
	
  

71	
  

Sig.	
  (p)	
  
.001***	
  

	
  
Hypothesis	
  2b	
  stated	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  will	
  have	
  an	
  indirect	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  through	
  the	
  mediation	
  of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  when	
  controlling	
  for	
  the	
  effect	
  
of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  The	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  set	
  as	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  mediating	
  
relationship	
  between	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
The	
  mediating	
  effect	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  was	
  tested	
  using	
  the	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance.	
  The	
  
first	
  step	
  in	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  tested	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  as	
  the	
  predictor	
  on	
  economic	
  
strain.	
  This	
  step	
  tested	
  the	
  relationship	
  of	
  the	
  predictor	
  to	
  the	
  mediator	
  (economic	
  strain	
  =	
  
α+β1(family	
  un/underemployment)+ε).	
  There	
  was	
  a	
  significant	
  relationship,	
  and	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  accounted	
  for	
  9%	
  of	
  the	
  variance.	
  The	
  second	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  Joint	
  
Significance	
  test	
  examined	
  the	
  mediator,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  its	
  relationship	
  to	
  martial	
  
satisfaction	
  (marital	
  satisfaction	
  =	
  α+β1(family	
  un/underemployment)+β2	
  (economic	
  
strain)+ε).	
  This	
  significant	
  model	
  accounted	
  for	
  11%	
  of	
  the	
  variance.	
  Both	
  elements	
  in	
  the	
  
stepwise	
  test	
  of	
  Joint	
  Significance	
  were	
  significant,	
  thus	
  supporting	
  hypothesis	
  2b	
  and	
  the	
  
mediation	
  model.	
  Based	
  on	
  the	
  results,	
  the	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  rejected.	
  The	
  results	
  of	
  the	
  
mediation	
  analyses	
  are	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5.	
  
Table	
  5	
  
	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Economic	
  Strain	
  &	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N=100)	
  
	
  
Variable	
  
B	
  
SE	
  
t	
  
Sig.	
  (p)	
  
un-­or	
  underemployment	
  	
  economic	
  strain	
  (R2	
  =	
  .091)	
  
	
  
Family	
  un-­‐or	
  
.082	
  
.026	
  
3.124	
  
underemployment	
  	
  

.002**	
  

un-­or	
  underemployment	
  	
  economic	
  strain	
  	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  (R2	
  =	
  .110)	
  
Economic	
  Strain	
  
-­‐.803	
  
.238	
  
-­‐3.380	
  
.001***	
  
Family	
  un-­‐or	
  
.018	
  
.065	
  
.280	
  
.780	
  
underemployment	
  
Note.	
  *p<	
  .01.	
  **p<	
  0.05.	
  ***p<	
  0.01.	
  

72	
  

	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  3	
  
•

Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
(Hypothesis	
  3a)	
  

•

Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  buffer,	
  or	
  moderate	
  the	
  mediating	
  effects	
  of	
  
economic	
  strain	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  (Hypothesis	
  3b)	
  

•

Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  serve	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource.	
  (Hypothesis	
  3c)	
  
(Figure	
  3)	
  

The	
  third	
  hypothesis	
  had	
  three	
  parts	
  a,	
  b,	
  and	
  c.	
  For	
  hypothesis	
  3c	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  was	
  hypothesized	
  as,	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  reported	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  
have	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  less	
  affected	
  by	
  the	
  consequences	
  of	
  economic	
  strain.	
  
Hypothesis	
  3c	
  analyzed	
  if	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  the	
  moderation	
  is	
  as	
  predicted,	
  if	
  the	
  moderating	
  
effect	
  works	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource.	
  A	
  regression	
  analysis	
  was	
  conducted	
  with	
  economic	
  
strain	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  the	
  predictors	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  as	
  the	
  
dependent	
  variable	
  (marital	
  satisfaction	
  =	
  α+β1(family	
  un/underemployment)+β2	
  
(economic	
  strain)+	
  β3(religious	
  affiliation/belief)+ε)	
  (hypothesis	
  3a).	
  Table	
  6	
  has	
  the	
  
results	
  from	
  the	
  analysis.	
  Economic	
  strain	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  accounted	
  for	
  
30%	
  of	
  the	
  variance,	
  and	
  both	
  predictors	
  had	
  significant,	
  direct	
  relationships	
  with	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  The	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  rejected,	
  thus	
  hypothesis	
  3a	
  was	
  supported.	
  
Table	
  6	
  
	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)	
  
	
  
Variable	
  
B	
  
SE	
  
t	
  
Family	
  un-­‐or	
  
.010	
  
.058	
  
.165	
  
underemployment	
  

73	
  

Sig.	
  (p)	
  
.869	
  

	
  
Table	
  6	
  cont’d	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Economic	
  Strain	
  
-­‐.616	
  
Religious	
  	
  
	
  
Affiliation/Belief	
  	
  
.415	
  
Note.	
  *p<	
  .01.	
  **p<	
  0.05.	
  ***p<	
  0.01.	
  
R2	
  =	
  .289	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
.217	
  
	
  
.085	
  

	
  
	
  
-­‐2.842	
  
	
  
4.905	
  

	
  
	
  
.005**	
  
	
  
.000***	
  

Testing	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  moderating	
  the	
  mediation	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  
(hypothesis	
  3b)	
  was	
  done	
  through	
  regression	
  analyses	
  (marital	
  satisfaction	
  =	
  α+β1(family	
  
un/underemployment)+β2	
  (economic	
  strain)+β3(religious	
  affiliation/belief)+β4(ES	
  x	
  
RA)+ε).	
  This	
  model	
  also	
  effectively	
  tested	
  the	
  component	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  
working	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource	
  (hypothesis	
  3c).	
  In	
  this	
  analysis,	
  family	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief,	
  and	
  interaction	
  or	
  
combination	
  of	
  the	
  two	
  latter	
  variables	
  (ES	
  X	
  RA)	
  were	
  the	
  predictor	
  variables,	
  with	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  as	
  the	
  outcome	
  variable.	
  Family	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  economic	
  strain	
  
were	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  model,	
  representing	
  the	
  mediation	
  effect.	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  
and	
  the	
  combination	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  were	
  added	
  to	
  test	
  
the	
  presence	
  of	
  moderation.	
  Here,	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  the	
  variable	
  combining	
  economic	
  
strain	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  were	
  both	
  significant	
  predictors	
  of	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  The	
  moderating-­‐mediation	
  component	
  of	
  the	
  third	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  supported;	
  
the	
  null	
  hypothesis	
  was	
  rejected.	
  Table	
  7	
  contains	
  the	
  results	
  from	
  the	
  analysis.	
  This	
  model	
  
accounted	
  for	
  34%	
  of	
  the	
  variance.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
74	
  

	
  
Table	
  7	
  	
  
	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Regression	
  Analysis	
  for	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  (N	
  =	
  100)	
  
	
  
Variable	
  
B	
  
SE	
  
t	
  
Sig.	
  (p)	
  
Family	
  un-­‐or	
  
-­‐.001	
  
.056	
  
-­‐.014	
  
.989	
  
underemployment	
  
Economic	
  Strain	
  
-­‐1.976	
  
.554	
  
-­‐3.565	
  
.001***	
  
Religious	
  
-­‐.315	
  
.287	
  
-­‐1.097	
  
.275	
  
Affiliation/Belief	
  	
  
ES	
  X	
  RA	
  
.020	
  
.008	
  
2.651	
  
.009**	
  
Note.	
  *p<	
  .01.	
  **p<	
  0.05.	
  ***p<	
  0.01.	
  
R2	
  =	
  .338	
  
In	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  for	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource	
  a	
  
significant	
  moderated-­‐mediation	
  must	
  be	
  supported.	
  This	
  would	
  state	
  that	
  when	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  is	
  present,	
  the	
  strength	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  
marital	
  satisfaction	
  is	
  affected.	
  Statistically	
  significant	
  moderation	
  was	
  taken	
  as	
  evidence	
  of	
  
religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource.	
  To	
  present	
  the	
  protective	
  or	
  adaptive	
  
effects	
  that	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  have	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  Figure	
  4	
  was	
  created.	
  
The	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  total	
  scale	
  scores	
  were	
  ordered	
  from	
  least	
  to	
  greatest	
  and	
  
the	
  split	
  into	
  two	
  groups	
  (high	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  &	
  low	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief)	
  
based	
  on	
  the	
  median	
  figure.	
  These	
  scores	
  were	
  then	
  paired	
  with	
  the	
  participant’s	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  and	
  economic	
  strain	
  total	
  scale	
  scores.	
  The	
  results	
  are	
  pictured	
  in	
  Figure	
  4.	
  
Summary	
  of	
  Findings	
  
	
  

A	
  significant	
  relationship	
  was	
  found	
  in	
  two	
  of	
  the	
  three	
  hypotheses	
  and	
  their	
  related	
  

parts.	
  No	
  significant	
  relationship	
  was	
  found	
  between	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  level	
  of	
  
marital	
  satisfaction.	
  However,	
  as	
  expected,	
  there	
  were	
  significant	
  outcomes	
  in	
  the	
  second	
  
and	
  third	
  hypotheses.	
  There	
  was	
  a	
  significant	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  
marital	
  satisfaction.	
  As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5,	
  economic	
  strain	
  mediates	
  the	
  relationship	
  

75	
  

	
  
between	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  when	
  controlling	
  for	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment.	
  In	
  hypothesis	
  3a,	
  a	
  significant	
  direct	
  relationship	
  was	
  found	
  between	
  
religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Further,	
  as	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  7,	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  moderated	
  the	
  mediation	
  found	
  between	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  
economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Within	
  the	
  moderating-­‐mediation,	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  was	
  found	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource,	
  protecting	
  or	
  buffering	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  
economic	
  strain	
  on	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  

76	
  

	
  
CHAPTER	
  V	
  
DISCUSSION	
  
Demographics	
  
This	
  sample	
  had	
  96.9%	
  of	
  all	
  participants	
  in	
  the	
  age	
  range	
  of	
  40-­‐65.	
  This	
  span	
  in	
  age	
  
represents	
  diversity	
  within	
  the	
  age	
  bracket	
  of	
  mature	
  workers.	
  This	
  may	
  be	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  
nature	
  of	
  recruitment;	
  sampling	
  from	
  job	
  seeker	
  groups	
  held	
  within	
  religious	
  facilities.	
  On	
  
the	
  demographic	
  measure,	
  the	
  family	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  data	
  reported	
  
(55%	
  of	
  participants	
  and	
  participant	
  spouses	
  were	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployed	
  for	
  36+	
  months)	
  
was	
  close	
  to	
  Murray’s	
  (2010)	
  statistic	
  of	
  4.7	
  million	
  out	
  of	
  work	
  one	
  year	
  or	
  greater.	
  During	
  
this	
  recession,	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  has	
  been	
  longer	
  than	
  any	
  other	
  time	
  in	
  
history,	
  and	
  the	
  present	
  sample	
  followed	
  that	
  pattern	
  (Mattingly	
  &	
  Smith,	
  2010).	
  The	
  above	
  
statistic	
  also	
  follows	
  previous	
  research	
  that	
  states	
  older	
  workers	
  have	
  been	
  out	
  of	
  work	
  
longer	
  (Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics,	
  n.d.a.).	
  The	
  present	
  study,	
  with	
  a	
  mean	
  participant	
  age	
  of	
  
50.8	
  and	
  over	
  half	
  of	
  participants	
  and	
  spouses	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployed	
  for	
  a	
  span	
  of	
  three	
  
years,	
  follows	
  the	
  trend	
  of	
  mature	
  workers	
  experiencing	
  prolonged	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment.	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  overwhelming	
  majority	
  (80%)	
  represented	
  in	
  the	
  
religious	
  affiliation	
  categories,	
  Catholic	
  and	
  protestant	
  (Christian	
  non-­‐catholic),	
  is	
  similar	
  to	
  
the	
  results	
  suggested	
  in	
  the	
  Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell,	
  et	
  al.	
  (1999)	
  study.	
  In	
  this	
  study,	
  
women	
  and	
  men	
  were	
  surveyed	
  separately.	
  However,	
  in	
  both	
  cases	
  the	
  results	
  were	
  similar	
  
to	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  with	
  88%	
  and	
  85%	
  respectively	
  falling	
  into	
  the	
  above	
  categories.	
  In	
  
this	
  sample	
  there	
  also	
  was	
  a	
  very	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  religious	
  homogamy	
  (75%	
  of	
  couples	
  shared	
  
the	
  same	
  religious	
  faith).	
  This	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  factor	
  as	
  previous	
  research	
  reveals,	
  high	
  

77	
  

	
  
levels	
  of	
  religious	
  homogamy	
  relate	
  to	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  martial	
  satisfaction	
  (Heaton	
  &	
  Pratt,	
  
1990).	
  
Hypothesis	
  1	
  
The	
  results	
  supported	
  two	
  of	
  the	
  three	
  hypotheses,	
  and	
  overall	
  were	
  consistent	
  with	
  
much	
  of	
  the	
  previous	
  research.	
  For	
  the	
  first	
  hypothesis,	
  testing	
  the	
  direct	
  effect	
  of	
  the	
  
objective	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  on	
  martial	
  satisfaction,	
  no	
  significant	
  direct	
  
relationship	
  was	
  found.	
  Un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  did	
  not	
  significantly	
  
affect	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  This	
  fails	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  first	
  hypothesis;	
  however,	
  this	
  result	
  
connects	
  with	
  previous	
  research.	
  There	
  is	
  research	
  that	
  suggests	
  the	
  subjective	
  occurrence	
  
of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  how	
  the	
  objective	
  instance	
  is	
  perceived,	
  is	
  a	
  more	
  powerful	
  indicator	
  of	
  
satisfaction	
  (Clark-­‐Nicolas	
  &	
  Gray-­‐Little,	
  1991;	
  Fox	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  1998;	
  Kinnunen	
  &	
  
Pulkkinen,	
  1998).	
  These	
  results	
  are	
  consistent	
  with	
  family	
  stress	
  theory,	
  which	
  states	
  that	
  
the	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  stressor	
  is	
  the	
  factor	
  that	
  most	
  affects	
  families’	
  resilience	
  or	
  crisis	
  
response	
  (Boss,	
  2002;	
  Boss,	
  Doherty,	
  LaRossa,	
  Schumm,	
  &	
  Steinmetz,	
  1993).	
  Conger	
  et	
  al.	
  
(2010)	
  stated	
  that	
  a	
  perception	
  or	
  psychological	
  meaning	
  is	
  always	
  attached	
  to	
  objective	
  
hardship,	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  this	
  subjective	
  evaluation	
  that	
  influences	
  marital	
  outcomes.	
  Un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  represents	
  objective	
  hardship	
  or	
  stress,	
  and	
  the	
  
processing	
  of	
  this	
  then	
  takes	
  place	
  through	
  economic	
  strain,	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception	
  of	
  
the	
  objective	
  event.	
  Khan	
  &	
  Morrow	
  (1991)	
  found	
  that	
  the	
  occurrence	
  of	
  
underemployment	
  is	
  better	
  understood	
  through	
  the	
  subjective	
  assessment	
  of	
  the	
  
participants.	
  It	
  is	
  more	
  closely	
  aligned	
  and	
  controlled	
  through	
  personal	
  evaluation.	
  
