What Do Those Cohabiting Believe about Relationship Social Support and Premarital Counseling? A Comparative Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses how the attitudes of people in different relationship circumstances relate to their attitudes towards support from family and peers and pre-marital counseling. The authors place their inquiry under the ecological theory. They show that people in cohabiting relationships are less open to each type of support than people in other relationship categories. While the manuscript is interesting and has good potential, I have some concerns and recommendations that I will list below. 

1. I think the title of the paper does not reflect the content, which is almost completely focused on people who cohabit with their partners. Maybe the authors can reconsider it.
2. Line 76; the authors write that they explore a concept, while in fact, they explore a relationship. 
3. The aim of the study is clear, as it is explained on lines 76-77. However, it is not clear why understanding how each type of relationship filters support from various sources is relevant either theoretically or practically. I recommend a paragraph explaining from the very beginning why such a study is worthy. 
4. Section 2.1.: as the authors themselves explain, the sample is biased towards women. According to the authors' statements, there are 88% women, which means 334 participants, and only 51 males. Why don't you focus your study on women instead of including such a small sample of men? I know that your sample size would decrease, but the results would be more focused.
5. Please report not only the mean but also the median. You conduct ANOVA, which makes the normality of your data a must. A comparison between mean and median provides valuable information about the shape of the distribution.
6. The sample structure in terms of relationship status categories reported on Lines 85-87 2 does not match the structure reported in the ANOVA results. 
7. Subsection 2.3.2.: Have you checked if your data meet the assumptions of the ANOVA test? Please report the normality and the common variance tests.  If these criteria are severely violated, then you must apply non-parametric counterparts of your current testing. 
8. Section 3: Maybe organizing the results in one single table would be helpful. Report the F statistic and the p-value, and then the results of the Tuckey test.  The tabular presentation of the information is widespread in scientific papers. The text that you have now in Section 3 is fine, and you will keep it. 
9. I would remove Figure 1: you have 3 items measuring attitudes. Why, then, you present only Figure 1, and why do you think this figure is useful when you have already reported the tests' results?
10. Lines 164 - 172 discuss findings that do not derive from the research. Please, reconsider. The same applies to Lines 174 - 182.
11. Since the authors have demographic information, why not try regression models to explain the attitudes instead of a simple ANOVA? This is my major recommendation: try to replace the ANOVA testing with regression models that explain the attitudes.
12. (Optional) You can also check if the three items load in one latent construct, apply factor analysis to perform data reduction, then fit one single regression model that explains the unique latent variable "attitude". The success of this path largely depends on the consistency of the measurement for the three attitude items. 
13. Lines 212  - 216: This study does not address attitudes on relationships but on different types of support, so please reconsider this sentence. 
14. I would need better explanations of the relevance of the ecological theory in this study. What is the role this theory plays in the study design, and what cannot be completed in your research if you remove the references to this theory?
15. The references look scarce and a bit old; I recommend an update.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Responses:

The paper discusses how the attitudes of people in different relationship circumstances relate to their attitudes towards support from family and peers and pre-marital counseling. The authors place their inquiry under the ecological theory. They show that people in cohabiting relationships are less open to each type of support than people in other relationship categories. While the manuscript is interesting and has good potential, I have some concerns and recommendations that I will list below. 

Response: Thank you for noting the importance of our work and for your suggestions!

1. I think the title of the paper does not reflect the content, which is almost completely focused on people who cohabit with their partners. Maybe the authors can reconsider it.

Response: This is a good comment, and the title has been adjusted.

1. Line 76; the authors write that they explore a concept, while in fact, they explore a relationship.

Response: Good point, this has been changed. 

1. The aim of the study is clear, as it is explained on lines 76-77. However, it is not clear why understanding how each type of relationship filters support from various sources is relevant either theoretically or practically. I recommend a paragraph explaining from the very beginning why such a study is worthy. 

Response: We have added clarification regarding this issue in the literature, and as mentioned, early on in the first paragraph.

