These are neat comparisons, in both part 1 and part 2 (especially the strikingly opposite effects of big weddings vs. expensive weddings near the end of part 1). But boy, what I wouldn't give to see error bars on those graphs!
The downside is that the paper only presents probabilities relative to a reference point, but doesn't give raw probabilities.
But I'm glad to know that these are all results with low p-values, anyway: that adds some real confidence to these results. (Though I ought to ask: how many of these significant p-values were between, say, 0.03 and 0.05? How many different correlations were originally considered in the study before they identified these significant ones?)
Some of the trends in Part 1 are not statistically significant (e.g., "never attend church" vs. "sometimes attend church"), but I presented them regardless because they have a pretty clear trend. I believe p-values are only presented in comparison to the reference point.
Thanks for the nicely presented data, regardless!