Previous	
  research	
  states	
  that	
  unemployment	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  risk	
  factor	
  for	
  economic	
  strain	
  
and	
  distress	
  (Edin	
  &	
  Kissane,	
  2010).	
  Thus,	
  when	
  the	
  objective	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  

78	
  

	
  
unemployment	
  takes	
  place,	
  there	
  are	
  salient	
  effects	
  through	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception.	
  The	
  
present	
  study	
  has	
  found	
  that	
  economic	
  strain	
  appears	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  objective	
  
economic	
  loss.	
  When	
  this	
  loss	
  or	
  deficiency	
  occurs,	
  the	
  effect	
  the	
  loss	
  has	
  and	
  the	
  outcome	
  
of	
  the	
  loss	
  is	
  determined	
  by	
  the	
  subjective	
  evaluation	
  (Falconier	
  &	
  Epstein,	
  2011).	
  Thus,	
  the	
  
occurrence	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  takes	
  place,	
  but	
  the	
  depth	
  through	
  which	
  it	
  affects	
  
marital	
  life	
  and	
  satisfaction	
  is	
  established	
  by	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  that	
  is	
  felt.	
  	
  
Hypothesis	
  2	
  
Both	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  second	
  hypothesis	
  (hypothesis	
  2a	
  &	
  hypothesis	
  2b)	
  were	
  found	
  to	
  
be	
  significant.	
  Economic	
  strain	
  had	
  a	
  mediating	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  
objective	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  This	
  
supports	
  the	
  notion	
  that	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  was	
  only	
  related	
  to	
  martial	
  satisfaction	
  
through	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  objective	
  event.	
  When	
  the	
  variables	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  
study	
  were	
  tested,	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  had	
  a	
  significant	
  relationship	
  to	
  economic	
  
strain,	
  and	
  economic	
  strain	
  had	
  a	
  significant	
  relationship	
  with	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  These	
  
results	
  support	
  the	
  mediation	
  model.	
  Economic	
  strain	
  influenced	
  how	
  individuals	
  
evaluated	
  their	
  situation,	
  and	
  as	
  this	
  evaluation	
  changed,	
  so	
  did	
  the	
  individuals‘	
  feelings	
  of	
  
satisfaction.	
  These	
  findings	
  are	
  in	
  agreement	
  with	
  previous	
  research	
  that	
  states	
  that	
  
marital	
  satisfaction	
  is	
  affected	
  through	
  emotion	
  and	
  perception	
  (Kwon	
  et	
  al.,	
  2003).	
  Many	
  
studies	
  have	
  found	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  mediating	
  force,	
  controlling	
  the	
  level	
  
and	
  intensity	
  of	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  experienced	
  (Clark-­‐Nicolas	
  &	
  Gray-­‐Little,	
  1991).	
  The	
  steps	
  
of	
  the	
  family	
  stress	
  model,	
  purported	
  by	
  Conger	
  and	
  Elder	
  (1994),	
  reveal	
  that	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  
economic	
  pressure	
  correlate	
  positively	
  to	
  emotional	
  distress,	
  while	
  heightened	
  emotional	
  
distress	
  then	
  relates	
  positively	
  to	
  couple	
  conflict,	
  and	
  the	
  increased	
  level	
  of	
  couple	
  conflict	
  

79	
  

	
  
reduces	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  These	
  steps	
  connect	
  with	
  the	
  present	
  results	
  and	
  are	
  
consistent	
  with	
  the	
  alternative	
  hypothesis.	
  While	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  did	
  not	
  assess	
  levels	
  of	
  
conflict,	
  the	
  second	
  hypothesis	
  (parts	
  a	
  &	
  b)	
  revealed	
  the	
  subjective,	
  emotional	
  processing	
  
of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  had	
  a	
  significant	
  influence	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Previous	
  
research	
  supports	
  the	
  conclusion,	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  that	
  the	
  subjective	
  response	
  to	
  
economic	
  stress	
  affects	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  (Aytac	
  &	
  Rankin,	
  2009;	
  Conger	
  and	
  Elder,	
  
1994).	
  
Falconier	
  and	
  Epstein	
  (2011)	
  reported	
  that	
  numerous	
  studies	
  have	
  found	
  a	
  negative	
  
effect	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  relationship	
  satisfaction.	
  However,	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  
studies	
  have	
  reported	
  an	
  indirect	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  relationship	
  
satisfaction.	
  The	
  relationship	
  between	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  relationship	
  satisfaction	
  may	
  be	
  
mediated	
  by	
  individual	
  distress	
  and	
  interaction	
  between	
  partners.	
  The	
  distress	
  and	
  
negative	
  interactions	
  between	
  partners	
  includes	
  increased	
  hostility,	
  criticism,	
  verbal	
  abuse,	
  
arguing,	
  and	
  shouting.	
  The	
  results	
  from	
  previous	
  research	
  and	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  support	
  
the	
  importance	
  of	
  subjective	
  perception.	
  This	
  should	
  prompt	
  future	
  research	
  to	
  investigate	
  
the	
  process	
  of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  what	
  contributes	
  both	
  positively	
  and	
  negatively	
  to	
  it,	
  and	
  
how	
  it	
  influences	
  marital	
  relations.	
  
Hypothesis	
  3	
  
For	
  the	
  third	
  hypothesis	
  (all	
  parts	
  a,	
  b,	
  c)	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  found	
  a	
  significant	
  
relationship	
  in	
  each	
  condition.	
  When	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  was	
  entered	
  into	
  the	
  
models	
  as	
  a	
  predictor,	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  variance	
  that	
  was	
  explained	
  rose	
  dramatically.	
  The	
  
current	
  sample	
  was	
  taken	
  from	
  church	
  sponsored	
  unemployment	
  support	
  groups,	
  and	
  the	
  
vast	
  majority	
  (88%)	
  of	
  the	
  sample	
  had	
  some	
  form	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  in	
  their	
  

80	
  

	
  
lives.	
  This	
  factor	
  significantly	
  affected	
  marital	
  satisfaction-­‐when	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  
was	
  high,	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  was	
  high,	
  and	
  when	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  was	
  low,	
  the	
  
marital	
  relationship	
  suffered.	
  The	
  results	
  point	
  to	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  
resource,	
  and	
  are	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  previous	
  research	
  that	
  held	
  religious	
  belief	
  as	
  a	
  
protective	
  factor.	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  has	
  been	
  seen	
  to	
  buffer	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  extreme	
  
loss	
  and	
  change	
  (Clark	
  &	
  Lelkes,	
  2008;	
  Marks,	
  Dollahite,	
  &	
  Baumgarter,	
  2010).	
  This	
  finding	
  
also	
  is	
  important	
  as	
  research	
  shows	
  that	
  conflict	
  surrounding	
  monetary	
  issues	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  
marital	
  distress	
  and	
  even	
  divorce	
  (Zagorsky,	
  2003).	
  	
  
These	
  results	
  also	
  follow	
  the	
  suppositions	
  of	
  family	
  stress	
  and	
  resilience	
  theory.	
  
Family	
  stress	
  and	
  resilience	
  theory	
  state	
  that	
  family	
  values	
  and	
  beliefs	
  play	
  an	
  important	
  
role	
  in	
  coping	
  and	
  stress	
  management	
  (Patterson,	
  2002).	
  A	
  family’s	
  worldview,	
  morals,	
  and	
  
values	
  all	
  serve	
  as	
  sources	
  of	
  strength	
  and	
  meaning,	
  especially	
  during	
  times	
  stress	
  (Boss,	
  
2002).	
  In	
  the	
  conceptualization	
  of	
  this	
  study	
  family	
  stress	
  theory	
  was	
  used	
  as	
  a	
  theoretical	
  
foundation,	
  and	
  specifically	
  utilized	
  in	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  the	
  third	
  hypothesis.	
  Religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  affected	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  both	
  directly	
  and	
  indirectly.	
  
The	
  moderated	
  mediation	
  was	
  tested	
  through	
  a	
  regression	
  model,	
  which	
  revealed	
  
the	
  strength	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  was	
  altered	
  when	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  was	
  present.	
  The	
  interaction	
  effect	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  as	
  a	
  predictor	
  was	
  significant.	
  This	
  model	
  explained	
  the	
  greatest	
  amount	
  
of	
  variance,	
  explaining	
  around	
  34%.	
  However,	
  when	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  was	
  present	
  
with	
  the	
  interaction	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  (ESxRA),	
  the	
  
significant	
  direct	
  effect	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  was	
  erased	
  
(table	
  7).	
  This	
  finding	
  points	
  to	
  the	
  power	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  interaction	
  

81	
  

	
  
between	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  and	
  economic	
  strain	
  to	
  explain	
  changes	
  in	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  Overall,	
  these	
  results	
  point	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  adherence	
  to	
  religious	
  faith	
  and	
  
belief	
  can	
  influence	
  how	
  a	
  family	
  evaluates	
  economic	
  hardship.	
  
Theoretical	
  Application	
  
	
  

The	
  present	
  study	
  employed	
  three	
  family	
  theories—ecological	
  theory,	
  system	
  

theory,	
  family	
  stress	
  theory—to	
  form	
  the	
  theoretical	
  foundation	
  of	
  the	
  study	
  and	
  help	
  
inform	
  the	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  data.	
  Ecological	
  theory	
  provided	
  a	
  general	
  base	
  from	
  which	
  
a	
  consideration	
  of	
  context,	
  especially	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  economy	
  was	
  established.	
  The	
  
economic	
  or	
  financial	
  context	
  that	
  surrounds	
  an	
  individual	
  or	
  family,	
  as	
  seen	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  
study,	
  has	
  implications	
  for	
  perceived	
  strain	
  and	
  relationship	
  satisfaction.	
  Stress	
  resulting	
  
from	
  the	
  economic	
  context	
  is	
  highly	
  related	
  to	
  a	
  decrease	
  in	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  (Karney	
  &	
  
Bradbury,	
  2005),	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  this	
  was	
  true.	
  Couples	
  experienced	
  strain	
  due	
  to	
  
un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  The	
  only	
  fact	
  that	
  moderated	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  strain	
  was	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief.	
  	
  
Family	
  systems	
  theory	
  provided	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  family	
  relationship	
  dynamics.	
  
This	
  research	
  had	
  access	
  to	
  only	
  one	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  marital	
  dyad.	
  However,	
  from	
  family	
  
systems	
  theory	
  it	
  is	
  understood	
  that	
  the	
  stress	
  experienced	
  directly	
  by	
  one	
  member	
  will	
  
have	
  a	
  pervasive	
  influence	
  on	
  both	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  dyad.	
  Change,	
  stress,	
  and	
  strain	
  
experienced	
  in	
  one	
  area	
  of	
  a	
  family	
  system	
  influences	
  all	
  other	
  areas	
  of	
  the	
  system	
  (White	
  &	
  
Klein,	
  2008).	
  Thus,	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  having	
  only	
  one	
  partner	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployed	
  for	
  
many	
  couples	
  caused	
  significant	
  levels	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  negatively	
  influenced	
  levels	
  
of	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Both	
  ecological	
  theory	
  and	
  systems	
  theory	
  are	
  meta-­‐theoretical	
  

82	
  

	
  
approaches	
  that	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  provided	
  a	
  general	
  framework	
  for	
  thinking	
  about	
  
economic	
  context	
  and	
  marital	
  relationship	
  dynamics.	
  	
  
Family	
  stress	
  theory	
  utilizes	
  aspects	
  of	
  ecological,	
  developmental,	
  and	
  systems	
  
theories	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  families	
  react	
  to	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  (White	
  &	
  Klein,	
  2008).	
  
Family	
  stress	
  theory	
  helped	
  conceptualize	
  the	
  influence	
  that	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  
would	
  have	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  and	
  informed	
  the	
  formation	
  of	
  the	
  hypotheses.	
  A	
  pile	
  up	
  
of	
  stressors	
  was	
  seen	
  as	
  the	
  objective	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  causing	
  the	
  
subjective	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  stress,	
  and	
  in	
  most	
  cases	
  this	
  resulted	
  in	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  
economic	
  strain	
  and	
  negative	
  effects	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Multiple	
  stressors	
  affected	
  the	
  
marital	
  system	
  through	
  the	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  Family	
  stress	
  theory	
  also	
  
was	
  used	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  the	
  subjective	
  appraisal	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  affected	
  
martial	
  satisfaction.	
  The	
  subjective	
  perception	
  (economic	
  strain)	
  was	
  the	
  factor	
  that	
  
controlled	
  the	
  outcome	
  (martial	
  satisfaction);	
  however,	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  played	
  a	
  large	
  role	
  in	
  protecting	
  levels	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  This	
  finding	
  
is	
  associated	
  with	
  family	
  stress	
  theory	
  and	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  family	
  meaning	
  making	
  is	
  a	
  
collective	
  process	
  that	
  involves	
  beliefs	
  and	
  values	
  held	
  within	
  a	
  family’s	
  worldview.	
  
Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  functioned	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource	
  or	
  family	
  protective	
  factor;	
  it	
  
was	
  a	
  resource	
  utilized	
  by	
  couples	
  to	
  help	
  endure	
  the	
  economic	
  hardship	
  they	
  were	
  facing.	
  
Limitations	
  	
  
	
  

There	
  are	
  several	
  limitations	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  addressed	
  in	
  future	
  

research.	
  This	
  study	
  represents	
  cross-­‐sectional	
  and	
  not	
  longitudinal	
  data,	
  which	
  increases	
  
the	
  difficulty	
  of	
  causal	
  modeling.	
  In	
  addition,	
  with	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  
and	
  the	
  ebb	
  and	
  flow	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  recession,	
  longitudinal	
  data	
  would	
  provide	
  greater	
  

83	
  

	
  
insight	
  into	
  each	
  individual’s	
  journey.	
  Also,	
  examining	
  the	
  differences	
  in	
  levels	
  of	
  
satisfaction	
  as	
  individuals	
  stay	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployed,	
  or	
  move	
  in	
  and	
  out	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  would	
  contribute	
  to	
  improving	
  future	
  research.	
  	
  
This	
  sample	
  is	
  homogeneous	
  in	
  ethnicity,	
  education,	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief,	
  
which	
  limits	
  it	
  in	
  seeing	
  how	
  other	
  cultures,	
  religions,	
  and	
  family	
  forms	
  deal	
  with	
  the	
  
proposed	
  stressors.	
  The	
  researcher	
  acknowledges	
  that	
  biases	
  may	
  be	
  present.	
  
Furthermore,	
  the	
  current	
  sample	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  representative	
  of	
  the	
  national	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployed	
  population,	
  as	
  it	
  was	
  taken	
  from	
  religious	
  based	
  job	
  support	
  groups	
  across	
  
Southeastern	
  Michigan.	
  	
  
This	
  study	
  relied	
  on	
  the	
  self-­‐report	
  of	
  one	
  member	
  of	
  a	
  marital	
  dyad.	
  That	
  
member/participant	
  then	
  reported	
  on	
  his/her	
  level	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  
and	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  spouse’s	
  employment	
  status	
  and	
  length.	
  The	
  
present	
  study	
  also	
  was	
  limited	
  by	
  not	
  delving	
  into	
  the	
  causal	
  factors	
  that	
  may	
  influence	
  the	
  
perception	
  of	
  economic	
  strain.	
  The	
  quantitative	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  and	
  the	
  survey	
  
measures	
  utilized	
  did	
  not	
  allow	
  the	
  researcher	
  to	
  assess	
  personal	
  characteristics,	
  current	
  
life	
  circumstances,	
  history,	
  culture,	
  or	
  context.	
  Qualitative	
  analysis	
  would	
  yield	
  a	
  richness	
  
and	
  depth	
  in	
  the	
  data,	
  and	
  allow	
  each	
  individual’s	
  unique	
  story	
  to	
  pair	
  with	
  the	
  survey	
  data.	
  
