Understanding
Relationship Quality
Authors
Jenny Reynolds
Dr Catherine Houlston
Dr Lester Coleman
Understanding Relationship Quality
Authors:
Jenny Reynolds
Dr Catherine Houlston
Dr Lester Coleman
About OnePlusOne
OnePlusOne is a UK charity that strengthens relationships by creating resources
that help families and frontline workers tackle relationship issues early.
We help couples and parents through a range of web-services, while our online
learning equips front line workers with the skills to offer timely and effective face
to face support to families.
Everything we do is based on the latest research evidence. Our research builds
the knowledge base on relationships and, by sharing what we know, we
influence policy and the creation of services that work.
Acknowledgements
This compilation of evidence on Relationship Quality would not have been possible without the assistance
from a number of people. We would like to thank former OnePlusOne colleagues Justine Devenney,
Dr Gareth Lloyd, and Dr Rebecca Lacey (UCL) on the retrieval of data from a number of cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies that underpin the report. We are also most grateful to Hannah Green and Dr Mariya
Stoilova (both OnePlusOne) on ensuring the data and literature carefully reflect the very latest evidence and
for reviewing the final drafts prior to publication.
OnePlusOne Understanding Relationship Quality © 2014
Understanding Relationship Quality 3
Contents
Introduction
4
What is relationship quality and why does it matter?
6
How do we measure relationship quality?
8
Trends in relationship quality
13
What affects relationship quality?
18
What measures could improve couple relationship quality?
24
Summary
31
References
32
4
Understanding Relationship Quality
Introduction
Although relationship quality is not part of our daily vocabulary and we may
not even be familiar with the term, relationship quality is the substance of our
everyday lives. Relationship quality is about good relationships, how well
partners get on, and how happy they are in their relationship. It tells the story
of what is going on in these different families. Why is that relevant? Good
relationships matter for the health and well-being of partners and, if present,
for that of their children. Relationship quality is therefore a useful indicator of a
population’s well-being. It is also the aim of initiatives to support families, such
as the UK coalition government’s £30 million investment in relationship
support. It could and should be an aim of broader interventions to support
families, such as those struggling with unemployment, parenting difficulties,
caring for a partner with poor health, or looking after a child with additional
needs. This support is important because difficult circumstances put
substantial pressure on couple relationships. Finally, examining relationship
quality is like looking under the bonnet of a car. It provides crucial insights into
the mechanics of couple relationships and why some keep going while others
grind to a halt.
This publication offers a timely review of the research evidence concerning
relationship quality. There seems to be a growing awareness of the
importance of good quality relationships and the impact troubled
relationships can have on personal, social, and economic wellbeing of
individuals. The scope of this review is deliberately broad. It is intended for
front-line family workers, as well as policy makers and
commissioners. Students, researchers, and those
interested in families and relationships are also likely
to find this a useful starting place for understanding
more about relationship quality.
HAPPY
Understanding Relationship Quality 5
Headline Data
Relationship quality is
generally used to refer
to how happy or satisfied
a person is in his or her
relationship and how well
partners get on together.
Good quality
Approximately
20% to 25%
of the population are
estimated to be in
relationships of poor
relationship quality.
Couples in poor quality
relationships are at risk of
a range of negative
outcomes, such as
depression and ill-health,
as are their children.
relationships are
associated with
positive
outcomes for
individuals, children
and families.
Measures of relationship quality can be used for a range
of purposes, such as, to identify couples that may benefit
from support, to provide practitioners and couples with
insight into the relationship as part of a relationship
enhancement programme, or to assess the
outcome of couple or family interventions.
In general, relationship quality declines over
the course of a relationship, however the extent and
speed of the decline varies. Some couples manage
to sustain high levels of relationship quality while
others start with low levels of relationship quality that
continue to decline quite rapidly until the
relationship falters.
A number of factors combine to increase the likelihood that
couples will experience lower levels of relationship
quality, these include: the personalities and experiences
each partner brings to the relationship, the stressful life events
they encounter, and how they communicate and cope,
particularly during difficult times.
The stressful life events that are likely
to undermine relationship quality include:
the transition to parenthood, work stress,
economic stress, partner ill-health, and
caring for a child with additional needs.
Relationship support
may help improve couple
relationship quality. Although
participants in surveys are
fairly positive about
relationship support,
few make use of it in practice.
