Article Reviewed:
Monin, J. K., Manigault, A., Levy, B. R., Schulz, R., Duker, A., Clark, M. S., . . . Kershaw, T. (2019). Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage. Health Psychology, 38(10), 936-947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000777
The article “Gender differences in Short Term Cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage”. This research was carried out on adults over fifty years of age which is referred to as middle adulthood, (Santrock, 2012. Pg. 307). The research had two hypotheses first being both spouses were giving and receiving support compared to only one spouse receiving support or none receiving any support at all whether it would decrease blood pressure and heart rate in both spouses during a recovery period. The second hypothesis is, wives would benefit more from mutual support than would husbands. Additionally, the research aimed at, ‘examining gender differences in cardiovascular reactivity, distress and closeness in response to receiving support regardless of the presence of mutuality’.
Firstly I felt that the abstract captured the objective, method, results, and conclusion in an excellent manner for anyone scheming through the first paragraph was not attention-capturing enough it would have been put differently to interest even an academic reader. It started off with a rather flat tone. However, the introduction shows that the research draws from previous studies on how spouses exchange support, and from this stems the need to research mutual support in moments of health challenges which is the foundation of this study.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The research has used a very relevant theoretical basis based on Communal relationships theory which states that both partners' health is supported when partners are genuinely concerned about each other’s health as opposed to just a give-and-take attitude. This being the basis the research had the primary aim of studying the effects of experimentally manipulated mutual support and aimed at finding out if there were any gender differences in receiving support. The communal coping theories are very relevant as the basis for this research because they emphasize the importance of mutual emotional support e.g. showing compassion, and listening which one can offer regardless of their own health challenges. Moreover, this research has its unique relevance because while many types of research have been done with an emphasis on one spouse being the recipient and the other being a caregiver, this research delves into how spouses can support one another while they themselves are going through their own health stresses, noting that a spouses health issues help them to empathize with the other’s health concerns. Additionally, the research increases its relevance because few if any studies have been done on gender differences in giving and receiving support in cases of cardiovascular responses where the spouses are coping with health concerns. So it has succeeded in adding information.
In the context of cardiovascular effects, mutual support was easy to establish because unlike other illnesses in their later stages like dementia the mutual aspect may not be achieved. The research had 98 married heterosexual couples, intentionally so to keep to the orthodox roles of husband and wife. The research had a mutual outlook of both the spouses being ‘caregivers and care recipients as opposed to one being a ‘caregiver and the other a ‘care recipient’. Therefore my opinion was that additional hypotheses would have been relevant. The hypothesis being ‘husbands would benefit more from mutual spouses during a recovery period’. Because picking only one gender as a possible higher or lower beneficiary would make it look like imbalanced research.
The study was ethical because the researchers carried out the research on willing participants because the advertisement was done in newspapers and on bulletins hence they achieved a generalizable sample in regard to the number of couples involved in the research. However out of the ninety-eight whose data was analyzed, ninety-five were White, Caucasian Americans and three were of no primary group. The sample did not have any African American or other representations of Minority groups which could possibly mean the results could be biased towards Caucasian Americans. Additionally, the minimum level of education was High school except for one husband who had less than a high school education while sixty-four of them had a first degree and above, so in a sense, the research attracted a well-educated sample of individuals who could have eased in the questionnaire answering as well as in practice discussions but whose results may not be the same as that of an uneducated sample. Hence leaving room for future research on different kinds of demographics in terms of race, non-heterosexual couples, educational background, and even financial status.
The research was carried out in a systematic manner which involved questionnaires beforehand and then the ‘speaking procedure’ which is relevant in psychophysiology research on social support processes. All discussions involving support were coded by trained, independent coders using Feeney’s caregiving manual. The engagement of independent coders was particularly useful mainly because they were not even aware of the hypotheses so it diminishes the chances of bias. The article is quantitative and data analysis was done appropriately, firstly the researchers examined potentially confounding variables by running Pearson correlations between age, marital satisfaction, relationship length, and baseline outcomes. The document has an elaborate schematic diagram which is straight forward making it easy to understand the procedure outlined and the time taken. The results are also outlined in a precise manner and the findings from the study suggested that receiving emotional support from a spouse individually may be more impactful for immediate cardiovascular reactivity than both partners giving and receiving support.
These results deviated from their original hypotheses that mutual support would decrease blood pressure and heart rate in both spouses during the recovery period. Additionally, the results proved that husbands receive greater benefits in spousal support than wives. In my opinion, the results were objective and without researcher bias which is critical for any research and additionally the research was justified. The results were presented in table format which makes it easy to understand and the researchers had solid and supported arguments in the discussion section. As with any research, there were a few strengths and weaknesses and most importantly room for future research for example the need for the research carried out in a different way in order to see if there would be different results for example a longer recovery measurement period may have increased the opportunity for the significant cardiovascular effects of mutual support.
In conclusion, the paper flows and was smooth to read and was easily understandable, and had no grammatical errors that came to my attention it followed the APA formatting and it is mainly for an academic audience as opposed to general use. It confirmed previous research findings done in lab settings for example that men are equally capable of intimacy just like women are. While this kind of research is replicable even in a third-world setup like Kenya, I think that the difference in different social setups like Africa where couples might have extended family living with them who might be part of the social support would have a different set of potential confounding variables. Besides the research being replicable the results are applicable in various setups, for example in hospitals to encourage intentional emotional support behavior by the spouse and even in a counseling setup where the clients are fifty years and above and either or both of them are facing health issues which could be affecting their marriage. This study managed to capture couples dealing with a variety of health concerns hence increasing its replicability. In summary, it was very well done, and easy to read and understand.
References
- Santrock, J.W. (2012). Essentials of Life-Span Development. (2ndEd.) McGraw Hill International: NY.
- Monin, J. K., Manigault, A., Levy, B. R., Schulz, R., Duker, A., Clark, M. S., . . . Kershaw, T. (2019). Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage. Health Psychology, 38(10), 936-947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000777
Stuck on your essay?