Two	
  limitations	
  surfaced	
  in	
  the	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  scale.	
  Many	
  participants	
  
expressed	
  concern	
  with	
  the	
  first	
  question	
  on	
  the	
  scale	
  concerning	
  the	
  frequency	
  of	
  
attending	
  religious	
  services.	
  This	
  was	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  answer	
  choice	
  “once	
  a	
  week”	
  
was	
  not	
  present.	
  The	
  other	
  concern	
  that	
  was	
  expressed	
  had	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  the	
  religious	
  
affiliation	
  categories.	
  Some	
  individuals	
  felt	
  there	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  category	
  to	
  choose	
  from	
  that	
  
accurately	
  represented	
  their	
  religious	
  beliefs.	
  	
  

84	
  

	
  
Future	
  Research	
  
Future	
  research	
  on	
  unemployment	
  and	
  underemployment	
  and	
  family	
  is	
  needed	
  and	
  
encouraged.	
  The	
  limitations	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  research	
  provide	
  a	
  map	
  from	
  which	
  an	
  
important	
  study	
  can	
  be	
  expanded	
  and	
  improved	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  As	
  mentioned	
  above,	
  a	
  
longitudinal	
  study	
  would	
  increase	
  the	
  breadth	
  of	
  the	
  data	
  that	
  is	
  collected	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
increase	
  the	
  possibilities	
  for	
  analysis.	
  Future	
  research	
  should	
  examine	
  multiple	
  members	
  of	
  
the	
  family	
  unit	
  or	
  both	
  partners	
  in	
  the	
  marital	
  system.	
  This	
  would	
  give	
  greater	
  knowledge	
  
of	
  the	
  influence	
  the	
  predictors	
  have	
  on	
  marital	
  and	
  family	
  satisfaction.	
  Measuring	
  the	
  
participants	
  as	
  a	
  couple	
  also	
  could	
  provide	
  greater	
  information	
  on	
  a	
  possible	
  source	
  of	
  
resilience:	
  social	
  and	
  familial	
  support.	
  Continued	
  research	
  also	
  could	
  do	
  more	
  to	
  ascertain	
  
the	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  marriage	
  previous	
  to	
  the	
  job	
  or	
  monetary	
  loss.	
  Several	
  participants	
  noted	
  
on	
  their	
  surveys	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  experiencing	
  marital	
  troubles	
  before	
  the	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment.	
  The	
  loss	
  of	
  money,	
  roles,	
  and	
  occupation	
  only	
  served	
  to	
  make	
  things	
  
worse.	
  This	
  additional	
  data	
  would	
  help	
  researchers	
  to	
  better	
  quantify	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  
economic	
  strain	
  and	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment.	
  
Future	
  research	
  should	
  attempt	
  a	
  more	
  detailed	
  examination	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  and	
  
the	
  factors	
  that	
  influence	
  it,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  factors	
  that	
  are	
  influenced	
  by	
  it.	
  Falconier	
  and	
  
Epstein	
  (2011)	
  noted	
  that	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  financial	
  strain	
  is	
  influenced	
  by	
  personal	
  
context	
  and	
  characteristics	
  such	
  as	
  temperament,	
  personal	
  history,	
  and	
  personal	
  
characteristics	
  as	
  a	
  money	
  manager.	
  Further,	
  economic	
  strain	
  may	
  influence	
  relationship	
  
satisfaction	
  indirectly	
  through	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  adverse	
  attitudes	
  and	
  behaviors.	
  Boss	
  
Doherty,	
  LaRossa,	
  Schumm,	
  &	
  Steinmetz	
  (1993)	
  referred	
  to	
  familial	
  context,	
  both	
  internal	
  

85	
  

	
  
and	
  external,	
  as	
  being	
  paramount	
  to	
  understanding	
  any	
  family	
  dynamics.	
  These	
  factors	
  
must	
  be	
  recognized	
  and	
  addressed	
  in	
  future	
  research.	
  
Use	
  of	
  an	
  amended	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  survey,	
  which	
  better	
  assesses	
  a	
  variety	
  
of	
  religious	
  styles	
  and	
  beliefs	
  would	
  improve	
  future	
  research.	
  Additionally,	
  when	
  asking	
  the	
  
participants’	
  employment	
  status	
  having	
  a	
  category	
  denoting	
  an	
  individual	
  is	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  
workforce	
  either	
  due	
  to	
  choice	
  or	
  circumstance	
  would	
  be	
  helpful	
  for	
  future	
  research	
  to	
  
avoid	
  outlying	
  data.	
  Future	
  research	
  also	
  could	
  improve	
  with	
  greater	
  sample	
  sizes,	
  which	
  
would	
  allow	
  more	
  complex	
  models	
  to	
  be	
  tested	
  and	
  additional	
  analyses	
  to	
  be	
  run.	
  A	
  larger	
  
sample	
  size	
  also	
  could	
  allow	
  future	
  researchers	
  the	
  chance	
  to	
  investigate	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  in	
  two	
  separate	
  categories,	
  comparing	
  short	
  and	
  long	
  term	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment.	
  
	
  

Future	
  research	
  should	
  further	
  examine	
  resilience,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  marital	
  

satisfaction.	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  revealed	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  a	
  
protective	
  factor.	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  as	
  a	
  protective	
  factor	
  should	
  be	
  further	
  
examined,	
  focusing	
  on	
  process,	
  how	
  does	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  operate?	
  How	
  does	
  it	
  
protect	
  marital	
  satisfaction?	
  This	
  is	
  important	
  as	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  stated	
  in	
  previous	
  research	
  
that	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  process	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  analyzed	
  (Mahoney,	
  2010).	
  Additional	
  
protective	
  factors	
  also	
  should	
  be	
  included	
  in	
  prospective	
  research.	
  Social	
  support	
  is	
  an	
  
important	
  protective	
  factor	
  that	
  was	
  present	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  through	
  the	
  marital	
  dyads,	
  job	
  
seeker	
  groups/network,	
  and	
  religious	
  affiliation;	
  however,	
  this	
  potential	
  variable	
  was	
  not	
  
assessed	
  by	
  the	
  survey	
  measure.	
  Continued	
  research	
  should	
  include	
  analysis	
  of	
  social	
  
support	
  as	
  a	
  potential	
  protective	
  factor.	
  This	
  information	
  could	
  help	
  to	
  better	
  answer	
  the	
  

86	
  

	
  
question	
  of	
  why	
  some	
  couples	
  are	
  relatively	
  resilient	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  while	
  
others	
  struggle.	
  
Qualitative	
  Observations	
  at	
  Data	
  Collection	
  Sites/Mailer	
  Data	
  Collection	
  
An	
  important	
  implication	
  for	
  future	
  research	
  came	
  from	
  the	
  informal	
  qualitative	
  
observations	
  made	
  through	
  the	
  data	
  collection	
  process.	
  The	
  observations	
  that	
  follow	
  help	
  
to	
  make	
  a	
  strong	
  case	
  for	
  future	
  research	
  on	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  to	
  follow	
  a	
  mixed	
  
methods	
  design.	
  
Data	
  collection	
  for	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  took	
  place	
  in	
  person	
  and	
  through	
  mailer	
  
packets.	
  Numerous	
  job	
  seeker	
  groups	
  were	
  attended	
  in	
  areas	
  across	
  Southeastern	
  
Michigan.	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  job	
  seeker	
  groups	
  opened	
  by	
  going	
  around	
  the	
  room	
  and	
  
allowing	
  each	
  member	
  to	
  provide	
  an	
  update	
  on	
  the	
  progress	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  job	
  search.	
  At	
  this	
  
time,	
  members	
  also	
  offered	
  information	
  on	
  relevant	
  resources	
  and	
  aides	
  applicable	
  to	
  their	
  
continued	
  search	
  for	
  employment.	
  Examples	
  of	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  resources	
  mentioned	
  were:	
  the	
  
professional	
  networking	
  community,	
  Linkedin;	
  the	
  educational,	
  computer,	
  and	
  software	
  
tutorial	
  website,	
  Lynda.com;	
  the	
  education	
  seminars	
  presented	
  by	
  Michigan	
  Works!	
  
(specifically	
  the	
  55	
  and	
  above	
  referral	
  program);	
  and	
  other	
  partnering	
  job	
  seeker	
  
workshops.	
  Linkedin	
  was	
  a	
  tool	
  that	
  was	
  stressed	
  at	
  almost	
  every	
  meeting,	
  as	
  expanding	
  
networking	
  possibilities	
  and	
  empowering	
  one’s	
  active	
  job	
  search.	
  Group	
  members	
  praised	
  
Linkedin’s	
  interactive,	
  high-­‐speed,	
  networking	
  potential	
  as	
  the	
  first	
  and	
  most	
  important	
  
step	
  in	
  one’s	
  job	
  search.	
  One	
  man,	
  came	
  prepared	
  with	
  an	
  entire	
  backpack	
  full	
  of	
  reference	
  
books,	
  CD’s,	
  DVD’s,	
  and	
  other	
  resources	
  aiding	
  in	
  his	
  job	
  search	
  to	
  share	
  with	
  another	
  
member	
  of	
  the	
  group.	
  Multiple	
  participants	
  recommended	
  using	
  the	
  time	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  
force	
  to	
  volunteer.	
  Participants	
  touted	
  it	
  as	
  an	
  activity	
  to	
  keep	
  one’s	
  mind	
  occupied	
  and	
  

87	
  

	
  
encourage	
  one’s	
  spirit.	
  The	
  help	
  offered	
  through	
  comments	
  of	
  support,	
  suggested	
  
references	
  and	
  resources,	
  and	
  job	
  opportunities	
  created	
  a	
  community	
  atmosphere	
  among	
  
group	
  members.	
  Group	
  members	
  were	
  willing	
  to	
  help	
  one	
  another	
  in	
  a	
  quid	
  pro	
  quo	
  sprit,	
  
knowing	
  that	
  the	
  person	
  they	
  help	
  may	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  help	
  them	
  in	
  return.	
  
During	
  the	
  group	
  member	
  testimonials,	
  many	
  members	
  testified	
  to	
  the	
  long	
  and	
  
arduous	
  process	
  they	
  had	
  been	
  through.	
  A	
  participant	
  described	
  his	
  personal	
  journey	
  as	
  a	
  
constant	
  fight,	
  the	
  “fight	
  of	
  discouragement.”	
  One	
  woman	
  spoke	
  of	
  her	
  fear	
  as	
  she	
  had	
  been	
  
on	
  unemployment	
  for	
  two	
  years	
  and	
  was	
  having	
  her	
  benefits	
  cancelled.	
  Fear,	
  self-­‐doubt,	
  
“feeling	
  down,”	
  and	
  overall	
  what	
  one	
  guest	
  speaker	
  called	
  “limiting	
  beliefs”	
  were	
  consistent	
  
themes.	
  “A	
  practice	
  round,”	
  was	
  what	
  one	
  female	
  participant	
  said	
  as	
  she	
  updated	
  the	
  group	
  
on	
  her	
  progress	
  into	
  the	
  second	
  round	
  of	
  interviews	
  with	
  a	
  promising	
  new	
  position.	
  She	
  
was	
  attempting	
  to	
  set	
  appropriate	
  expectations,	
  thinking	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  as	
  a	
  chance	
  to	
  
learn.	
  One	
  man	
  had	
  an	
  interview	
  that	
  went	
  well;	
  however,	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  money	
  associated	
  
with	
  the	
  job	
  was	
  so	
  far	
  beneath	
  his	
  previous	
  employment	
  and	
  standard	
  of	
  living	
  that	
  he	
  
remarked,	
  “it	
  would	
  not	
  be	
  enough	
  to	
  survive	
  on.”	
  Another	
  remarked	
  on	
  what	
  he	
  believed	
  
to	
  be,	
  the	
  “joke	
  in	
  the	
  media,”	
  the	
  reported	
  improvement	
  in	
  unemployment	
  statistics.	
  He	
  
believed	
  this	
  “improvement”	
  was	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  vast	
  number	
  of	
  people	
  loosing	
  their	
  benefits	
  
and	
  the	
  state	
  loosing	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  track	
  them,	
  or	
  keep	
  a	
  proper	
  count	
  of	
  them.	
  
Many	
  individuals	
  pointed	
  to	
  the	
  effect	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  was	
  having	
  on	
  
their	
  marriage.	
  For	
  example,	
  one	
  participant	
  connected	
  the	
  long-­‐term	
  financial	
  stress	
  and	
  
strain	
  they	
  have	
  experienced	
  with	
  the	
  satisfaction	
  in	
  their	
  marriage.	
  The	
  participant	
  said	
  if	
  
their	
  physical	
  health	
  and	
  the	
  health	
  of	
  their	
  finances	
  were	
  better,	
  they	
  would	
  have	
  left	
  their	
  

88	
  

	
  
marriage	
  a	
  long	
  time	
  ago.	
  Hand	
  written	
  on	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  returned	
  mailer	
  surveys	
  was	
  this	
  
comment	
  by	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  participants,	
  	
  
In	
  my	
  opinion,	
  a	
  marriage	
  is	
  either	
  strong	
  or	
  weak	
  or	
  some	
  level	
  in-­‐between.	
  During	
  
this	
  economic	
  downturn	
  this	
  impact	
  or	
  change	
  has	
  made	
  my	
  “already”	
  weak	
  
marriage—weaker.	
  I	
  believe	
  that	
  if	
  I	
  had	
  a	
  strong	
  marriage—this	
  kind	
  of	
  change	
  
could	
  have	
  had	
  a	
  positive	
  impact.	
  
Another	
  participant	
  wrote	
  the	
  following	
  notes	
  in	
  connection	
  to	
  the	
  questions	
  of	
  marital	
  
satisfaction,	
  “Our	
  marriage	
  had	
  its	
  challenges	
  before	
  my	
  layoff;	
  job	
  loss	
  added	
  new	
  ones.”	
  
Further,	
  the	
  participant	
  noted	
  in	
  association	
  with	
  a	
  question	
  asking	
  if	
  divorce	
  or	
  separation	
  
had	
  ever	
  been	
  a	
  consideration,	
  “comes	
  to	
  my	
  mind	
  at	
  times,	
  but	
  try	
  not	
  to	
  ponder	
  it.”	
  The	
  
same	
  question	
  also	
  elicited	
  this	
  handwritten	
  comment	
  from	
  another	
  participant,	
  “We	
  have	
  
never	
  discussed	
  this,	
  but	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  want	
  to	
  be	
  with	
  [my	
  partner]	
  anymore	
  and	
  I	
  don’t	
  think	
  
[they]	
  have	
  a	
  clue.”	
  
	
  A	
  woman	
  attending	
  a	
  food	
  bank	
  provided	
  by	
  a	
  church	
  in	
  Warren	
  said	
  she	
  was	
  a	
  
nurse	
  before	
  she	
  had	
  a	
  stroke	
  that	
  took	
  her	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  workforce.	
  Only	
  months	
  after	
  her	
  
incident,	
  her	
  husband	
  lost	
  his	
  job	
  as	
  his	
  company	
  collapsed	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  the	
  economy.	
  