1. Section 2.1.: as the authors themselves explain, the sample is biased towards women. According to the authors' statements, there are 88% women, which means 334 participants, and only 51 males. Why don't you focus your study on women instead of including such a small sample of men? I know that your sample size would decrease, but the results would be more focused.

Response: We do see your point, but ultimately felt it important to present the data we had collected (including men and women). The other reviewer asked for information on gender differences, and this has been added to the paper.

1. Please report not only the mean but also the median. You conduct ANOVA, which makes the normality of your data a must. A comparison between mean and median provides valuable information about the shape of the distribution.

Response: This is a very good point, but we changed the analyses some based on reviewer suggestions.

1. The sample structure in terms of relationship status categories reported on Lines 85-87 2 does not match the structure reported in the ANOVA results. 

Response: Excellent point—and this has been completed.

1. Subsection 2.3.2.: Have you checked if your data meet the assumptions of the ANOVA test? Please report the normality and the common variance tests.  If these criteria are severely violated, then you must apply non-parametric counterparts of your current testing. 

Response: Testing the ANOVA assumptions actually showed certain breaches in the assumptions, instead we employed the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test with pairwise comparisons as suggested.

1. Section 3: Maybe organizing the results in one single table would be helpful. Report the F statistic and the p-value, and then the results of the Tuckey test.  The tabular presentation of the information is widespread in scientific papers. The text that you have now in Section 3 is fine, and you will keep it. 

Response: Very good point—and we have added a results table.

1. I would remove Figure 1: you have 3 items measuring attitudes. Why, then, you present only Figure 1, and why do you think this figure is useful when you have already reported the tests' results?

Response: Good point—we have added a results table instead.

1. Lines 164 - 172 discuss findings that do not derive from the research. Please, reconsider. The same applies to Lines 174 - 182.

Response: We do see your point, but very much believe that context is important here. In these sections we discuss relevant aspects that may have influenced the results.

1. Since the authors have demographic information, why not try regression models to explain the attitudes instead of a simple ANOVA? This is my major recommendation: try to replace the ANOVA testing with regression models that explain the attitudes.

Response: We see your point about further analyses, but the overall scope of this particular research piece was to assess the relationship between relationship status and premarital counseling attitudes and social support attitudes, as well as explore differences by relationship group. We believe the analyses and writing provided sufficiently address our initial research question.

1. (Optional) You can also check if the three items load in one latent construct, apply factor analysis to perform data reduction, then fit one single regression model that explains the unique latent variable "attitude". The success of this path largely depends on the consistency of the measurement for the three attitude items. 
2. Lines 212  - 216: This study does not address attitudes on relationships but on different types of support, so please reconsider this sentence. 

Response: Excellent point—this has been changed.

1. I would need better explanations of the relevance of the ecological theory in this study. What is the role this theory plays in the study design, and what cannot be completed in your research if you remove the references to this theory?

Response: Human ecology really highlights the influence of various contexts, which we believe is very important to the scope of the study. We have added some clarifiers throughout the paper.

1. The references look scarce and a bit old; I recommend an update.

Response: We have added some updated references to the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript approaches an interesting and important topic. Identifying the attitude to premarital counseling and support from family and friends for building a close relationship is important in the context of preparing people to build close and lasting relationships, as well as developing forms of support for people in relationships.

In my opinion, the purpose of the research requires clarification. Is identyfiying attitude of people with different relationship status a purpose itself or is it supposed to serve other purposes? Research project is very simple. When examining the attitude to premarital counseling and support from friends and family, the researchers rely on the respondents' answers to three questions, and the analyzes only take into account the type of relationship. Enriching the project with additional variables and analyzes would give a chance for a fuller understanding of the determinants of a specific attitude to premarital counseling and social support for relationship building and satisfaction with the relationship.

