Marriage Education and Government Policy:
Helping Couples Who Choose Marriage Achieve Success
bv Scott M. Stanley, Howard J. Markman, University of
Denver, Natalie H. Jenkins; PREP
February
26, 2002
Support for the preparation of this
document, as well as for a significant amount of the
research mentioned here, was provided in part by a grant
from the National Institute of Mental Health: Division of
Services and Intervention Research, Adult and Geriatric
Treatment and Prevention Branch, Grant 5-RO1-MH35525-12,
"The Long-term Effects of Premarital Intervention”
(awarded to the first two authors).
Marriage
Education and Government Policy:
Helping
Couples Who Choose Marriage Achieve Success
The
Goal: The
vast majority of ALL Americans desire happy, lasting
marriages, whether rich or poor, male or female, and no
matter what sub-culture they live within. There is ample
evidence that individuals, as well as the society at large,
benefit when those citizens who choose marriage for
themselves are able to maintain healthy marriages. It is
therefore a worthy goal, in both public and private sectors,
to make this dream more attainable for more Americans.
The Strategy: One key
element of a comprehensive government strategy to strengthen
families is marriage and relationship education. Over the
past 30 years, marital researchers have discovered that
marital success is not a matter of luck nor is marital
failure a matter of mystery. Using a growing knowledge base,
the best
practices in marriage education are scientifically based,
regularly refined based on ongoing scientific findings and
field experience, and have demonstrated beneficial effects
in accordance with scientific standards for dissemination.
Scientifically Tested:
Over the past three decades, scientifically based
relationship education programs have demonstrated
considerable promise. The Prevention and Relationship
Enhancement Program (PREP) is one such program that has been
studied intensively, including long-term outcome studies by
six different research teams in four different countries,
and over 20 years of ongoing research funded by the National
Institute of Mental Health. Five of 7 key studies on PREP
thus far show very promising findings. Other programs such
as Relationship Enhancement and Couples Communication have
strong scientific foundations, as well, with strong
histories of positive findings in outcome research. While
the interpretation of outcome studies is very complex, and
researchers work toward the refinement of understanding the
data that exist, as well as new data coming in, there is
promising evidence that:
·
Couples can learn to reduce patterns of negative interaction
that are known risk factors for marital failure, adult
depression, poor child outcomes, and work related problems.
For example, couples who have deficits in how they handle
conflict are more likely to fail and also more likely to
have children with behavioral problems. Studies have shown
that couples can be taught critical skills that are useful
for handling common relationship conflicts (e.g., money,
children, chores, and sex). The evidence that couples can
learn to communicate less negatively and more positively is
quite robust.
·
In several significant studies, there is evidence that
couples can lower rates of premarital break-up and post
marital divorce. For example, in an earlier study at the
University of Denver, PREP couples had a 12% break up rate
compared to control couples who had a 36% break up rate at
the 5 year follow-up. In a recent study in Germany, 3% of
the PREP couples had divorced at a 5-year follow-up compared
to 16% of couples who received traditional premarital
education. At present, in the most recent study,
couples receiving PREP delivered by clergy and lay leaders
have a 1.5% break up/divorce rate compared to 10.5% for
couples taking alternate programs.
·
Couples can learn ways to maintain higher levels of
relationship satisfaction and thereby provide increased
support to each other as they work as a team both inside and
outside the home on their jobs, job training, parenting, and
so on.
·
In some studies, higher risk couples have shown the
strongest effects.
·
People with various backgrounds can be trained to be
effective providers. Therefore, government workers can reach
couples in need with high cost efficiency. People such as
social workers, clergy, lay leaders, therapists, public
health nurses, have been successfully trained to deliver
marriage education services. Using existing care-giving
systems enables marriage education to be delivered by
service providers who are known to the recipients and who
understand the cultural and community context of their work.
It is important to
note that the beneficial effects of the more empirically
based approaches appear to last up to 5 years after the
training for many couples. Beyond that, the effects
probably weaken over time, and therefore it is important for
couples who benefit from such material to periodically
review it or to participate in booster classes.
Other Benefits: In
addition to the specific effects of relationship education
for couples, we and other experts in the field argue that
marriage education can benefit those interested in marriage
through at least five other pathways:
(1) Marriage education provides
scientifically based information about the benefits of
strong and healthy marriages for both adults and children.
Such benefits include being better providers, living longer,
being less reliant on government services including welfare,
health care, mental heath care, and earning and saving more
money.
(2) Marriage education provides
information about what to expect in marriage—a roadmap of
expected challenges such as the birth of the first child,
parenting of adolescents, empty nest, common gender
differences, etc. For example, best practices marriage
education programs teach couples how to handle differences
respectfully—and to have confidence that they can do so.