Within	
  months	
  their	
  life	
  and	
  standard	
  of	
  living	
  had	
  drastically	
  changed.	
  Another	
  
participant,	
  next	
  to	
  a	
  question	
  asking	
  them	
  to	
  rate	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  income	
  wrote	
  about	
  the	
  
decline	
  in	
  income	
  they	
  experienced	
  and	
  the	
  worry	
  that	
  has	
  accompanied	
  it,	
  
Surviving	
  on	
  unemployment	
  and	
  savings…We	
  have	
  significant	
  savings	
  but	
  not	
  
enough	
  that	
  I	
  can	
  just	
  stop	
  working.	
  Especially	
  concerned	
  about	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  medical	
  
insurance.	
  Prior	
  to	
  my	
  [partner]	
  losing	
  [their]	
  part-­‐time	
  engineering	
  job	
  and	
  my	
  loss	
  

89	
  

	
  
of	
  work	
  in	
  early	
  2010,	
  I	
  would	
  say	
  that	
  our	
  combined	
  earned	
  income	
  was	
  probably	
  
above	
  average.	
  
Despite,	
  the	
  numerous	
  stories	
  of	
  frustration	
  and	
  pain,	
  one	
  woman	
  told	
  of	
  unemployment	
  
being	
  a	
  positive,	
  as	
  she	
  now	
  has	
  more	
  time	
  to	
  spend	
  with	
  her	
  children.	
  This	
  time	
  and	
  
perspective	
  has	
  changed	
  her	
  and	
  her	
  job	
  search.	
  She	
  is	
  now	
  set	
  on	
  only	
  working	
  part-­‐time	
  
in	
  order	
  to	
  spend	
  more	
  time	
  with	
  her	
  children.	
  
Some	
  groups	
  had	
  guest	
  speakers	
  come	
  in	
  and	
  talk	
  on	
  relevant	
  topics	
  pertaining	
  to	
  
the	
  job	
  search:	
  owning/starting	
  your	
  own	
  business,	
  writing	
  a	
  resume,	
  time	
  management,	
  
the	
  power	
  of	
  beliefs	
  about	
  self	
  and	
  ability,	
  networking,	
  and	
  forming	
  a	
  “30	
  second	
  
commercial”—allowing	
  individuals	
  to	
  better	
  network.	
  One	
  presenter	
  that	
  spoke	
  on	
  starting	
  
your	
  own	
  business	
  was	
  laid	
  off	
  in	
  2009	
  and	
  attended	
  the	
  career-­‐mentoring	
  ministry	
  at	
  St.	
  
Andrews	
  church.	
  With	
  the	
  help	
  of	
  that	
  group,	
  this	
  individual	
  reformed	
  her	
  career	
  and	
  has	
  
begun	
  to	
  help	
  others.	
  Networking	
  was	
  an	
  important	
  aspect	
  of	
  the	
  group	
  meetings	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
an	
  important	
  topic	
  of	
  discussion.	
  One	
  group	
  leader	
  presented	
  the	
  statistic	
  that	
  87%	
  of	
  jobs	
  
are	
  found	
  through	
  networking,	
  this	
  leader	
  went	
  on	
  to	
  clarify	
  that	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  
networking	
  is	
  to	
  gain	
  information	
  and	
  make	
  contact	
  with	
  others	
  who	
  may	
  contribute	
  to	
  the	
  
job	
  search.	
  “Networking	
  works”	
  another	
  group	
  leader	
  emphatically	
  interjected	
  during	
  a	
  
group	
  meeting.	
  
Group	
  leaders	
  facilitated	
  discussion,	
  answered	
  group	
  member	
  questions,	
  and	
  kept	
  
track	
  of	
  and	
  enquired	
  on	
  the	
  progress	
  of	
  each	
  group	
  member.	
  One	
  group	
  leader,	
  Robert	
  
Jenson,	
  encouraged	
  a	
  member	
  preparing	
  for	
  a	
  vital	
  phone	
  interview	
  to	
  remember,	
  “We	
  are	
  
all	
  valuable;	
  we	
  are	
  a	
  valuable	
  commodity.”	
  Another	
  interim	
  group	
  leader	
  began	
  their	
  
meeting	
  with	
  prayer	
  asking	
  the	
  Lord	
  to	
  help	
  each	
  member	
  and	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  job	
  search.	
  At	
  St.	
  

90	
  

	
  
Andrew’s	
  church	
  in	
  Rochester,	
  a	
  founding	
  group	
  in	
  the	
  job	
  seeker	
  network	
  of	
  60	
  churches,	
  
the	
  leader	
  closed	
  the	
  meeting	
  with	
  the	
  “prayer	
  for	
  those	
  seeking	
  employment,”	
  
Lord,	
  there	
  are	
  many	
  people	
  among	
  us	
  who	
  are	
  in	
  need	
  of	
  a	
  steady	
  job	
  with	
  
sufficient	
  wages	
  to	
  care	
  for	
  themselves	
  and	
  their	
  families.	
  Help	
  unemployed	
  persons	
  
remain	
  diligent	
  in	
  their	
  job	
  search.	
  Give	
  them	
  the	
  needed	
  confidence	
  to	
  succeed	
  and	
  
the	
  perseverance	
  to	
  continue	
  on	
  when	
  they	
  become	
  discouraged.	
  Teach	
  us	
  to	
  
encourage	
  those	
  seeking	
  employment	
  and	
  to	
  offer	
  whatever	
  assistance	
  we	
  can	
  give.	
  
For	
  all	
  the	
  unemployed,	
  we	
  offer	
  our	
  prayers	
  that	
  they	
  might	
  find	
  productive	
  work	
  
that	
  enables	
  them	
  to	
  use	
  and	
  develop	
  their	
  talents	
  and	
  skills,	
  and	
  to	
  meet	
  their	
  
economic	
  needs.	
  Amen.	
  
Another	
  group	
  opened	
  their	
  meeting	
  with	
  a	
  prayer	
  asking	
  St.	
  Joseph	
  to	
  look	
  upon	
  them	
  
favorably	
  and	
  give	
  aide	
  during	
  this	
  time	
  of	
  need,	
  “…Please	
  help	
  me	
  find	
  gainful	
  employment	
  
very	
  soon,	
  so	
  that	
  this	
  heavy	
  burden	
  of	
  concern	
  will	
  be	
  lifted	
  from	
  my	
  heart	
  and	
  that	
  I	
  am	
  
soon	
  able	
  to	
  provide	
  for	
  those	
  God	
  has	
  entrusted	
  to	
  my	
  care…”	
  	
  
	
  

Many	
  clear	
  and	
  consistent	
  themes	
  could	
  be	
  recognized	
  in	
  each	
  group.	
  Reliance	
  on	
  

God	
  for	
  help	
  in	
  time	
  of	
  need	
  was	
  a	
  theme	
  that	
  formed	
  the	
  cornerstone	
  of	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  
meetings.	
  Another	
  important	
  theme	
  was	
  the	
  foundational	
  idea	
  that	
  each	
  individual	
  has	
  
value.	
  These	
  themes	
  called	
  for	
  a	
  change	
  in	
  mindset,	
  one	
  group	
  facilitator	
  said,	
  “you	
  are	
  not	
  
unemployed,	
  you	
  are	
  just	
  not	
  being	
  paid!”	
  Group	
  leaders	
  and	
  guest	
  speakers	
  emphasized	
  a	
  
changing	
  time	
  that	
  now	
  requires	
  job	
  seekers	
  to	
  know	
  their	
  worth,	
  know	
  their	
  skill	
  set,	
  
know	
  who	
  they	
  want	
  to	
  serve,	
  and	
  have	
  the	
  understanding	
  that	
  they,	
  themselves,	
  are	
  the	
  
product	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  their	
  number	
  one	
  job	
  to	
  sell	
  that	
  product.	
  One	
  leader	
  remarked,	
  “You	
  are	
  
in	
  marketing	
  and	
  sales…you	
  are	
  the	
  product,	
  sell	
  yourself!”	
  Joan	
  Hanpeter,	
  leader	
  of	
  an	
  

91	
  

	
  
education	
  and	
  training	
  group	
  in	
  Bloomfield	
  Hills,	
  talked	
  of	
  the	
  sales	
  process	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  
job	
  search	
  by	
  reminding	
  each	
  participant	
  that	
  future	
  employers	
  want	
  to	
  see	
  what	
  a	
  
prospective	
  employee	
  can	
  do	
  for	
  them,	
  how	
  can	
  they	
  be	
  helped	
  by	
  this	
  hire.	
  Another	
  guest	
  
speaker	
  advised	
  not	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  the	
  economy.	
  The	
  condition	
  of	
  the	
  economy	
  
cannot	
  easily	
  be	
  changed,	
  it	
  is	
  more	
  important	
  to	
  place	
  focus	
  on	
  individual	
  talents,	
  beliefs,	
  
and	
  job	
  seeker	
  situations.	
  The	
  groups	
  supplied	
  support	
  and	
  encouragement	
  to	
  members,	
  
one	
  man	
  stated	
  that	
  he	
  didn’t	
  know	
  how	
  others	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  attend	
  groups	
  made	
  it	
  through	
  
the	
  hard	
  times.	
  For	
  him,	
  the	
  group	
  provided	
  the	
  comfort	
  of	
  knowing,	
  “you	
  are	
  not	
  alone!”	
  
Another	
  spoke	
  out	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  a	
  group	
  meeting	
  stating	
  that	
  the	
  session	
  reminded	
  him	
  “its	
  
going	
  to	
  be	
  alright.”	
  
	
  

Although	
  the	
  current	
  study	
  was	
  a	
  quantitative	
  analysis,	
  participants	
  both	
  in	
  person	
  

at	
  the	
  job	
  seeker	
  groups,	
  and	
  through	
  the	
  mailer	
  packets	
  desired	
  to	
  tell	
  their	
  personal,	
  
unique	
  stories.	
  The	
  instance	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  perception	
  of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  
and	
  adherence	
  to	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  are	
  topics	
  that	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  fully	
  expressed	
  or	
  
understood	
  based	
  on	
  quantitative	
  measures	
  or	
  scale	
  scores.	
  In	
  depth	
  information	
  on	
  the	
  
experience	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  and	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  or	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  and	
  their	
  relationship	
  to	
  marital	
  and	
  family	
  satisfaction,	
  could	
  be	
  assessed	
  
through	
  qualitative	
  analysis.	
  The	
  addition	
  of	
  qualitative	
  methodology	
  would	
  allow	
  rich	
  
description	
  of	
  the	
  conditions,	
  status,	
  and	
  feelings	
  of	
  the	
  participants	
  to	
  be	
  revealed.	
  Those	
  
experiencing	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  would	
  have	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  voice	
  their	
  thoughts	
  and	
  
feelings.	
  Future	
  research	
  should	
  consider	
  mixed	
  methodology	
  to	
  accurately	
  evaluate	
  the	
  
effects	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  on	
  the	
  family.	
  
	
  

92	
  

	
  
Conclusion	
  &	
  Implications	
  
	
  

The	
  recent	
  economic	
  downturn	
  and	
  financial	
  instability	
  in	
  local,	
  national,	
  and	
  global	
  

markets	
  has	
  affected	
  marriage	
  and	
  family	
  relationships,	
  leaving	
  many	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployed	
  marital	
  systems	
  in	
  distress.	
  The	
  present	
  study	
  attempted	
  to	
  better	
  
understand	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  both	
  objective	
  and	
  subjective	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  on	
  
marital	
  satisfaction,	
  and	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  on	
  martial	
  satisfaction.	
  The	
  
present	
  study	
  illustrates	
  the	
  influence	
  economic	
  strain	
  can	
  have	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
both	
  directly	
  and	
  indirectly.	
  This	
  study	
  also	
  suggests	
  religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  can	
  
moderate	
  these	
  effects.	
  	
  
Despite	
  study	
  limitations,	
  the	
  present	
  findings	
  contribute	
  to	
  existing	
  knowledge.	
  The	
  
current	
  findings	
  lead	
  to	
  a	
  better	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  and	
  effects	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  Knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  the	
  subjective	
  
perception	
  and	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  objective	
  loss	
  can	
  help	
  researchers	
  and	
  practitioners	
  
working	
  with	
  families.	
  Further,	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  role	
  religious	
  belief	
  plays	
  as	
  a	
  protective	
  
factor	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  element	
  in	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  a	
  family’s	
  experience	
  of	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  
strain,	
  and	
  resilience.	
  
With	
  the	
  crucial	
  role	
  money	
  and	
  occupation	
  play	
  in	
  society	
  and	
  relationship	
  
dynamics,	
  research	
  must	
  attempt	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  these	
  processes.	
  The	
  present	
  
economic	
  climate	
  is	
  ripe	
  with	
  opportunity	
  for	
  researchers	
  and	
  scholars	
  across	
  disciplines	
  
to	
  learn	
  more	
  about	
  the	
  influence	
  economic	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  has	
  on	
  family	
  and	
  marital	
  
relations.	
  Family	
  scholars,	
  educators,	
  and	
  therapists	
  must	
  engage	
  in	
  this	
  research	
  as	
  the	
  
present	
  economic	
  downturn	
  has	
  direct	
  implications	
  for	
  families.	
  This	
  research	
  is	
  important	
  
in	
  the	
  formation	
  of	
  policy,	
  specifically	
  policy	
  surrounding	
  the	
  length	
  and	
  breadth	
  of	
  

93	
  

	
  
unemployment	
  benefits.	
  Many	
  participants	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  casually	
  remarked	
  on	
  their	
  
fear	
  of	
  loosing	
  unemployment	
  benefits	
  due	
  to	
  their	
  prolonged	
  unemployment.	
  This	
  is	
  an	
  
issue	
  that	
  policy	
  makers	
  must	
  address;	
  the	
  current	
  economic	
  downturn	
  has	
  seen	
  extended	
  
lengths	
  of	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  policy	
  must	
  attend	
  to	
  this.	
  Also	
  important	
  are	
  policy	
  
decisions	
  regarding	
  stimulation	
  of	
  the	
  economy.	
  Thought	
  must	
  be	
  given	
  to	
  what	
  will	
  
promote	
  job	
  creation	
  and	
  re-­‐entry	
  into	
  the	
  work	
  force	
  across	
  all	
  ages.	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  
present	
  study’s	
  sample	
  was	
  representative	
  of	
  mature	
  workers	
  (81.4%	
  ages	
  45-­‐60).	
  Policy	
  
makers,	
  practitioners,	
  and	
  family	
  life	
  educators	
  must	
  be	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  individual	
  and	
  
structural	
  struggles	
  and	
  inequalities	
  present	
  and	
  affecting	
  this	
  populations’	
  re-­‐entry	
  into	
  
the	
  workforce.	
  Family	
  life	
  educators	
  can	
  help	
  by	
  teaching	
  positive	
  money	
  management	
  to	
  
all	
  ages,	
  teaching	
  savings	
  techniques,	
  methods	
  for	
  managing	
  money	
  and	
  familial	
  
relationships,	
  and	
  managing	
  finance	
  in	
  lean	
  economic	
  times.	
  
In	
  addition,	
  during	
  this	
  time	
  couples	
  experiencing	
  heighted	
  levels	
  of	
  economic	
  strain	
  
and	
  relational	
  and	
  marital	
  stress	
  and	
  strain	
  may	
  need	
  help	
  from	
  couple	
  and	
  family	
  
therapists	
  who	
  are	
  sensitive	
  to	
  their	
  plight.	
  Couple	
  and	
  family	
  therapists	
  must	
  understand	
  
the	
  influence	
  of	
  the	
  subjective	
  perception,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  its	
  power	
  to	
  influence	
  the	
  
direction	
  of	
  the	
  individual,	
  couple,	
  or	
  family’s	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  objective	
  stress.	
  Further,	
  it	
  is	
  
important	
  for	
  all	
  family	
  professionals	
  to	
  understand	
  family	
  resilience	
  and	
  the	
  factors	
  that	
  
help	
  protect	
  and	
  promote	
  marital	
  and	
  family	
  health	
  and	
  satisfaction.	
  In	
  the	
  present	
  study,	
  
religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  was	
  seen	
  as	
  a	
  resource	
  buffering	
  the	
  negative	
  effects	
  of	
  economic	
  
strain.	
  Knowing	
  how	
  and	
  why	
  couples	
  and	
  families	
  are	
  resilient	
  in	
  the	
  midst	
  of	
  economic	
  
strain	
  can	
  influence	
  how	
  practitioners	
  work	
  with	
  this	
  population,	
  how	
  couple	
  and	
  family	
  
education	
  is	
  executed	
  and	
  curriculum	
  is	
  formed,	
  and	
  how	
  formation	
  of	
  policy	
  takes	
  place.	
  