One of the main barriers to
making use of support such
as counselling is stigma.
43% of respondents in the
British Social Attitudes Survey
would not want anyone to
know if they had seen a
counsellor or therapist.
Other barriers to
utilising support include
a deep felt belief that
relationships are a
private matter and
that if things go wrong
there is little to be done
about it.
According to different
sources, between 30%
to 40% of people have
approached their GP
about relationship
difficulties, making GPs
the most frequently
turned to source of
professional help.
6
Understanding Relationship Quality
What is relationship quality
and why does it matter?
What is relationship quality
In general, relationship quality, often termed
marital quality in the research literature1, refers to
how happy or satisfied an individual is in his or
her relationship. It is a frequently studied aspect of
relationships, however there is little consensus
around the definition of relationship quality or the
theory underpinning it ( Johnson, 1995; Fincham
& Beach, 2010). Probably because of this lack of
consensus, “relationship quality” is often used
interchangeably with terms such as “relationship
happiness”, “relationship satisfaction”, and
“relationship adjustment”, although these
concepts are not synonymous.
There are two main approaches to understanding
relationship quality:
The Interpersonal or Relationship
approach
parents have better relationship quality (Garriga &
Kiernan, 2013). The research demonstrates that
the effect of couple relationship quality on child
behavioural outcomes is the same for children
irrespective of mother’s education, her ethnicity
and whether married or not, mother’s experience
of parental divorce and child’s gender. Children
from households with low income are affected
more by distressed parental relationships than
children who are financially better off. However,
good RQ is a protective factor for children in a
context of family poverty. This impact of
relationship quality exists irrespective of the
nature of the parent-child relationship. However,
the research shows that a high quality parental
relationship may be a protective factor for
children’s well-being even when there is high-level
conflict in the parent-child relationship.
Healthy relationships, healthy partners
This approach focuses on patterns of interaction
between a couple and looks at areas such as how
couples communicate, their conflict behaviours,
and how they spend time with one another.
The Intrapersonal approach
Another perspective is that relationship quality is
not about the behaviours and interactions in the
relationship but only refers to how partners rate
their happiness or satisfaction with the
relationship. This involves a subjective evaluation
of a couple’s relationship (Fincham & Rogge, 2010).
Why does relationship quality
matter?
Although relationship quality may seem to be a
theoretical concept removed from the reality of
families’ daily lives, relationship quality is
important. The consequences of poor
relationship quality are significant for partners,
children, and wider society.
Recent evidence shows that children whose
parents have poorer relationship quality have
more externalising behaviour problems (such as
hyperactivity-inattention) than children whose
Where relationships break down, adults and
children are more likely to do poorly on a range
of indicators of health and well-being. There are
also wider implications for society, including the
economic and social costs of relationship
breakdown (Coleman & Glenn, 2009).
The significant link between relationship
breakdown and poorer prospects has, therefore,
been an important feature of couple research over
the last forty years and has shaped much of the
public discourse about families. The main feature
of this discourse has been the notion that
marriage per se bestows health and wellbeing
benefits on spouses - a kind of marriage premium
- that is lost with marriage breakdown (Waite &
Gallagher, 2000).
However, more recent research has highlighted
the importance of the good quality relationship
between partners, irrespective of marital status,
for the health, life satisfaction, and wellbeing of
partners (Proulx et al., 2007; Coleman & Glenn,
2009; Robles et al., 2013) and their children
(Cummings & Davies, 2010; Barrett et al., 2011;
Reynolds et al, forthcoming). In other words, it is
not being in a relationship per se that confers
1. Relationship quality refers to people in a wide range of relationships, including those cohabiting and closely involved. However, as marriage is a legal union
between couples, married couples are easier to identify and therefore tend to feature more in studies examining the quality of relationships.
Understanding Relationship Quality 7
health and well-being advantages, but it is the
quality of the relationship that matters.
In some cases, as Holt-Lunstad and colleagues
(2008) conclude from their study on blood
pressure and relationship quality, ‘‘one is better off
single than unhappily married’’ (p. 5).
adjustment is consistent across different
economic, racial, ethnic, and family structures
(Moore, Kinghorn & Bandy, 2011).
Indeed, troubled partners often make troubled
parents (Reynolds & OnePusOne, 2008;
Cummings & Davies, 2010; Reynolds et al.,
forthcoming). Parents in a happy relationship
interact more positively with their children and
provide sensitive, warm, and accepting parenting.