As importantly, it can teach couples that when differences
occur, it does not mean they’ve necessarily made the wrong
choice in partners (as many young individuals believe), but
that even people who love one another will disagree on key
issues and need to have strategies for handling differences
constructively.
(3) Marriage education is a cost
effective way to make couples more aware of other public and
private sector resources, including marital counseling for
couples who need it.
(4) Marriage education can help couples
better understand principles about commitment, acceptance,
forgiveness, and sacrifice that are known to be associated
with healthy relationships. For example, individuals can
learn about how a stable sense of a future together
(long-term view; where appropriate) is a fundamental aspect
of healthy and successful marriages, and that one way they
can act on that knowledge is to learn not to threaten the
sense of a future at moments of conflict merely because of
the frustration of the moment.
(5) Some individuals can learn about
risk factors and conclude that a marriage (or partner) they
are considering is not a good choice, or not a good choice
at this time. In fact, David Olson has data on premarital
counseling that suggests that 10-15% of couples who take
PREPARE within 6 months of their intended wedding date
decide not to marry. Further, this figure representing
constructive break ups goes even higher when couples take
PREPARE 6-12 months prior to marriage, along with feedback
sessions (David Olson, personal comm. 2/10/00).
Ongoing
Refinement of Methods: Social scientists
always hope to gain more knowledge about risk and protective
factors for marital outcomes. Indeed, in another decade, we
will know even more about key dynamics contributing to
marital distress, as well as more about strategies for
helping couples succeed. We will also be learning more about
which couples respond best to which kinds of strategies.
Yet, the societal need to strengthen marriages is so great
that we should act now on what we now know. Later, when we
know more, we can and will refine our efforts based on new
knowledge gained, including knowledge gained as a result of
government marriage initiatives in the U. S.
Key
Questions
Q: Does marriage and relationship
education simply apply pressure to people to marry?
A: No. Marriage education
can empower those who choose marriage for themselves to
improve their odds. Also, best practice programs can lead
some couples to a clearer awareness of their risks such that
they conclude they are not ready or not suitable for
marriage.
Q: Don’t these people just need
intensive therapy?
A: Some used to think that
ineffective parents were simply bad parents, or parents in
need of intense therapy. However, decades of experience and
research on parent education demonstrates that people can
learn how to be more effective parents. Marital education is
no different. It can help people learn ways to be more
effective in their pursuit of stable and thriving marriages.
Q: Don’t jobs matter more than
marriage for success in life? Shouldn’t government be
focused only on helping people become more employable?
A: Policy debates often sound as
if government can only do one thing or another at a time.
There is extensive evidence that family break down
contributes to economic problems and also that economic
problems contribute to family stress. Government has a
vested interest in helping people access both stable
employment and stable family environments. Strategies should
not be limited to one domain when failure in either is
directly linked to dependence upon the government. Not only
can government reduce unintended barriers to marriage,
government can help citizens achieve better access to the
benefits of marital success by helping couples who choose
marriage to be more successful at it.
Q: Do relationship education
programs damage couples who have more serious problems,
including domestic violence and mental health disorders.
A: No. Not only is there no
evidence that best practices marriage education harms
couples, but there is some evidence to the contrary. For
example, PREP shows promising results with higher-risk
couples. Further, research and clinical experience (e.g.,
throughout the U.S. Military) suggest that educational
approaches are the best way to reach all kinds of couples,
where the needs of many couples can be met efficiently, and
where those who need more intensive services can learn more
about how to access them. Specifically, with some forms of
domestic violence, no approach has shown
effectiveness—educational or therapeutic. In all cases,
the pre-eminent concern is for safety—at times in the form
of the female distancing from the male. Regardless, even
when it comes to concerns about domestic violence, part of
what relationship education can do is teach people about
what sorts of behavior are entirely unacceptable, and what
options there may be for further help.
Q: Don’t relationship education
efforts take away from the options women have in fulfilling
requirements under TANF?
A: Quite the opposite. Current
proposals actually give these women another option—not
remove any—among a range of choices that can be combined
to satisfy the work activity requirements that have existed
for the past 5 years under the 1996 welfare reform act.
Biographical Information:
Scott M. Stanley is
co‑director of the Center for Marital and Family
Studies at the University of Denver. He has published
widely–both research reports as well as writings for
couples, with a focus on commitment theory and research.
Along with Dr. Howard Markman and colleagues, Dr. Stanley
has been involved in the research, development, and
refinement of the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement
Program (PREP) for over 20 years. Drs. Stanley and Markman
are currently engaged in a long-term study of the
effectiveness of PREP disseminated in the community, funded
by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Stanley has
co‑authored the books Fighting for Your Marriage
(with Howard Markman and Susan Blumberg), A Lasting Promise,
Becoming Parents, Empty Nesting, and is author of The
Heart of Commitment.