94	
  

	
  
	
  

This	
  research	
  is	
  a	
  timely	
  look	
  into	
  an	
  important	
  issue.	
  Un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  has	
  

salient	
  effects	
  on	
  marriage	
  and	
  family	
  relationships	
  and	
  dynamics.	
  As	
  researchers	
  living	
  
through	
  an	
  important	
  economic	
  time	
  and	
  in	
  an	
  area	
  of	
  high	
  economic	
  and	
  employment	
  
need	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  impetus	
  to	
  continue	
  this	
  valuable	
  research.	
  This	
  impetus	
  extends	
  to	
  
researchers	
  from	
  multiple	
  disciplines.	
  Un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  influences	
  every	
  aspect	
  of	
  
life,	
  and	
  thus	
  it	
  must	
  be	
  investigated	
  from	
  various	
  angles.	
  	
  

95	
  

	
  
APPENDICES	
  

96	
  

	
  
APPENDIX	
  A	
  
Dyadic	
  Adjustment	
  Scale	
  (Spanier,	
  1976)	
  
Please	
  indicate	
  below	
  the	
  approximate	
  extent	
  of	
  agreement	
  or	
  disagreement	
  
between	
  you	
  and	
  your	
  partner	
  for	
  each	
  item	
  on	
  the	
  following	
  list	
  (Circle	
  answer)	
  
	
  
Almost
Almost
Always Always Occasionally Frequently Always
Always
Agree
Disagree
Disagree Disagree Disagree
Agree
Handling family
finance

5

4

3

2

1

0

Matters of
recreation

5

4

3

2

1

0

Religious matters

5

4

3

2

1

0

Demonstrations of
affection

5

4

3

2

1

0

Friends

5

4

3

2

1

0

Sex relations

5

4

3

2

1

0

Conventionality
(correct or proper
behavior)

5

4

3

2

1

0

Philosophy of life

5

4

3

2

1

0

Ways of dealing
with parents or inlaws

5

4

3

2

1

0

97	
  

	
  

Aims, goals, and
things believed
important

5

4

3

2

1

0

Amount of time
spent together

5

4

3

2

1

0

Making major
decisions

5

4

3

2

1

0

Household tasks

5

4

3

2

1

0

Leisure time
interests and
activities

5

4
3
2
1
0
Almost
Almost
	
  
Always Always Occasionally Frequently Always
Always
	
  
Agree	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Agree	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Disagree	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Disagree	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  1	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Disagree
Disagree 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  0	
  
Career	
  decisions	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  5	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  4	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  3	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  2	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
More
All Most often
the of the than
time time
not Occasionally Rarely Never
How often do you discuss or have
you considered divorce, separation,
or terminating your relationship?

0

1

2

3

4

5

How often do you or your mate
leave the house after a fight?

0

1

2

3

4

5

In general, how often do you think
that things between you and your
partner are going well?

5

4

3

2

1

0

5

4

3

2

1

0

98	
  

	
  
5

4

3

2

1

0

Do you ever regret that you
married? (or lived together)

0

1

2

3

4

5

How often do you and your partner
quarrel?

0

1

2

3

4

5

How often do you and your mate
"get on each other's nerves?"

0

1

2

3

4

5

Do you confide in your mate?

	
  

	
  
Every
day

Do you and your mate
engage in outside interests
together?

Occasionally

Rarely

Never

4

3

2

All of
them

Do you kiss your mate?

Almost
every
day

Most of
them

Some of
them

1
Very
few of
them

0
None
of
them

4

3

2

1

0

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
99	
  

	
  
How	
  often	
  would	
  you	
  say	
  the	
  following	
  events	
  occur	
  between	
  you	
  and	
  your	
  mate?	
  
(Circle	
  answer)	
  
Less than Once or Once or
Once a
More
once a
twice a
twice a
Never
month
month
week
day
often
Have a stimulating
exchange of ideas

0

1

2

3

4

5

Laugh together

0

1

2

3

4

5

Calmly discuss something

0

1

2

3

4

5

Work together on a
project

0
1
2
3
4
5
	
  
These	
  are	
  some	
  things	
  about	
  which	
  couples	
  sometimes	
  agree	
  and	
  sometime	
  
disagree.	
  Indicate	
  if	
  either	
  item	
  below	
  caused	
  differences	
  of	
  opinions	
  or	
  were	
  
problems	
  in	
  your	
  relationships	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  few	
  weeks	
  (Circle	
  answer)	
  
	
  
Yes
No
Being too tired for sex

0

1

Not showing love

0

1

	
  
	
  
	
  
The	
  following	
  line	
  represents	
  different	
  degrees	
  of	
  happiness	
  in	
  your	
  relationship.	
  
The	
  middle	
  point,	
  “happy,”	
  represents	
  the	
  degree	
  of	
  happiness	
  of	
  most	
  relationships.	
  
Please	
  circle	
  the	
  best	
  description	
  of	
  the	
  degree	
  of	
  happiness,	
  all	
  things	
  considered,	
  of	
  
your	
  relationship.	
  
	
  
0	
  
1	
  
	
  
2	
  
	
  
3	
  
	
  
4	
  
	
  
5	
  
	
  
6_______	
  
Extremely	
   Fairly	
   	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  A	
  Little	
   	
  
Happy	
  	
  
Very	
  	
   	
  
Extremely	
   	
  
Unhappy	
  
Unhappy	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Unhappy	
   	
  
	
  
	
  
Happy	
  	
  
Happy	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
100	
  

	
  
Which	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  statements	
  best	
  describes	
  how	
  you	
  feel	
  about	
  the	
  future	
  of	
  
your	
  relationship?	
  (Circle	
  answer)	
  
	
  
5	
  
I	
  want	
  desperately	
  for	
  my	
  relationship	
  to	
  succeed,	
  and	
  would	
  go	
  to	
  almost	
  any	
  
length	
  to	
  see	
  that	
  it	
  does.	
  
	
  
	
  
4	
  
I	
  want	
  very	
  much	
  for	
  my	
  relationship	
  to	
  succeed,	
  and	
  will	
  do	
  all	
  I	
  can	
  to	
  see	
  that	
  it	
  
does.	
  
	
  
	
  
3	
  
I	
  want	
  very	
  much	
  for	
  my	
  relationship	
  to	
  succeed,	
  and	
  will	
  do	
  my	
  fair	
  share	
  to	
  see	
  
that	
  it	
  does.	
  
	
  
	
  
2	
  
It	
  would	
  be	
  nice	
  if	
  my	
  relationship	
  succeeded,	
  but	
  I	
  can’t	
  do	
  much	
  more	
  than	
  I	
  am	
  
doing	
  now	
  to	
  help	
  it	
  succeed.	
  
	
  
	
  
1	
  
It	
  would	
  be	
  nice	
  if	
  it	
  succeeded,	
  but	
  I	
  refuse	
  to	
  do	
  any	
  more	
  than	
  I	
  am	
  doing	
  now	
  to	
  
keep	
  the	
  relationship	
  going.	
  
	
  
	
  
0	
  
My	
  relationship	
  can	
  never	
  succeed,	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  more	
  that	
  I	
  can	
  do	
  to	
  keep	
  the	
  
relationship	
  going.	
  

101	
  

	
  
APPENDIX	
  B	
  
Economic	
  Strain	
  (Hilton	
  &	
  Devall,	
  1997).	
  
The	
  following	
  statements	
  describe	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  families	
  experience	
  
economic	
  strain.	
  For	
  each	
  statement,	
  please	
  circle	
  the	
  response	
  that	
  indicates	
  how	
  
often	
  the	
  situation	
  that	
  is	
  described	
  applies	
  to	
  you.	
  
	
  
Almost
Never Seldom Sometimes Usually always
In general, it is hard for me
and my family to live on our
present income

1

2

3

4

5

I experience money problems

1

2

3

4

5

Financial problems interfere
with my work and daily
routine

1

2

3

4

5

I worry about financial matters

1

2

3

4

5

Financial problems interfere
with my relationships with
other people

1

2

3

4

5

I worry about disappointing
my children because I can't
give them things they want

1

2

3

4

5

I worry about having money to
celebrate holidays and other
special occasions

1

2

3

4

5

I put off family activities (such
as vacations, movies, or
special events) because of the
expense

1

2

3

4

5

102	
  

	
  

I feel frustrated because I can't
afford the education or training
I need to get ahead

1

2

3

4

5

I have to put off getting
medical care for family
members because of the
expense

1

2

3

4

5

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Never Seldom Sometimes Usually

Almost
always

I have to put off getting dental
1
2
3
4
5
care for family members because
of the expense
	
  
	
  
I feel bad that I can't afford to
1
2
3
4
5
buy my children brand name clothing
that other children their age are wearing
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Compared	
  with	
  other	
  families,	
  would	
  you	
  say	
  your	
  income	
  is?	
  (Mark	
  selection)	
  
	
  
	
  
______1.	
  	
  Far	
  below	
  average	
  
	
  
______2.	
  	
  Below	
  average	
  
	
  
______3.	
  	
  Average	
  
	
  
______4.	
  	
  Above	
  average	
  
	
  
______5.	
  	
  Far	
  above	
  average	
  

103	
  

	
  
Appendix	
  C	
  
Religion	
  &	
  Spirituality	
  (Mahoney,	
  Pargament,	
  Jewell,	
  Swank,	
  Scott,	
  Emery	
  et	
  al.,	
  1999)	
  
Indicate	
  your	
  frequency	
  of	
  religious	
  participation	
  and	
  level	
  of	
  religiousness	
  and	
  
spirituality	
  (Circle	
  answer)	
  

Never once/year

once/6 once every twice/
months 2-3 months month

twice/
week

Frequency of attending
religious services in the past
year

1

2

3

4

5

6

Frequnency of prayer
outside of church

1

2

3

4

5

6

Not at all religious
Level of religiousity

Level of spirituality

1

2

Somewhat religious
3

Not at all spiritual
1

2

104	
  

5

6

Somewhat Spiritual
3

	
  

4

4

5

6

	
  
Indicate	
  how	
  often	
  you	
  and	
  your	
  spouse	
  do	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
(Circle	
  your	
  response)	
  
Never
Sometimes
My spouse and I pray together

1

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I pray for each other

1

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I talk together about how to
live out God's will

1

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I talk about our personal
moral and spiritual issues

1

2

3

4

5

6

My yspouse and I attend church together

1

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I go to reliigous education
classess together

1

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I go to Bible study together

1

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I go on spiritual or
reliigous retreats together

1

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I read books or articles
about religious or spiritual topics

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

1
	
  

2

3

4

5

6

My spouse and I participate in volunteer
work through our religious organization
My spouse and I talk about God's role in
our marriage
My spouse and I celebrate religious
holidays together
My spouse and I engage in religious rituals
together (e.g. fasting, meditation)

105	
  

	
  
Please	
  indicate	
  which	
  selection	
  best	
  represents	
  your	
  religious	
  affiliation	
  (Mark	
  
selection)	
  
	
  
_______Catholic	
  
_______Protestant	
  (e.g.	
  Christian	
  non-­‐catholic)	
  
_______Jewish	
  
_______Other	
  (e.g.	
  Muslim,	
  Buddhist)	
  
_______No	
  affiliation	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Do	
  you	
  and	
  your	
  partner	
  share	
  the	
  same	
  religious	
  affiliation?	
  
	
  
_______Yes	
  
_______No	
  
	
  

106	
  

	
  
APPENDIX	
  D	
  
Welcome	
  Letter	
  &	
  Directions	
  
	
  
Welcome,	
  
	
  
Thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  participation	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  research	
  study.	
  The	
  purpose	
  of	
  the	
  present	
  
study	
  is	
  to	
  investigate	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  
religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  and	
  their	
  influence	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  By	
  participating	
  in	
  
this	
  study	
  you	
  will	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  voluntarily	
  complete	
  a	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  survey,	
  economic	
  
strain	
  survey,	
  religion	
  and	
  spirituality	
  survey,	
  and	
  give	
  self	
  reported	
  information	
  on	
  length	
  
of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  and	
  demographic	
  data.	
  All	
  surveys	
  and	
  information	
  contained	
  
within	
  them	
  will	
  be	
  confidential—names	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  given.	
  Numerical	
  codes	
  will	
  be	
  
assigned	
  to	
  each	
  survey.	
  All	
  information	
  gathered	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  will	
  be	
  used	
  for	
  research	
  
purposes	
  only.	
  
	
  
Participation	
  in	
  the	
  present	
  study	
  is	
  completely	
  voluntary.	
  Participation	
  may	
  be	
  
discontinued	
  at	
  any	
  time.	
  You	
  may	
  refuse	
  to	
  answer	
  or	
  skip	
  any	
  question.	
  
	
  
Each	
  of	
  you	
  will	
  receive	
  a	
  survey	
  packet	
  with	
  an	
  informed	
  consent	
  form;	
  each	
  willing	
  
participant	
  must	
  read	
  and	
  sign	
  the	
  informed	
  consent.	
  Survey	
  packets	
  will	
  be	
  enclosed	
  by	
  a	
  
confidential	
  cover	
  sheet.	
  
	
  
Survey	
  answers	
  will	
  be	
  circled	
  or	
  marked	
  as	
  noted	
  in	
  the	
  directions.	
  Most	
  questions	
  
contained	
  on	
  the	
  surveys	
  have	
  scaled	
  answer	
  choices;	
  please	
  make	
  sure	
  to	
  read	
  carefully	
  
the	
  labeling	
  on	
  the	
  answer	
  choices.	
  Please	
  circle	
  or	
  mark	
  only	
  one	
  answer	
  choice	
  for	
  each	
  
question.	
  The	
  first	
  survey	
  will	
  be	
  the	
  Dyadic	
  Adjustment	
  Scale,	
  examining	
  marital	
  
satisfaction.	
  The	
  second	
  survey	
  is	
  Economic	
  Strain,	
  and	
  the	
  third	
  is	
  Religion	
  and	
  
Spirituality.	
  The	
  final	
  set	
  of	
  questions	
  will	
  ask	
  for	
  self-­‐reported	
  demographic	
  and	
  
employment	
  information.	
  You	
  will	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  answer	
  all	
  questions	
  on	
  your	
  own	
  and	
  not	
  
discuss	
  answers	
  with	
  your	
  spouse	
  or	
  surrounding	
  participants	
  during	
  the	
  survey.	
  