In contrast, a poorer couple relationship is linked
to permissive parenting and more negative
parent-child relationships (Carlson & McLanahan,
2005). Conflict between parents can have
particularly negative consequences for children.
Children exposed to badly managed conflict are at
risk of poorer physical and mental health; of
failing to reach their potential at school; of
experiencing sleeping difficulties; and of having
trouble getting on with others including peers
(Coleman & Glenn, 2009; Barrett et al., 2011;
Reynolds et al., forthcoming).
Relationship quality is also an important concept
in a society where the formation and dissolution
of relationships has become more complex and
diverse. For example, rates of cohabitation have
increased along with re-partnering and step
families, couples “living apart together” and
greater visibility of gay and lesbian partnerships
(Lloyd & Lacey, 2012). In previous decades the
relationship status framework- “married”, “single”,
“divorced” or “widowed” - provided the basis for
assessing social entitlements, shaping policy, and
debating the state of the family. We need only to
reflect on the abolition of the married couples tax
allowance, changes in the calculation of benefit
entitlements, or the extension of the legal rights
that were the purview of marriage alone to civil
partnerships, to recognise the decreasing
relevance of these family labels. Relationship
quality, rather than relationship status, is a much
more helpful indicator of individual and social
well-being, as well as a more sophisticated tool
for allocating support to families where it is most
needed. Indeed, recent debates about the future
of public services and the role of the state have
suggested that “broadening and deepening
relationships should be seen as an outcome to
which the state should aspire” (Cooke & Muir, 2012,
p.10), with the state aiming to facilitate the wellbeing of people in a broader range of relationships.
Whilst poor relationship quality is associated with
negative outcomes, good quality relationships are
linked to well-being and positive outcomes for
individuals, their children and families (Vaillant,
2012). Research shows that parents in higher
quality relationships have better adjusted
children, who themselves are more likely to have
good quality relationships in the future (Amato &
Booth, 2001; Cunningham & Thorton, 2006). The
association between relationship quality and child
Changing family norms
Relationship quality and depression: chicken or egg?
There is a strong association between relationship quality and depression (Proulx et
al., 2007), but is poor relationship quality a cause or consequence of depression?
Although evidence supports both pathways, there is stronger support for the theory
that a poor quality relationship triggers or exacerbates depression (e.g. see Proulx et
al., 2007). For example, longitudinal studies have found that marital dissatisfaction
predicts increases in depressive symptoms over time (Mead, 2002); co-varies with
changes in depressive symptoms (Kurdek, 1998; Karney, 2001); and increases the
likelihood of a major depressive episode within a year (Beach, 2001). Researchers
have also identified neural sites that may explain how relationship quality and
psychological and physical well-being are linked (Acevedo et al., 2012).
8
Understanding Relationship Quality
How do we measure
relationship quality?
Why is measuring relationship
quality useful?
Measures of relationship quality have been
developed, primarily by researchers and
relationship therapists, to help identify distressed
couples in need of relationship support and to
inform understandings of how relationships work
( Johnson, 1995). However, the measure of
relationship quality can have a much wider
application.
Simple measures can be used in surveys to
provide a snapshot of a population’s well-being
and to monitor change over time, if a series of
surveys are used (such as the National Child
Development Study, the British Household Panel
Survey, and the Millennium Cohort Study).
Some measures are also useful screening tools
that can be used to identify couples at risk of or in
the early stages of relationship difficulties. For
example, one study found that specially trained
health visitors were able to administer a short
relationship screening tool to parents in the
postnatal period in order to offer support to
parents or signpost them to additional expert
help (Simons et al., 2001). Following completion
of the screening tool, one in five mothers seen by
the health visitors during their six week postnatal
check was identified as experiencing relationship
difficulties and most of these women were able to
received help from the health visitor (Simons et
al., 2003).
Relationship quality measures can also be used as
part of a portfolio of evaluation tools to assess the
impact of broader family support interventions.
As the later section shows, relationships can come
under pressure in a range of circumstances and
the effectiveness of interventions to ease the strain
may be assessed by measuring relationship
quality.
Relationship quality measurement may also
contribute to assessing the suitability of families
for fostering and adoption. Given the strong link
between relationship quality and parenting
practices, couples that are able to nurture their
own relationships are in a strong position to
create a beneficial home environment for
children.