The description of the sample needs to be supplemented. We do not know what the average age was for each subgroup, nothing is known about people referred to as singles (whether they were people who had been in a relationship before, maybe they were divorced). It would be worth pointing to the minimum, maximum and average duration of the relationship. Taking into account that the discussion indicates the importance of the place of residence (the US state where the respondents come from), it would be worth including such information in the description of the sample. No explanation as to why such a large disproportion between men and women. There is reason to believe that there may be gender differences in assessing the importance of social support.

The description of the sample mentions "married" (43%), "single" (20%), "committed dating relationship" (19%),  or "living with a romantic partner" (8%) (90% in total). ), and the analyzes include the terms: cohabiting, married, single, divorced, engaged. This should be standardized.

It was worth asking the respondents if they participated in any form of premarital counseling. Nothing is known about the subjective opinion of the respondents regarding the support received from family and friends, and this may be related to assigning meaning to such support. It would also be good to establish whether the persons who are in a cohabitation relationship have been married before or intend to enter into such relationship.

It would be also interesting to include gender, the duration of the relationship, and participation in marital counseling in analyzes of the subjective assessment of the importance of this form

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Responses:

The manuscript approaches an interesting and important topic. Identifying the attitude to premarital counseling and support from family and friends for building a close relationship is important in the context of preparing people to build close and lasting relationships, as well as developing forms of support for people in relationships.

Response: Thank you for noting the importance of our work!

In my opinion, the purpose of the research requires clarification. Is identyfiying attitude of people with different relationship status a purpose itself or is it supposed to serve other purposes? Research project is very simple. When examining the attitude to premarital counseling and support from friends and family, the researchers rely on the respondents' answers to three questions, and the analyzes only take into account the type of relationship. Enriching the project with additional variables and analyzes would give a chance for a fuller understanding of the determinants of a specific attitude to premarital counseling and social support for relationship building and satisfaction with the relationship.

Response: We have tried to add clarification of the study purpose throughout the review of literature and why the purpose is important. We see your point about further analyses, but the overall scope of this particular research piece was to assess the relationship between relationship status and premarital counseling attitudes and social support attitudes, as well as explore differences by relationship group. We believe the analyses and writing provided sufficiently address our initial research question.

The description of the sample needs to be supplemented. We do not know what the average age was for each subgroup, nothing is known about people referred to as singles (whether they were people who had been in a relationship before, maybe they were divorced). It would be worth pointing to the minimum, maximum and average duration of the relationship. Taking into account that the discussion indicates the importance of the place of residence (the US state where the respondents come from), it would be worth including such information in the description of the sample. No explanation as to why such a large disproportion between men and women. There is reason to believe that there may be gender differences in assessing the importance of social support.

Response: We have added the mean age for each subgroup and place of residence to the sample description. Thank you for this suggestion. Your comments about relationship and divorce history, as well as relationship length are important ones, but this data is not available. This has been added to the limitations section. We also added information on gender differences on the dependent variables to the Analytic Plan section of the paper, thank you.

The description of the sample mentions "married" (43%), "single" (20%), "committed dating relationship" (19%),  or "living with a romantic partner" (8%) (90% in total). ), and the analyzes include the terms: cohabiting, married, single, divorced, engaged. This should be standardized.

Response: This is a great comment, and this has been completed.

It was worth asking the respondents if they participated in any form of premarital counseling. Nothing is known about the subjective opinion of the respondents regarding the support received from family and friends, and this may be related to assigning meaning to such support. It would also be good to establish whether the persons who are in a cohabitation relationship have been married before or intend to enter into such relationship.

It would be also interesting to include gender, the duration of the relationship, and participation in marital counseling in analyzes of the subjective assessment of the importance of this form

 

Response: This is a great idea, but we do not have much of this data available. This has been added to the limitations section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was revised, though not to a significant extent. Some recommendations have been avoided, which is something that I can understand. There is always a conflict between the changes a reviewer asks for, and the amount of effort authors are willing to pay. 