	
  
If	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  questions	
  or	
  comments	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  please	
  contact	
  Amanda	
  Talbot,	
  during	
  
the	
  survey,	
  or	
  by	
  phone	
  (248)	
  231-­‐5499,	
  or	
  e-­‐mail	
  at	
  guinotam@msu.edu.	
  If	
  for	
  any	
  reason,	
  
you	
  experience	
  distress	
  within	
  the	
  study	
  and	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  talk	
  to	
  a	
  couple	
  and	
  family	
  
therapy	
  counselor,	
  contact	
  can	
  be	
  made	
  either	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  MSU	
  Couple	
  and	
  Family	
  
Therapy	
  Clinic	
  (517)	
  432-­2272,	
  or	
  through	
  the	
  researcher,	
  Amanda	
  Talbot.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  participation,	
  
	
  
-­‐Amanda	
  Talbot	
  
	
  

107	
  

	
  
APPENDIX	
  E	
  
Informed	
  Consent	
  
	
  
Research	
  Participant	
  Information	
  and	
  Consent	
  Form	
  
	
  
You	
  have	
  been	
  asked	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  a	
  research	
  project.	
  Researchers	
  are	
  required	
  to	
  
provide	
  a	
  consent	
  form	
  to	
  inform	
  you	
  about	
  the	
  study,	
  to	
  convey	
  that	
  participation	
  is	
  
voluntary,	
  to	
  explain	
  risks	
  and	
  benefits	
  of	
  participation,	
  and	
  to	
  empower	
  you	
  to	
  make	
  an	
  
informed	
  decision.	
  You	
  should	
  feel	
  free	
  to	
  ask	
  the	
  researchers	
  any	
  questions	
  you	
  have.	
  
	
  
Study	
  Title:	
  Length	
  of	
  Unemployment	
  or	
  Underemployment	
  and	
  Marital	
  Satisfaction:	
  
Analysis	
  of	
  Perceived	
  Economic	
  Strain	
  and	
  Religious	
  Belief	
  in	
  Southeastern	
  Michigan.	
  
	
  
Researcher	
  and	
  Title:	
  Dr.	
  Barbara	
  Ames,	
  Primary	
  Investigator.	
  
Amanda	
  Talbot,	
  Master’s	
  student,	
  Secondary	
  Investigator.	
  
	
  
Department	
  and	
  Institution:	
  Human	
  Development	
  and	
  Family	
  Studies,	
  Michigan	
  State	
  
University.	
  
	
  
Contact	
  Information:	
  Dr.	
  Barbara	
  Ames	
  –	
  Phone:	
  (517)	
  432-­‐3324,	
  E-­‐mail:	
  ames@msu.edu	
  
Amanda	
  Talbot	
  -­‐	
  Phone:	
  (248)	
  231-­‐5499,	
  E-­‐mail:	
  guinotam@msu.edu	
  
	
  
Purpose	
  of	
  Research:	
  	
  
• You	
  are	
  being	
  asked	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  a	
  research	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  
unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment,	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  and	
  their	
  influence	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
• You	
  have	
  been	
  selected	
  as	
  a	
  possible	
  participate	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  because	
  you	
  fit	
  the	
  
inclusion	
  criteria	
  of	
  the	
  study.	
  
• From	
  this	
  study,	
  the	
  researchers	
  hope	
  to	
  learn	
  about	
  the	
  effects	
  the	
  economic	
  stress	
  
of	
  un-­‐and	
  underemployment,	
  perceived	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  religious	
  
affiliation/belief	
  have	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
• Your	
  participation	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  will	
  take	
  about	
  30	
  minutes.	
  
	
  
What	
  You	
  Will	
  Do:	
  	
  
• If	
  you	
  agree	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  you	
  will	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  complete	
  a	
  marital	
  
satisfaction	
  survey,	
  economic	
  strain	
  survey,	
  religion	
  and	
  spirituality	
  survey,	
  and	
  give	
  
self	
  reported	
  information	
  on	
  length	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  underemployment,	
  and	
  demographic	
  
data.	
  The	
  surveys	
  will	
  be	
  completed	
  on	
  site	
  or	
  via	
  mailed	
  survey	
  packets.	
  	
  
• You	
  will	
  receive	
  a	
  survey	
  packet	
  which	
  will	
  include	
  the	
  following	
  measures	
  in	
  order,	
  
the	
  Dyadic	
  Adjustment	
  Scale,	
  testing	
  marital	
  satisfaction,	
  Economic	
  Strain	
  Scale,	
  
Religion	
  and	
  Spirituality	
  Scale,	
  and	
  a	
  final	
  set	
  of	
  questions	
  will	
  ask	
  for	
  self-­‐reported	
  
demographic	
  and	
  employment	
  information.	
  
	
  
108	
  

	
  
Potential	
  Benefits:	
  	
  
• You	
  will	
  not	
  directly	
  benefit	
  from	
  your	
  participation	
  in	
  this	
  study.	
  However,	
  through	
  
your	
  participation	
  the	
  researchers	
  will	
  learn	
  more	
  about	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment	
  on	
  the	
  marital	
  system.	
  The	
  researchers	
  will	
  also	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  gain	
  
information	
  regarding	
  the	
  influence	
  that	
  the	
  high	
  unemployment	
  rate	
  has	
  on	
  marital	
  
and	
  family	
  systems,	
  which	
  could	
  result	
  in	
  benefits	
  to	
  families	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  
	
  
Potential	
  Risks:	
  	
  
• The	
  potential	
  risk	
  of	
  participating	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  may	
  be	
  posed	
  through	
  the	
  personal	
  
and	
  economic	
  information	
  that	
  will	
  be	
  asked	
  of	
  each	
  participant.	
  Participants	
  should	
  
know	
  that	
  this	
  information	
  is	
  completely	
  voluntary.	
  All	
  information	
  will	
  be	
  kept	
  
confidential.	
  
• If	
  for	
  any	
  reason,	
  you	
  experience	
  distress	
  within	
  the	
  study	
  and	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  talk	
  to	
  a	
  
couple	
  and	
  family	
  therapy	
  counselor,	
  contact	
  can	
  be	
  made	
  either	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  MSU	
  
Couple	
  and	
  Family	
  Therapy	
  Clinic	
  (517)	
  432-­‐2272,	
  or	
  through	
  the	
  primary	
  
investigator,	
  Barbara	
  Ames,	
  or	
  the	
  secondary	
  investigator,	
  Amanda	
  Talbot.	
  
	
  
Privacy	
  and	
  Confidentiality:	
  	
  
• The	
  data	
  for	
  this	
  project	
  will	
  be	
  kept	
  confidential.	
  
o Names	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  asked	
  for	
  or	
  given.	
  Numerical	
  codes	
  will	
  be	
  assigned	
  to	
  
each	
  survey.	
  
• 	
  Your	
  privacy	
  will	
  be	
  protected	
  by	
  implementing	
  confidential	
  survey	
  cover	
  sheets,	
  
and	
  having	
  a	
  concealed	
  box	
  to	
  hand	
  in	
  completed	
  surveys.	
  
o Data	
  will	
  be	
  stored	
  and	
  analyzed	
  on	
  the	
  secondary	
  researcher’s	
  computer	
  
database,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  password-­‐protected	
  system.	
  This	
  information	
  will	
  used	
  
to	
  complete	
  thesis	
  research.	
  
o Data	
  also	
  will	
  be	
  stored	
  with	
  the	
  primary	
  investigator,	
  Barbara	
  Ames,	
  13F	
  
Human	
  Ecology	
  Building.	
  
o Data	
  will	
  be	
  retained	
  for	
  3	
  years	
  once	
  the	
  project	
  is	
  closed.	
  
o The	
  researcher,	
  research	
  advisor,	
  and	
  the	
  university	
  institutional	
  review	
  
board	
  will	
  be	
  the	
  only	
  individuals	
  with	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  raw	
  data.	
  
• The	
  results	
  of	
  this	
  study	
  may	
  be	
  published	
  or	
  presented	
  at	
  professional	
  meetings,	
  
but	
  the	
  identities	
  of	
  all	
  research	
  participants	
  will	
  remain	
  anonymous.	
  
o The	
  research	
  advisor	
  and	
  the	
  university’s	
  institutional	
  review	
  board	
  will	
  
have	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  research	
  data	
  and	
  research	
  results.	
  
• Your	
  confidentiality	
  will	
  be	
  protected	
  to	
  the	
  maximum	
  extent	
  allowable	
  by	
  law.	
  
	
  
Your	
  Right	
  to	
  Participate,	
  Say	
  No,	
  or	
  Withdraw:	
  	
  
• Participation	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  is	
  completely	
  voluntary.	
  You	
  have	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  say	
  no.	
  
• You	
  may	
  change	
  your	
  mind	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  and	
  withdraw.	
  
• Participation	
  is	
  voluntary,	
  you	
  may	
  choose	
  not	
  to	
  participate	
  at	
  all,	
  or	
  you	
  may	
  
refuse	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  certain	
  procedures	
  or	
  answer	
  certain	
  questions	
  or	
  
discontinue	
  your	
  participation	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  without	
  consequence.	
  
• Refusal	
  to	
  participate	
  will	
  involve	
  no	
  penalty	
  or	
  loss	
  of	
  benefits	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  subject	
  
is	
  otherwise	
  entitled.	
  

109	
  

	
  
•

Subject	
  may	
  discontinue	
  participation	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  without	
  penalty	
  of	
  loss	
  of	
  benefits	
  
to	
  which	
  subject	
  is	
  otherwise	
  entitled.	
  	
  

	
  
Contact	
  Information	
  for	
  Questions	
  and	
  Concerns:	
  
If	
  you	
  have	
  concerns	
  or	
  questions	
  about	
  this	
  study,	
  such	
  as	
  scientific	
  issues,	
  how	
  to	
  do	
  any	
  
part	
  of	
  it,	
  or	
  to	
  report	
  an	
  injury	
  (i.e.	
  physical,	
  psychological,	
  social,	
  financial,	
  or	
  otherwise),	
  
please	
  contact	
  the	
  primary	
  investigator	
  Barbara	
  Ames	
  at	
  Department	
  of	
  Human	
  of	
  
Development	
  and	
  Family	
  Studies	
  Room	
  11,	
  Human	
  Ecology	
  Building	
  East	
  Lansing,	
  MI	
  
48824	
  1030,	
  through	
  e-­‐mail	
  at	
  ames@msu.edu,	
  or	
  by	
  phone	
  517-­‐432-­‐3324.	
  
Contact	
  also	
  can	
  be	
  made	
  to	
  the	
  secondary	
  investigator	
  Amanda	
  Talbot	
  at	
  248-­‐231-­‐5499	
  or	
  
e-­‐mail	
  at	
  guinotam@msu.edu.	
  
	
  
If	
  you	
  have	
  questions	
  or	
  concerns	
  about	
  your	
  role	
  and	
  rights	
  as	
  a	
  research	
  participant,	
  
would	
  like	
  to	
  obtain	
  information	
  or	
  offer	
  input,	
  or	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  register	
  a	
  complaint	
  about	
  
this	
  study,	
  you	
  may	
  contact,	
  anonymously	
  if	
  you	
  wish,	
  the	
  Michigan	
  State	
  University’s	
  
Human	
  Research	
  Protection	
  Program	
  at	
  (517)	
  355-­‐2180,	
  Fax	
  (517)	
  432-­‐4503,	
  or	
  e-­‐mail	
  
irb@msu.edu	
  or	
  regular	
  mail	
  at	
  207	
  Olds	
  Hall,	
  MSU,	
  East	
  Lansing,	
  MI	
  48824.	
  
	
  
Documentation	
  of	
  Informed	
  Consent:	
  
• Your	
  signature	
  below	
  means	
  that	
  you	
  voluntarily	
  agree	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  this	
  
research	
  study.	
  
• Your	
  consent	
  certifies	
  the	
  following:	
  (a)	
  you	
  are	
  18	
  years	
  of	
  age	
  or	
  older,	
  (b)	
  you	
  
have	
  read	
  the	
  present	
  document,	
  and	
  (c)	
  that	
  your	
  participation	
  is	
  voluntary	
  and	
  
that	
  you	
  can	
  withdraw	
  at	
  any	
  time.	
  
• A	
  copy	
  of	
  the	
  informed	
  consent	
  will	
  be	
  given	
  to	
  you.	
  
	
  
	
  
__________________________________________________	
  
Signature	
  of	
  Participant	
  
	
  
	
  
__________________________________________________	
  
Date	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

110	
  

	
  
	
  

111	
  

	
  
	
  
Figure	
  1:	
  	
  Hypothesis	
  1	
  
	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  1.	
  The	
  instance	
  of	
  unemployment	
  or	
  underemployment	
  (since	
  individuals	
  felt	
  
they	
  were	
  fully	
  employed)	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  
(DAS)	
  
High	
  scores	
  >	
  
satisfaction	
  
Low	
  scores	
  <	
  
satisfaction	
  

Length	
  of	
  
Unemployment/	
  
Underemployment	
  
(Self	
  Report)	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Duration	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
Direct	
  effect	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Indirect	
  effect	
  	
  

	
  

For	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  references	
  to	
  
color	
  in	
  this	
  and	
  all	
  other	
  figures,	
  the	
  
reader	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  the	
  electronic	
  version	
  
of	
  this	
  thesis.	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
112	
  

	
  
Figure	
  2:	
  	
  Hypothesis	
  2	
  

	
  

Hypothesis	
  2a.	
  Perceived	
  economic	
  strain	
  will	
  directly	
  effect	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  2b.	
  Un-­‐or	
  underemployment	
  will	
  have	
  an	
  indirect	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  
through	
  the	
  mediation	
  of	
  economic	
  strain,	
  and	
  when	
  controlling	
  for	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  un-­‐or	
  
underemployment.	
  
	
  
	
  
Marital	
  	
  
Satisfaction	
  
(DAS)	
  
High	
  scores	
  >	
  
satisfaction	
  
Low	
  scores	
  <	
  
satisfaction	
  

	
  
Length	
  of	
  
Unemployment/	
  
Underemployment	
  
(Self	
  Report)	
  

	
  
	
  
b	
  

	
  
	
  

b	
  

Perceived	
  Economic	
  
Strain	
  (FESS)	
  
High	
  scores	
  >	
  strain	
  
Low	
  scores	
  <	
  strain	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Duration	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
Direct	
  effect	
  	
  

	
  

Indirect	
  effect	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

113	
  

a	
  

	
  
Figure	
  3:	
  	
  Hypothesis	
  3	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  3a.	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  effect	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  3b.	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  buffer,	
  or	
  moderate	
  the	
  mediating	
  effects	
  of	
  
economic	
  strain	
  on	
  marital	
  satisfaction.	
  
	
  
Hypothesis	
  3c.	
  Religious	
  affiliation/belief	
  will	
  serve	
  as	
  an	
  adaptive	
  resource.	
  
	
  
	
  
Religious	
  
Affiliation/Belief	
  
	
  
a	
  
(Religion	
  &	
  Spirituality	
  
Length	
  of	
  
Scale)	
  
	
  
Unemployment/	
  
Marital	
  Satisfaction	
  
	
  
Underemployment	
  
(DAS)	
  
	
  
b	
  &	
  c	
  
(Self	
  Report)	
  
High	
  scores	
  >	
  
satisfaction	
  
	
  
Low	
  scores	
  <	
  
satisfaction	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

Direct	
  effect	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

Perceived	
  Economic	
  
Strain	
  (FESS)	
  
High	
  scores	
  >	
  strain	
  
Low	
  scores	
  <	
  strain	
  

Duration	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Indirect	
  effect	
  	
  

114	
  

	
  
Figure	
  4:	
  Hypothesis	
  3c	
  Results	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

115	
  

	
  
	
  
REFERENCES	
  

116	
  

	
  
REFERENCES	
  
	
  
Abc	
  News.	
  (2010,	
  September	
  16)	
  Poverty	
  Rate	
  Climbs	
  in	
  Recession,	
  One	
  in	
  Seven	
  	
  
Now	
  Poor.	
  Retrieved	
  September	
  18,	
  2010	
  from	
  http://abcnews.go.com	
  	
  
Abc	
  News.	
  (2009,	
  April	
  3)	
  Unemployment	
  Rate	
  Hits	
  Highest	
  Level	
  Since	
  1983.	
  	