Howard J. Markman, Ph.D.
is a professor of psychology, and director of the Center
for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver
in Colorado. He is widely published in academic journals and
internationally known for his work on the prediction and
prevention of divorce and marital distress. He has
often appeared in broadcast and print media, including
segments about PREP on 20/20, Oprah, and 48 Hours.
Along with his colleagues, he has co-authored the books We
Can Work It Out: Making Sense of Marital Conflict, Fighting
for Your Marriage (with Scott Stanley and Susan Blumberg),
Becoming Parents, Empty Nesting, and Fighting
for Your Jewish Marriage.
Natalie H. Jenkins is
vice president and marketing director of PREP, Inc. Natalie
began her business career with a degree from Colorado State
University, and has extensive experience in the
dissemination of program materials to providers and users of
educational services. For the last decade, she has
spearheaded PREP's efforts to bring its research-based
materials out of the research lab and into the hands of
couples. She is co-author of the upcoming book, You Paid
How Much for That: How to Win At Money Without Losing at
Love. She also is co-developer of The PREP
One-Day Leader's Manual, Christian PREP One-Day Leader's
Manual, and The PREP Coaching Video. She is also
coauthor of the Fighting for Your Marriage Workbooks.
Natalie is centrally involved in PREP’s efforts to
translate academic research findings into usable strategies
for couples.
Bibliography
The
following reference list is not exhaustive. However,
these references would give one good access to the existing
literature on research on relationship and marriage
education programs for couples. There is a far broader
literature at this point on the risk factors for marital
distress and failure. References leading to that literature
can be found on our website by going to the marriage facts
and research link (www.PREPinc.com).
Giblin,
P., Sprenkle, D.H., & Sheehan, R. (1985).
Enrichment outcome research: A meta-analysis of premarital,
marital, and family interventions. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 11(3), 257-271.
Guerney,
B. G., Jr. & Maxson, P. (1990). Marital and family
enrichment research: A decade review and look ahead. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1127-1134.
Hahlweg,
K., Markman, H.J., Thurmaier, F., Engl, J. & Eckert, V.
(1998).
Prevention of marital distress: Results of a German
prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 12, 543-556.
Markman, H., Floyd, F., Stanley, S. & Storaasli,
R. (1988). The Prevention of Marital Distress: A
Longitudinal Investigation. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 56, 210-217.
Markman, H.J., & Hahlweg, K. (1993). The
prediction and prevention of marital distress: An
international perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 13,
29-43.
Markman, H.J., Renick, M.J., Floyd, F., Stanley, S.,
& Clements, M. (1993). Preventing marital distress
through communication and conflict management training: A
four and five year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 62, 1-8.
Miller,
S., Wackman, D.B., & Nunnally, E.W. (1976). A
communication training program for couples. Social
Casework, 57 (1), 9‑18.
Ridley,
C. A. & Sladeczek, I. E. Premarital Relationship
Enhancement: Its Effects on Needs to Relate to Others.
Family Relations, 1992, 41, 148-153.
Silliman,
B., Schumm, W.R., & Jurich, A.P. (1992). Young adults'
preferences for premarital preparation program designs. Contemporary
Family Therapy, 14, 89‑100.
Silliman,
B., Stanley, S.M., Coffin, W., Markman, H.J., & Jordan,
P.L. (2001). Preventive Interventions for
Couples. In H. Liddle, D. Santisteban, R. Levant, and
J. Bray (Eds.), Family Psychology Intervention Science.
Washington, D.C.: APA Publications.
Stanley,
S.M. (2001). Making the Case for Premarital Training. Family
Relations, 50, 272–280.
Stanley,
S.M., Blumberg, S.L., & Markman, H.J. (1999).
Helping Couples Fight for Their Marriages: The PREP
Approach. In R. Berger & M. Hannah, (Eds.), Handbook
of preventive approaches in couple therapy (pp.
279-303). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Stanley,
S.M., Markman, H.J., Prado, L.M., Olmos‑Gallo, P.A.,
Tonelli, L., St. Peters, M., Leber, B.D., Bobulinski,
M., Cordova, A., & Whitton, S.
(2001). Community Based Premarital Prevention:
Clergy and Lay Leaders on the Front Lines . Family
Relations,50, 67-76.
Sullivan,
K.T. & Goldschmidt, D. (2000). Implementation of
empirically validated interventions in managed‑care
settings: The prevention and relationship enhancement
program. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
31, 216‑220.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This
e-newsletter contains copyrighted material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We
make such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of
marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family
breakdown, etc. We
understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material as
provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
|