However, there are some aspects that must be improved further, which why I recommend revisions once again. 

My suggestion in the first round of review was: "Please report not only the mean but also the median. You conduct ANOVA, which makes the normality of your data a must. A comparison between mean and median provides valuable information about the shape of the distribution." The authors answer that: " This is a very good point, but we changed the analyses some based on reviewer suggestions."

Please let me clarify that the norm in reporting descriptive statistics is neither related to the method, nor negotiable. You must provide complete descriptive information - with or without ANOVA. If your data does not comply with the ANOVA assumptions, fine. But still, you need to follow the rules. So, please report the descriptive statistics in a proper way. Your sample needs a complete description: min, mean, median, max, and standard deviation for each numerical variable. Maybe it would be a good idea to provide this information in a separate table. 

Table 1: this is unusual reporting of a Kruskal-Wallis test. You need the test statistic, the corresponding p-value, and then the pairwise comparisons with their statistical significance. What you report instead are average values for each category. Please, reconsider. 

The references are still scarce and a bit old. 

Please report the name of the post-hoc test used for identifying differences among categories. Also, you need to report the software package that you used to conduct the analysis. 

I still believe that regression is a better methodology to be applied in this case, but I respect the authors' decision to stay with a statistical test. 

Author Response

The manuscript was revised, though not to a significant extent. Some recommendations have been avoided, which is something that I can understand. There is always a conflict between the changes a reviewer asks for, and the amount of effort authors are willing to pay. 

Response: Thank you for evaluating our work!

However, there are some aspects that must be improved further, which why I recommend revisions once again. 

My suggestion in the first round of review was: "Please report not only the mean but also the median. You conduct ANOVA, which makes the normality of your data a must. A comparison between mean and median provides valuable information about the shape of the distribution." The authors answer that: " This is a very good point, but we changed the analyses some based on reviewer suggestions."

Please let me clarify that the norm in reporting descriptive statistics is neither related to the method, nor negotiable. You must provide complete descriptive information - with or without ANOVA. If your data does not comply with the ANOVA assumptions, fine. But still, you need to follow the rules. So, please report the descriptive statistics in a proper way. Your sample needs a complete description: min, mean, median, max, and standard deviation for each numerical variable. Maybe it would be a good idea to provide this information in a separate table. 

Response: Yes, good point. We have added separate tables for descriptives and results, and adjusted the results table. We have also added further description in the sample where appropriate. 

Table 1: this is unusual reporting of a Kruskal-Wallis test. You need the test statistic, the corresponding p-value, and then the pairwise comparisons with their statistical significance. What you report instead are average values for each category. Please, reconsider. 

Response: Yes, we have adjusted this table. 

The references are still scarce and a bit old. 

Response: Five new references have been added (most within the past three years).

Please report the name of the post-hoc test used for identifying differences among categories. Also, you need to report the software package that you used to conduct the analysis. 

Response: The post-hoc tests are from the pairwise comparisons offered via SPSS (see the Table 2). We have reported the software package.

I still believe that regression is a better methodology to be applied in this case, but I respect the authors' decision to stay with a statistical test. 

Response: Thank you for helping make our work stronger!

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made changes and additions that were possible due to the available data. A very simple research plan and a small amount of data make it impossible to perform additional analyzes allowing for a fuller understanding of the problem. It would be worth highlighting the reason why the research was limited to establishing the beliefs of people in cohabitation relationships to premarital counseling and social support, and clearly indicate the importance of the results.

Author Response

The authors made changes and additions that were possible due to the available data. A very simple research plan and a small amount of data make it impossible to perform additional analyzes allowing for a fuller understanding of the problem. It would be worth highlighting the reason why the research was limited to establishing the beliefs of people in cohabitation relationships to premarital counseling and social support, and clearly indicate the importance of the results.

Response: Thank you for evaluating our work! And yes, we believe the connection to those cohabiting and the importance of the results is now clearer in the first paragraph and in the implications section.