  
Retrieved	
  September	
  8,	
  2010	
  from	
  http://abcnews.go.com	
  
American	
  Psychological	
  Association	
  (2007).	
  Stress	
  &	
  burnout	
  statistics:	
  Physical	
  &	
  	
  
psychological	
  symptoms	
  of	
  anxiety	
  and	
  stress.	
  Retrieved	
  September	
  14,	
  2010	
  	
  
from	
  http://www.apa.org	
  
Aytac,	
  I.	
  A.,	
  &	
  Rankin,	
  B.	
  H.	
  (2009).	
  Economic	
  crisis	
  and	
  marital	
  problems	
  in	
  Turkey:	
  	
  
Testing	
  the	
  family	
  stress	
  model.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  Family,	
  71,	
  756-­‐767.	
  
Banks,	
  M.	
  H.	
  (1995).	
  Psychological	
  effects	
  of	
  prolonged	
  unemployment:	
  Relevance	
  to	
  	
  
models	
  of	
  work	
  re-­‐entry	
  following	
  injury.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Occupational	
  	
  
Rehabilitation,	
  5(1),	
  37-­‐53.	
  
Boss,	
  P.	
  (2002).	
  Family	
  stress	
  management:	
  A	
  contextual	
  approach	
  (2nd	
  ed.).	
  	
  
Thousand	
  Oaks:	
  Sage.	
  
Boss,	
  P.	
  G.,	
  Doherty,	
  W.	
  J.,	
  LaRossa,	
  R.,	
  Schumm,	
  W.	
  R.,	
  &	
  Steinmetz,	
  S.	
  K.	
  (Eds.).	
  	
  
(1993).	
  Sourcebook	
  of	
  family	
  theories	
  and	
  methods	
  a	
  contextual	
  approach.	
  	
  
New	
  York:	
  Kluwer	
  Academic/Plenum	
  Publishers.	
  
Broman,	
  C.	
  L.,	
  Hamilton,	
  V.	
  L.,	
  Hoffman,	
  W.	
  S.,	
  &	
  Mavaddat,	
  R.	
  (1995).	
  Race,	
  gender,	
  	
  
and	
  the	
  response	
  to	
  stress:	
  Autoworkers’	
  vulnerability	
  to	
  long-­‐term	
  	
  
unemployment.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Community	
  Psychology,	
  23(6),	
  813-­‐842.	
  
Bronfenbrenner,	
  U.	
  (1979).	
  The	
  Ecology	
  of	
  Human	
  Development.	
  Cambridge:	
  Harvard	
  	
  
University	
  Press.	
  
Bubolz,	
  M.	
  M.,	
  &	
  Sontag,	
  M.	
  S.	
  (1988).	
  Integration	
  in	
  home	
  economics	
  and	
  human	
  ecology.	
  	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Consumer	
  Studies	
  and	
  Home	
  Economics,	
  12,	
  1-­‐14.	
  
Bubolz,	
  M.	
  M.,	
  Eicher,	
  J.	
  B.,	
  &	
  Sontag,	
  M.	
  S.	
  (1979,	
  Spring).	
  The	
  human	
  ecosystem:	
  A	
  model.	
  	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Home	
  Economic,	
  71(1),	
  28-­‐31.	
  
Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics	
  (n.d.a).	
  Labor	
  Force	
  Statistics	
  from	
  the	
  Current	
  Population	
  	
  
Survey.	
  Retrieved	
  September	
  8,	
  2010	
  from	
  http://bls.gov	
  
Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics	
  (n.d.a).	
  Labor	
  Force	
  Statistics	
  from	
  the	
  Current	
  Population	
  

117	
  

	
  
Survey:	
  How	
  the	
  Government	
  Measures	
  Unemployment.	
  Retrieved	
  August	
  17,	
  2011	
  
from	
  http://bls.gov	
  
	
  
Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics	
  (n.d.a).	
  Local	
  Area	
  Unemployment	
  Statistics.	
  Retrieved	
  	
  
September	
  8,	
  2010	
  from	
  http://bls.gov	
  
Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Statistics	
  (n.d.a).	
  Economic	
  News	
  Release:	
  Employment	
  Situation	
  	
  
Summary.	
  Retrieved	
  October	
  18,	
  2010	
  from	
  http://data.bls.gov/cgi-­‐	
  
bin/print.pl/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm	
  
Busby,	
  D.	
  M.,	
  Christensen,	
  C.,	
  Crane,	
  D.	
  R.,	
  &	
  Larson,	
  J.	
  H.	
  (1995).	
  A	
  revision	
  of	
  the	
  
dyadic	
  adjustment	
  scale	
  for	
  use	
  with	
  distressed	
  and	
  nondistressed	
  couples:	
  	
  
Construct	
  hierarchy	
  and	
  multidimensional	
  scales.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marital	
  and	
  	
  
Family	
  Therapy,	
  21(3),	
  289-­‐300.	
  
Career	
  Transition	
  Support	
  Ministries	
  (CTSM)	
  (n.d.a.).	
  Retrieved	
  November	
  5,	
  2010	
  	
  
from	
  http://www.ctsministries.org/	
  
Clark,	
  A.	
  &	
  Lelkes,	
  O.	
  (2008).	
  Religion	
  ‘linked	
  to	
  happy	
  life’.	
  Retrieved	
  November	
  10,	
  	
  
2010,	
  from	
  http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/news.bbc.com	
  
Clark-­‐Nicolas,	
  P.,	
  &	
  Gray-­‐Litte,	
  B.	
  (1991).	
  Effect	
  of	
  economic	
  resources	
  on	
  marital	
  	
  
quality	
  in	
  black	
  married	
  couples.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  the	
  Family,	
  53,	
  645-­‐	
  
655.	
  
Conger,	
  R.	
  D.,	
  Conger,	
  K.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Martin,	
  M.	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Socioeconomic	
  status,	
  family	
  	
  
processes,	
  and	
  individual	
  development.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  Family,	
  72,	
  	
  
685-­‐704.	
  
Conger,	
  R.	
  D.,	
  &	
  Elder,	
  G.	
  H.	
  (1994).	
  Families	
  in	
  troubled	
  times:	
  Adapting	
  to	
  change	
  in	
  
rural	
  America.	
  New	
  York:	
  Aldine	
  de	
  Gruyter.	
  
Conger,	
  R.	
  D.,	
  Ge,	
  X.,	
  Elder,	
  G.	
  H.,	
  Lorenz,	
  F.	
  O.,	
  &	
  Simons,	
  R.	
  L.	
  (1994).	
  Economic	
  	
  
stress,	
  coercive	
  family	
  process,	
  and	
  developmental	
  problems	
  of	
  adolescents.	
  	
  
Child	
  Development,	
  65,	
  541-­‐561.	
  
Conger,	
  R.	
  D.,	
  Elder,	
  G.	
  H.,	
  Lorenz,	
  F.	
  O.,	
  Conger,	
  K.	
  J.,	
  Simons,	
  R.	
  L.,	
  Whitbeck,	
  L.	
  B.	
  et	
  	
  
al.	
  (1990).	
  Linking	
  economic	
  hardship	
  to	
  marital	
  quality	
  	
  
and	
  instability.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  the	
  Family,	
  52(3),	
  643-­‐656.	
  
Conger,	
  R.	
  D.,	
  Rueter,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Elder,	
  G.	
  H.	
  (1999).	
  Couple	
  resilience	
  to	
  economic	
  	
  
pressure.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Personality	
  and	
  Social	
  Psychology,	
  76(1),	
  54-­‐71.	
  
Crain’s	
  Detroit	
  Business	
  (2010,	
  August	
  26).	
  Metro	
  Detroit’s	
  Unemployment	
  Rate	
  	
  
Rises	
  to	
  15.2	
  in	
  July.	
  Retrieved	
  September	
  8,	
  2010	
  from	
  http://crainsdetroit.com	
  

118	
  

	
  
Costello,	
  J.	
  E.,	
  Compton,	
  S.	
  N.,	
  Keeler,	
  G.,	
  Angold,	
  A.	
  (2003).	
  Relationships	
  between	
  	
  
poverty	
  and	
  psychopathology.	
  Journal	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Medical	
  Association,	
  	
  
290(15),	
  2023-­‐2029.	
  
Dakin,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Wampler,	
  R.	
  (2008).	
  Money	
  doesn’t	
  buy	
  happiness,	
  but	
  it	
  helps:	
  Marital	
  	
  
satisfaction,	
  psychological	
  distress,	
  and	
  demographic	
  differences	
  between	
  	
  
low-­‐and	
  middle-­‐income	
  clinic	
  couples.	
  The	
  American	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  	
  
Therapy,	
  36,	
  300-­‐311.	
  
Dew,	
  J.	
  (2008).	
  Debt	
  changes	
  and	
  marital	
  satisfaction	
  change	
  in	
  recently	
  married	
  	
  
couples.	
  Family	
  Relations,	
  57,	
  60-­‐71.	
  
Dooley,	
  D.,	
  Prause,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Ham-­‐Rowbottom,	
  K.	
  A.	
  (2000).	
  Underemployment	
  and	
  	
  
depression:	
  Longitudinal	
  relationships.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Health	
  and	
  Social	
  Behavior,	
  	
  
41,	
  421-­‐436.	
  
Edin,	
  K.,	
  &	
  Kissane,	
  R.	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Poverty	
  and	
  the	
  American	
  family:	
  A	
  decade	
  in	
  	
  
review.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  Family,	
  72,	
  460-­‐479.	
  
Falconier,	
  M.	
  K.	
  (2010).	
  Female	
  anxiety	
  and	
  male	
  depression:	
  Links	
  between	
  	
  
economic	
  strain	
  and	
  psychological	
  aggression	
  in	
  Argentinean	
  couples.	
  Family	
  	
  
Relations,	
  59,	
  424-­‐438.	
  
Falconier,	
  M.	
  K.,	
  &	
  Epstein,	
  N.	
  B.	
  (2011).	
  Couples	
  experiencing	
  financial	
  strain:	
  What	
  	
  
we	
  know	
  and	
  what	
  we	
  can	
  do.	
  Family	
  Relations,	
  60,	
  303-­‐317.	
  
Feldman,	
  D.	
  C.	
  (1996).	
  The	
  nature,	
  antecedents	
  and	
  consequences	
  of	
  	
  
underemployment.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Management,	
  22(3),	
  385-­‐407.	
  
Fleck,	
  C.	
  (2011,	
  June).	
  When	
  any	
  job	
  must	
  do.	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  2nd	
  from	
  	
  
aarp.org/bulletin.	
  
Fox,	
  G.	
  L.,	
  &	
  Chancey,	
  D.	
  (1998).	
  Sources	
  of	
  economic	
  distress	
  individual	
  and	
  family	
  	
  
outcomes.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  Issues,	
  19(6),	
  725-­‐749.	
  
Fritz,	
  M.	
  S.,	
  &	
  MacKinnon,	
  D.	
  P.	
  (2007).	
  Required	
  sample	
  size	
  to	
  detect	
  the	
  mediated	
  	
  
effect.	
  Psychological	
  Science,	
  18(3),	
  233-­‐239.	
  
Griffore,	
  R.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Phenice,	
  L.	
  A.	
  (2001)	
  Language	
  of	
  human	
  ecology:	
  A	
  general	
  systems	
  	
  
perspective.	
  Kendall	
  Hunt	
  Publishing	
  Co.	
  
Guralnik,	
  D.	
  B.	
  (Ed.)	
  (1986).	
  Webster’s	
  New	
  World	
  Dictionary.	
  New	
  York:	
  Prentice	
  Hall	
  	
  
Press.	
  
Heaton,	
  T.	
  B.,	
  &	
  Pratt,	
  E.	
  L.	
  (1990).	
  The	
  effects	
  of	
  religious	
  homogamy	
  on	
  marital	
  	
  
satisfaction	
  and	
  stability.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  Issues,	
  11(2),	
  191-­‐207.	
  

119	
  

	
  
Hilton,	
  J.	
  M.,	
  &	
  Devall,	
  E.	
  L.	
  (1997).	
  The	
  family	
  economic	
  strain	
  scale:	
  Development	
  	
  
and	
  evaluation	
  of	
  the	
  instrument	
  with	
  single-­‐and	
  two	
  parent	
  families.	
  Journal	
  	
  
of	
  Family	
  and	
  Economic	
  Issues,	
  18(3),	
  247-­‐271.	
  
Howe,	
  G.	
  W.,	
  Levy,	
  M.	
  L.,	
  &	
  Caplan,	
  R.	
  D.	
  (2004).	
  Job	
  loss	
  and	
  depressive	
  symptoms	
  in	
  	
  
couples:	
  Common	
  stressors,	
  stress	
  transmission,	
  or	
  relationship	
  disruption.	
  	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  Psychology,	
  18(4),	
  639-­‐650.	
  
Isidore,	
  C.	
  (2009).	
  The	
  great	
  recession.	
  Retrieved,	
  October	
  16,	
  2010	
  from	
  	
  
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/25/news/economy/depression_comparisons/ind	
  
ex.htm	
  
Johnson,	
  D.	
  R.,	
  &	
  Booth,	
  A.	
  (1990).	
  Rural	
  economic	
  decline	
  and	
  marital	
  quality:	
  A	
  	
  
panel	
  study	
  of	
  farm	
  marriages.	
  Family	
  Relations,	
  39,	
  159-­‐165.	
  
Jones,	
  L.	
  (1992).	
  His	
  unemployment	
  and	
  her	
  reaction:	
  The	
  effect	
  of	
  husbands’	
  	
  
unemployment	
  on	
  wives.	
  Affilia,	
  7(1),	
  57-­‐73.	
  
Karney,	
  B.	
  R.,	
  Bradbury,	
  T.	
  N.	
  (2005).	
  Contextual	
  influences	
  on	
  marriage:	
  	
  
Implications	
  for	
  policy	
  and	
  intervention.	
  Current	
  Directions	
  in	
  Psychological	
  	
  
Science,	
  14,	
  171-­‐174.	
  
Kazak,	
  A.	
  E.,	
  Jarmas,	
  A.,	
  &	
  Snitzer,	
  L.	
  (1988).	
  The	
  assessment	
  of	
  marital	
  satisfaction:	
  	
  
An	
  evaluation	
  of	
  the	
  dyadic	
  adjustment	
  scale.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  Psychology,	
  	
  
2(1),	
  82-­‐91.	
  
Keenan,	
  M.	
  R.	
  (2009).	
  Prayer	
  and	
  support	
  helps	
  unemployed	
  stay	
  focused.	
  Retrieved	
  	
  
November	
  11,	
  2010,	
  from	
  http://www.detnews.com/article/20090923	
  
Khan,	
  L.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Morrow,	
  P.	
  C.,	
  (1991).	
  Objective	
  and	
  subjective	
  underemployment	
  	
  
relationships	
  to	
  job	
  satisfaction.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Business	
  Research,	
  22,	
  211-­‐218.	
  
Kinnunen,	
  U.,	
  &	
  Feldt,	
  T.	
  (2004).	
  Economic	
  stress	
  and	
  marital	
  adjustment	
  among	
  	
  
couples:	
  Analyses	
  at	
  the	
  dyadic	
  level.	
  European	
  Journal	
  of	
  Social	
  Psychology,	
  
	
  34,	
  519-­‐532.	
  
Kinnunen,	
  U.,	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  L.	
  (1998).	
  Linking	
  economic	
  stress	
  to	
  marital	
  quality	
  	
  
among	
  finnish	
  marital	
  couples.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  Issues,	
  19(6),	
  705-­‐724.	
  