Couples embarking on a relationship and those
who work with them may also make use of
relationship quality measurements. For example,
marriage preparation courses and relationship
enrichment programmes often include a
questionnaire that helps partners to understand
their relationship better, assess their compatibility,
and highlight issues that they may wish to address.
Again, measuring relationship quality can be used
to assess the outcome of such efforts.
Measuring relationship quality
A variety of measures have been developed for
use across different contexts, ranging from simple
statements asking a respondent to rate how
happy they are in a relationship, through to more
complex and detailed instruments comprising a
number of factors. Some measurements of
relationship quality have been developed for use
with particular population groups, including stepfamilies, military families, or various ethnic groups
(see Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2004 for a review).
While it is not possible to cover all of them, we
focus on some of the most commonly used scales
below.
Understanding Relationship Quality 9
Single statement responses rating
happiness or satisfaction
One type of relationship quality measurement
used often in surveys asks participants to respond
to a singular statement about their relationship.
This is the case in the National Child Development
Study – a longitudinal cohort study that follows all
those born on a given day in 1958 over their lifetimes.
Chart 1
40%
Reported relationship
happiness of those
aged 50 yrs, 2008,
England, Wales &
Scotland
35%
Proportion
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Men
Women
0%
Very unhappy
2
3
4
5
6
Very happy
How happy is your relationship with your partner?
Source: National Child Development Study - 2008, age 50 yr sweep
Data on the participants is collected at regular
intervals throughout childhood and adulthood,
referred to as sweeps. In 2008 participants in the
study were asked “How happy is your relationship
with your partner, all things considered?” with
answers rated on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being very
unhappy and 7 being very happy. Their responses
are recorded in Chart 1.
Although these, singular statement measurements
have been criticised by some, other studies have
shown them to be quite robust and reliable in
producing consistent measurements across
different settings ( Johnson, 1995).
Relationship quality: more than
a moment in time?
Relationship quality is often measured at
one point in time, for example, as part of
a survey, which offers a snapshot of the
current state. However, relationship
quality resembles a trajectory – a line
mapped from the beginning of the
relationship over its life course (Fincham
& Beach, 2006). To understand better
relationship quality we need to refer to
the quality of the relationship at the
beginning, as well as the way it
progresses. Longitudinal studies
following couples over time provide this
kind of insights into relationship quality.
10
Understanding Relationship Quality
Issues of agreement and
disagreement in the LockeWallace Marital Adjustment Test
“State the approximate extent of
agreement or disagreement
between you and your mate on
the following items.”
The six response options range from
always agree to always disagree:
Handling family finances
Matters of recreation
Demonstration of affection
Friends
Sex relations
Conventionality (right, good or
proper conduct)
Philosophy of life
Ways of dealing with in-laws.
Relationship quality
is generally used to
refer to how happy
or satisfied a person
is in his or her
relationship and
how well partners
get on together.
Measuring relationship quality usually consists of
a series of questions that form scales or subscales with the scores of the scales totalled to
arrive at an overall score of relationship quality.
Scales are often protected by copyright and some
can be used only by permission, with
acknowledgement of authorship or for a fee.
Below are some examples of measures of
relationship quality.
The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test
(MAT)
The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test
(generally referred to as the MAT) was developed
in 1959 to provide a simple assessment of marital
fit – how well a husband and wife
“accommodated” one another – in order to assess
whether a marriage is likely to succeed or fail. The
MAT comprises a series of multiple-choice
questions, such as: If you had your life to live over
again, do you think you would: (a) Marry the same
person, (b) Marry a different person, (c) Not marry
at all. It also asks respondents to rate the extent
to which they agree or disagree with their partner
on eight issues (see box top left) alongside a
single question about their own marital happiness
on a scale line. The MAT is one of the earliest
relationship quality measures and therefore
provides data on marital quality over a 50-year
period. The measure is still used occasionally,
although questions have been raised about
whether some of the language and concepts
remain relevant today (Freeston & Plechaty,
1997).
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
The DAS (Spanier & Lewis, 1980) was developed
for clinical and counselling uses. The scale
consists of 32 questions. Respondents are asked
to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree
with their partner across 15 issues, including
those listed in the MAT. The larger number of
items included in the scale makes it sensitive to
changes in relationship quality over time,
although more time-consuming to administer.
