Meta-Analysis of Relational Satisfaction Among Open and Polyamorous Couples

Meta-Analysis of Relational Satisfaction Among Open and Polyamorous Couples

Hello! Paper Help has taken me through my entire dissertation process. As it stands, I am almost done with it entirely! However, there are a few things my professor wants to be expanded upon in the paper. Here they are: 1. At the end of the results section, restate which hypotheses are supported and which are not, or what is failed and what is retained. 2. Conceptualize “relational satisfaction.” How did the various studies define it? Please indicate this towards the beginning. 3. How does the literature from the review explain the results? Add into the results/discussion section. 4. Bring data on the decline in marriage and the divorce rate into the discussion section. 5. Page 34. “However, her study has made a distinction between the male and female level of satisfaction, which has shown a…” Specify there whether it is heterosexual males or heterosexual females, or what it is. 6. Page 34. “However, the last two studies are somewhat specific.” “…provides insight regarding the pre-requisites as to why situations develop in such a way.” These statements are too vague. Please clarify in paper. 7. Page 35. “This result may have been fraudulent, as the figures are…” Saying that something is fraudulent is a legal term. Please take that out and find another way to describe this. I want to publish this research and saying something is fraudulent could be a potential problem. 8. Page 36. “…with the mean age of their samples within the approximation of the 1998 study.” Please explain this; my professor didn’t think it made sense. Clarify. 9. Page 36. “…inaccuracies in calculations and a highly doubtful result.” This is the Gusarova study. Please explain why and how this conclusion was made. Specify clearly why this study was omitted. Explain why it had to be, and that it is not publication bias. Please be explicit, as my professors are under the impression that this is publication bias and the study should have been included. 10. Page 39. “…domain must be studied.” Clarify why. 11. Please clarify the strengths of the meta-analysis first, then the limitations. Currently, it is the other way around. Lead with strengths, 12. Page 46. Generational differences. Please talk about friends with benefits, bootycall, and swinger generation of the 1970s. 13. Page 47. “…most essential to the examination of intimate relationships…” Please clarify what you mean by this. 14. Page 47. “…lesser stressors.” Be specific. 15. Page 48. “…seem to create ab equalizing of gender inequality.” How? Say more. 16. In the Implications for Practice section, please discuss clinical bias versus polyamory. Mention that people in this field should seek training so they understand the nature of polyamory and what it is, because some people actually have no idea about these types of relationships. Also mention cultural and religious biases as it relates to clinical bias from practitioners. 17. Implications for Practice. “…ascribe their relationship issues to the nature of their relationship…” What does this mean? 18. Implications for Practice. “…persons are mostly autonomous…” Cite sources. 19. Implications for Practice. “…instead of imposing monogamy on the couple.” Please reword this sentence 20. Implications for Practice. “…attributes of the issues…” Explain which issues. 21. Implications for Research. “The findings of this meta-analysis……” erase the rest of this sentence and say what the study said. 22. Implications for Research. Discuss Generation X clients and Nature vs. Nurture argument. This is what my professor wrote down: “Overall, currently- the results and discussion section are a bit too vague and confusing. Be more precise in the descriptions, and be sure to use the research literature to back up the conclusions. Explore bigger questions and suggestions in these sections, such as perhaps the idea that monogamy is not biologically natural for humans. This is a meta-analysis that should read more quantitatively and it was wrote in a qualitative manner. Be more quantitative and use clear, concise, precise, numerical language with the research backing up what you say in the results and discussion section. Tie it all in.” I hope all of this makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you need additional pages to get this done. Thank you so much.