Kokko,	
  K.,	
  &	
  Pulkkinen,	
  L.	
  (1998).	
  Unemployment	
  and	
  psychological	
  distress:	
  	
  
Mediator	
  effects.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Adult	
  Development,	
  5(4),	
  205-­‐217.	
  
Kulik,	
  L.	
  (2001).	
  Impact	
  of	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment	
  and	
  age	
  on	
  jobless	
  men	
  and	
  	
  
women:	
  A	
  comparative	
  analysis.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Employment	
  Counseling,	
  38(1),	
  15-­‐	
  
27.	
  
Kwon,	
  H.	
  K.,	
  Rueter,	
  M.	
  A.,	
  Lee,	
  M.	
  S.,	
  Koh,	
  S.,	
  &	
  Ok,	
  S.	
  W.	
  (2003).	
  Marital	
  relationships	
  	
  
120	
  

	
  
following	
  the	
  Korean	
  economic	
  crisis:	
  Applying	
  the	
  family	
  stress	
  model.	
  	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  Family,	
  65,	
  316-­‐325.	
  
Lavee,	
  Y.,	
  McCubbin,	
  H.	
  I.,	
  &	
  Olson,	
  D.	
  H.	
  (1987).	
  The	
  effects	
  of	
  stressful	
  life	
  events	
  	
  
and	
  transitions	
  on	
  family	
  functioning	
  and	
  well-­‐being.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  	
  
the	
  Family,49	
  (4),	
  857-­‐873.	
  
Lavee,	
  Y.,	
  McCubbin,	
  H.	
  I.,	
  &	
  Patterson,	
  J.	
  M.	
  (1985).	
  The	
  double	
  ABCX	
  model	
  of	
  	
  
family	
  stress	
  and	
  adaptation:	
  An	
  empirical	
  test	
  by	
  analysis	
  of	
  structural	
  	
  
equations	
  with	
  latent	
  variables.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  the	
  Family,	
  47(4),	
  	
  
811-­‐825.	
  
Leeflang,	
  R.	
  L.,	
  Klein-­‐Hesselink,	
  D.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Spruit,	
  I.	
  P.	
  (1992).	
  Health	
  effects	
  of	
  	
  
unemployment—Long	
  term	
  unemployed	
  men	
  in	
  a	
  rural	
  and	
  an	
  urban	
  setting.	
  	
  
Social	
  Science	
  Medicine,	
  34(4),	
  341-­‐350.	
  
Lehrer,	
  E.	
  L.,	
  &	
  Chiswick,	
  C.	
  U.	
  (1993).	
  Religion	
  as	
  a	
  determinant	
  of	
  marital	
  stability.	
  	
  
Demography,	
  30(3),	
  385-­‐404.	
  
Localistica.com	
  (n.d.a).	
  All	
  Counties	
  in	
  Michigan	
  State.	
  Retrieved	
  November	
  22,	
  2010	
  	
  
from	
  http://localistica.com/usa/mi/counties/all-­‐counties	
  	
  
MacKinnon,	
  D.	
  P.,	
  Lockwood,	
  C.	
  M.,	
  Hoffman,	
  J.	
  M.,	
  West,	
  S.	
  G.,	
  &	
  Sheets,	
  V.	
  (2002).	
  A	
  
comparison	
  of	
  methods	
  to	
  test	
  mediation	
  and	
  other	
  intervening	
  variable	
  	
  
effects.	
  Psychological	
  Methods,	
  7(1),	
  83-­‐104.	
  
Mahoney,	
  A.	
  (2010).	
  Religion	
  in	
  families,	
  1999	
  –	
  2009:	
  A	
  relational	
  spirituality	
  	
  
framework.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  Family,	
  72,	
  805-­‐827.	
  
Mahoney,	
  A.,	
  Pargament,	
  K.	
  I.,	
  Jewell,	
  T.,	
  Swank,	
  A.	
  B.,	
  Scott,	
  E.,	
  Emery,	
  E.	
  et	
  al.	
  (1999).	
  	
  
Marriage	
  and	
  the	
  spiritual	
  realm:	
  The	
  role	
  of	
  proximal	
  and	
  distal	
  religious	
  	
  
constructs	
  in	
  marital	
  functioning.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  Psychology,	
  13(3),	
  321-­‐	
  
338.	
  
Mahoney,	
  A.,	
  Pargament,	
  K.	
  I.,	
  Tarakeshwar,	
  N.,	
  &	
  Swank,	
  A.	
  B.	
  (2001).	
  Religion	
  in	
  the	
  	
  
home	
  in	
  the	
  1980s	
  and	
  1990s:	
  A	
  meta-­‐analytic	
  review	
  and	
  conceptual	
  	
  
analysis	
  of	
  links	
  between	
  religion,	
  marriage,	
  and	
  parenting.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  	
  
Psychology,	
  15(4),	
  559-­‐596.	
  
Mallinckrodt,	
  B.,	
  Abraham,	
  T.	
  W.,	
  Wei,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Russell,	
  D.	
  W.	
  (2006).	
  Advances	
  in	
  	
  
testing	
  the	
  statistical	
  significance	
  of	
  mediation	
  effects.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Counseling	
  	
  
Psychology,	
  53(3),	
  372-­‐378.	
  
Marks,	
  L.	
  D.,	
  Dollahite,	
  D.	
  C.,	
  &	
  Baumgartner,	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  In	
  God	
  we	
  trust:	
  Qualitative	
  	
  
findings	
  on	
  finances,	
  family,	
  and	
  faith	
  from	
  a	
  diverse	
  sample	
  of	
  U.S.	
  families.	
  	
  
Family	
  Relations,	
  59,	
  439-­‐452.	
  
121	
  

	
  
Marlar,	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Worry,	
  sadness,	
  stress	
  increase	
  with	
  length	
  of	
  unemployment:	
  	
  
Majority	
  of	
  unemployed	
  are	
  “struggling”.	
  Retrieved,	
  September	
  14,	
  2010	
  from	
  	
  
http://www.gallup.com/poll/139604/worry-­‐sadness-­‐stress-­‐increase	
  
Mattingly,	
  M.	
  J.,	
  &	
  Smith,	
  K.	
  E.	
  (2010).	
  Changes	
  in	
  wives’	
  employment	
  when	
  	
  
husbands	
  stop	
  working:	
  A	
  recession-­‐prosperity	
  comparison.	
  Family	
  	
  
Relations,	
  59,	
  343-­‐357.	
  
McCubbin,	
  H.	
  I.,	
  McCubbin,	
  M.	
  A.,	
  Thompson,	
  A.	
  I.,	
  Han,	
  S.	
  Y.,	
  &	
  Allen,	
  C.	
  T.	
  (1997).	
  	
  
Families	
  under	
  stress:	
  What	
  makes	
  them	
  resilient.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  and	
  	
  
Consumer	
  Science,	
  89(3),	
  2-­‐11.	
  
Michigan	
  Labor	
  Market	
  Information	
  (n.d.a.).	
  Unemployment	
  Statistics	
  (LAUS).	
  	
  
Retrieved,	
  November	
  22,	
  2010	
  from	
  
http://www.milmi.org/cgi/dataAnalysis/LabForceReport.asp	
  
	
  
Mills,	
  R.	
  J.,	
  Grasmick,	
  H.	
  G.,	
  Morgan,	
  C.	
  S.,	
  &	
  Wenk,	
  D.	
  (1992).	
  The	
  effects	
  of	
  gender,	
  	
  
family	
  satisfaction,	
  and	
  economic	
  strain	
  on	
  psychological	
  well-­‐being.	
  Family	
  	
  
Relations,	
  41,	
  440-­‐445.	
  
Motley	
  Fool.com	
  (2009	
  June	
  18)	
  Michigan	
  no	
  longer	
  in	
  a	
  “Depression.”	
  Now	
  Enters	
  	
  
“State	
  of	
  Emergency.”	
  Retrieved	
  October	
  22,	
  2010	
  from	
  	
  
http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/michigan-­‐no-­‐longer-­‐in-­‐a/215209	
  
Murray,	
  S.	
  (2010	
  June	
  2)	
  Chronic	
  Joblessness	
  Bites	
  Deep:	
  Long-­‐Term	
  Unemployment	
  Hits	
  	
  
New	
  High,	
  Cuts	
  Across	
  Income	
  Levels,	
  Demographics.	
  The	
  Wall	
  Street	
  Journal.	
  
Oakland	
  County	
  Data	
  Book	
  (n.d.a.).	
  Customized	
  Report	
  Detailed	
  Information	
  on	
  Oakland	
  	
  
County,	
  Michigan.	
  Retrieved,	
  November	
  2,	
  2011	
  from	
  	
  
http://www.oakgov.com/peds/info_pub/Oakland_County_Databook.html	
  
Ohanian,	
  L.	
  E.	
  (2010).	
  Understanding	
  economic	
  crises:	
  The	
  great	
  depression	
  and	
  the	
  	
  
2008	
  recession.	
  The	
  Economic	
  Record,	
  86,	
  2-­‐6.	
  
Papp,	
  L.	
  M.,	
  Cummings,	
  E.	
  M.,	
  &	
  Goeke-­‐Morey,	
  M.	
  C.	
  (2009).	
  For	
  Richer,	
  for	
  poorer:	
  	
  
Money	
  as	
  a	
  topic	
  of	
  marital	
  conflict	
  in	
  the	
  home.	
  Family	
  Relations,	
  58,	
  91-­‐103.	
  
Patterson,	
  J.	
  M.	
  (2002).	
  Integrating	
  family	
  resilience	
  and	
  family	
  stress	
  theory.	
  Journal	
  
of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  Family,	
  64(2),	
  349-­‐360.	
  
Smock,	
  P.	
  J.,	
  Manning,	
  W.	
  D.,	
  &	
  Porter,	
  M.	
  (2005).	
  “Everything’s	
  there	
  except	
  money”:	
  	
  
How	
  money	
  shapes	
  decisions	
  to	
  marry	
  among	
  cohabitors.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  	
  
and	
  Family,	
  67,	
  680-­‐696.	
  
Spanier,	
  G.	
  B.	
  (1976).	
  Measuring	
  dyadic	
  adjustment:	
  New	
  scales	
  for	
  assessing	
  the	
  	
  
quality	
  of	
  marriage	
  and	
  similar	
  dyads.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  the	
  Family,	
  	
  
122	
  

	
  
38(1),	
  15-­‐28.	
  
Spanier,	
  G.	
  B.	
  (1988).	
  Assessing	
  the	
  strengths	
  of	
  the	
  dyadic	
  adjustment	
  scale.	
  Journal	
  	
  
of	
  Family	
  Psychology,	
  2,	
  92-­‐94.	
  
Stack,	
  S.,	
  &	
  Wasserman,	
  I.	
  (2007).	
  Economic	
  strain	
  and	
  suicide	
  risk:	
  A	
  qualitative	
  	
  
analysis.	
  Suicide	
  and	
  Life	
  –	
  Threatening	
  Behavior,	
  37(1),	
  103-­‐112.	
  
Strully,	
  K.	
  W.	
  (2009).	
  Job	
  loss	
  and	
  health	
  in	
  the	
  U.S.	
  labor	
  market.	
  Demography,	
  	
  
46(2),	
  221-­‐246.	
  
Sweeney,	
  M.	
  M.	
  (2002)	
  Two	
  decades	
  of	
  family	
  change:	
  The	
  shifting	
  economic	
  	
  
foundations	
  of	
  marriage.	
  American	
  Sociological	
  Review,	
  67,	
  132-­‐147.	
  
Thomas,	
  S.	
  G.	
  (2010).	
  A	
  stress	
  test	
  for	
  America.	
  Retrieved,	
  September	
  14,	
  2010	
  from	
  
http://www.portfolio.com/special-­‐reports/2010/09/07/detroit-­‐tops-­‐list	
  
U.S.	
  Census	
  Bureau	
  (n.d.a.	
  a)	
  Oakland	
  County	
  Quick	
  Facts.	
  Retrieved,	
  November	
  22,	
  	
  
2010	
  from	
  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26125.html	
  	
  
U.S.	
  Census	
  Bureau	
  (n.d.a.	
  b)	
  Wayne	
  County	
  Quick	
  Facts.	
  Retrieved,	
  November	
  22,	
  	
  
2010	
  from	
  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26125.html	
  
Vinokur,	
  A.	
  D.,	
  Price,	
  R.	
  H.,	
  &	
  Caplan,	
  R.	
  D.	
  (1996).	
  Hard	
  times	
  and	
  hurtful	
  partners:	
  	
  
How	
  financial	
  strain	
  affects	
  depression	
  and	
  relationship	
  satisfaction	
  of	
  	
  
unemployed	
  persons	
  and	
  their	
  spouses.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Personality	
  and	
  Social	
  	
  
Psychology,	
  71(1),	
  166-­‐179.	
  
Voydanoff,	
  P.	
  (1990).	
  Economic	
  distress	
  and	
  family	
  relations:	
  A	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  	
  
eighties.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  the	
  Family,	
  52,	
  1099-­‐1115.	
  
Voydanoff,	
  P.	
  &	
  Donnelly,	
  B.	
  W.	
  (1988).	
  Economic	
  distress,	
  family	
  coping,	
  and	
  quality	
  	
  
of	
  family	
  life.	
  In	
  P.	
  Voydanoff	
  &	
  L.	
  C.	
  Majka	
  (Eds.),	
  Families	
  and	
  economic	
  	
  
distress	
  (pp.	
  97-­‐115).	
  Newbury	
  Park:	
  Sage.	
  
Voydanoff,	
  P.,	
  Donnelly,	
  B.	
  W.,	
  &	
  Fine,	
  M.	
  A.	
  (1988).	
  Economic	
  distress,	
  social	
  	
  
integration,	
  and	
  family	
  satisfaction.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Family	
  Issues,	
  9(4),	
  545-­‐564.	
  
Walsh,	
  F.	
  (2006).	
  Strengthening	
  Family	
  Resilience.	
  New	
  York:	
  Guilford	
  Press.	
  
Weller,	
  C.	
  E.	
  (2009).	
  Center	
  for	
  American	
  Progress:	
  Economic	
  Snapshot	
  for	
  June	
  	
  
2009.	
  Retrieved	
  October	
  18,	
  2010	
  from	
  	
  
http://centerforamericanprogress.org	
  
White,	
  J.	
  M.,	
  &	
  Klein,	
  D.	
  M.	
  (2008).	
  Family	
  Theories.	
  Los	
  Angeles:	
  SAGE	
  publications.	
  

123	
  

	
  
White,	
  L.,	
  &	
  Rogers,	
  S.	
  J.	
  (2000).	
  Economic	
  circumstances	
  and	
  family	
  outcomes:	
  A	
  	
  
review	
  of	
  the	
  1990’s.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Marriage	
  and	
  the	
  Family,	
  62(4),	
  1035-­‐1051.	
  
Yamato,	
  R.	
  (2008).	
  Impact	
  of	
  fathers’	
  support	
  and	
  activities	
  on	
  mothers’	
  marital	
  	
  
satisfaction	
  by	
  income	
  contribution	
  during	
  economic	
  recession	
  in	
  Japan.	
  	
  
Fathering,	
  6(2),	
  149-­‐168.	
  
Zagorsky,	
  J.	
  L.	
  (2003).	
  Husbands’	
  and	
  wives’	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  finances.	
  Journal	
  of	
  	
  
Socio-­Economics,	
  32,	
  127-­‐146.	
  
	
  

124