The DAS may, therefore, be useful in a research
Understanding Relationship Quality 11
setting, to examine for example whether the
quality of a couple’s relationship has altered over
time, or in a counselling setting, to evaluate the
impact of the support provided.
A short form of the DAS has also been developed
(- the DAS-7, sometimes referred to as the ADAS:
the Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale,
Hunsley et al., 2001). This is a 7-item version of
the scale comprising a subset of items from the
original DAS. Items focus on “levels of agreement
and disagreement” in the relationship. The DAS-7
correlates well with the full DAS (Sharpley & Cross,
1982; Sharpley & Rogers, 1984). It is able to
distinguish between “distressed’ and “nondistressed” relationships (Sharpley & Rodgers, 1984)
and changes in relationships as a result of
interventions (Ireland et al., 2003; Zubrick et al., 2005).
The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI)
The QMI was developed by Norton in 1983 in
response to the much longer DAS. The QMI is a 6item scale. Respondents answer the first five
items on a 7- point scale ranging from -1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The sixth item on
happiness is answered on a 10-point scale ranging
from 1 (extremely low) to 10 (extremely high). The
wording of this item is similar to that used in the
MAT, asking the respondent to describe the degree
of happiness in [your] marriage. Norton (1983)
argued that relationship quality was best
represented by a single variable, and that splitting
the concept into a number of constituent parts
was not useful. Accordingly, this scale uses a small
number of questions to generate a single score
estimating relationship quality, which makes the
test easy to administer, though more suited to
examining relationship quality at a single timepoint than detecting changes over time.
Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS; Rust &
Golombok, 1986). The Inventory focuses on two
domains. One domain asks about shared interests,
communication, sex, warmth, roles and decision
making, and coping. The other domain focuses on
beliefs about and attitudes towards relationships
as well as behaviour in the relationship and how
much partners agree. There is a longer version of
the GRIMS with 28 items, and a shorter 10-item
version (the GRIMS-S), with the shorter
version using a selection of items from the longer
version. Some items from the GRIMS were
included in the Millennium Cohort Study,
providing a useful snapshot of contemporary
relationships (see Chart 3). The authors have
suggested that the longer version of the GRIMS
can be used to measure relationship change over
time and also as a screening measure to highlight
relationship difficulties. The short version is more
appropriate to screening only.
Relationship Dynamics Scale (RDS)
The RDS (Stanley & Markman, 1997) was
developed as a diagnostic tool for use in the
“Prevention and Relationship Enhancement
Programme” (PREP), a marriage preparation
course, but it has also been used in a number of
research studies. The scale invites respondents to
rate, on a three-point scale, how often they
encounter the eight issues listed in the scale,
including:
My partner criticizes or belittles my opinions,
feelings, or desires
My partner seems to view my words or actions
more negatively than I mean them to be
When we have a problem to solve, it is like we
are on opposite teams
I feel lonely in this relationship
Golombok-Rust Inventory of Marital State
(GRIMS)
The GRIMS (Rust et al., 1986) was developed to
help couple counselling centres measure change
before and after treatment and was originally
created as a partner to the Golombok-Rust
Unlike some scales, the RDS’ focus is on negative
aspects of the relationship, including conflict and
communication difficulties. Relationships are
classified into, “green, amber or red”, depending on
respondents’ scores. Amber warrants a concern
12
Understanding Relationship Quality
with the state of the relationship, while red
indicates the presence of patterns that imply a
relationship at significant risk. The RDS formed the
basis of a screening tool in a successful trial
utilising specially trained health visitors to screen
parents in the postnatal period for relationship
difficulties (Simons et al., 2001).
The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI)
The CSI (Funk & Rogge, 2007) takes a different
approach to measuring relationship quality from
many other scales. The CSI attempts to assess
satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the relationship
separately rather than assuming that satisfaction
and dissatisfaction lie at either end of a
continuum. It therefore includes a series of
statements reflecting on positive and negative
aspects of the relationship e.g. “Do you enjoy your
partner’s company?”; “I sometimes wonder if there is
someone else out there for me”; “My relationship
with my partner makes me happy”. The scale also
tries to capture how respondents feel about the
relationship by inviting them to respond to a
series of contrasting adjectives e.g. “interesting …
boring”; “full … empty”. The CSI can be used as a
32, 16 or 4-item scale.
Studies using the CSI found it to be more sensitive
than the full DAS or MAT. It provided a more
meaningful outcome measure following couple
counselling, was more sensitive to differences
between couples, and was more sensitive to
change in couples’ relationship quality over time
(Funk & Rogge, 2007; Fincham & Rogge, 2010).
Limitations to relationship quality
measures
As identified earlier, there are benefits to
measuring relationship quality ranging from
diagnosis, screening, and assessment of change.
However, it is also important to be aware of the
limitations of existing measures. Although there is
some degree of agreement between different
measures, there is considerable variation in the
factors and components of relationships which
are explored across these measures. This is largely
due to variations in how relationship quality is
conceptualised and defined.
Generally, the measures available tend to rely on
self-report, which may be affected by issues such
as distortion or limits to respondents’ selfawareness. Some researchers have called for the
development of more implicit and objective
measures of relationship quality (Fincham &
Rogge, 2010). Self-report, however, does present a
cost-effective and quicker means of assessment
compared to more implicit measures, such as
observation or computer-based tasks.
Most of the commonly used measures of
relationship quality have been shown to have
predictive power and adequate psychometric
properties. However, there is a limit to the
information available about the use of these
measures for various subgroups. Many of the
measures were designed and tested using
heterosexual married couples and may not
necessarily be suitable for diverse populations of
cohabiting, living apart together or same-sex
couples. Similarly, the extent to which they are
useful accross different ethnic is less documented
(Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2004).
Understanding Relationship Quality 13
Trends in relationship quality
How happy are our
relationships?
Chart 2 provides a snapshot of relationship
happiness of participants in the National Child
Development Study (NCDS) born in 1952 and
aged 42 at the time of the survey, as well as
participants from the British Cohort Study (BCS)
born in 1970 and aged 30 at the time of the
survey. The chart shows similar percentages of
respondents across both cohort studies who are
either “happy” or “very happy” in their
relationship and those who rate themselves as
either “very unhappy” or “moderately unhappy”.
Although the divorce rate gives some indication of
the state of the nation’s relationships, as the
talking point demonstrates, it provides a partial
picture of relationship quality. For example, some
partners remain together despite being unhappy
in a relationship. National surveys, such as the
cohort studies that follow a sample of people
from birth through their life-time and other oneoff surveys, provide greater insight into levels of
relationship quality in the UK.
Chart 2
45%
Reported relationship
happiness - comparing
those aged 42 yrs and
those aged 30 yrs in
2000, England, Wales
& Scotland
40%
35%
Proportion
30%
25%
L
20%
15%
10%
NCDS
5%
BCS70
0%
Very unhappy
2
3
Neither happy/unhappy
5
6
Very happy
Source: National Child Development Study - 2000, age 42 yr sweep; British Cohort Study - 2000, age 30 yr sweep
How are relationship quality and stability linked?
Does poor relationship quality automatically signify the end of a relationship? There is
certainly a link (correlation) between relationship quality and whether the relationship lasts
(sometimes referred to as “relationship stability”). In their study following newly-weds over the
first ten years of marriage, Lavner & Bradbury (2010) found a close correspondence
between levels of marital satisfaction and divorce rates. For example, after four years of
marriage 54% of those who started with the lowest levels of marital quality experienced the
steepest decline in marital quality and had divorced. At the other end of the spectrum, only
4% of those who started with high levels of marital satisfaction, which remained stable over
the four-year period, had divorced. Similar patterns were apparent ten years later.
But that is not the end of the story. A significant proportion of couples that were unhappy
after four years together, remained married six years later. So what keeps couples together?
A range of factors may be important, including a belief that it is the best thing for the
children, a belief in the unbreakable ties of marriage, lack of economic independence, fear
of partner violence and a sense that, although things are bad, they may be even worse off if
they leave the relationship (Lauer & Lauer, 1986; Preveti &Amato, 2003).
Understanding Relationship Quality
14
We can see similar proportions when looking at
the responses to some items from the GRIMS,
posed to participants in the Millennium Cohort
Study, another longitudinal cohort study this time
with participants recruited at birth in 2000. Chart
3 shows that 21% of respondents wished there
was more warmth and affection between
themselves and their partner; 17% disagreed with
the statement describing the relationship as full of
joy and excitement; and 16% sometimes feel
lonely in the relationship even though they are
with their partner.
Studies conducted in the USA with smaller
samples, involving more comprehensive measures
of relationship quality, have also reported 20% of
respondents in discordant relationships (Beach et
al., 2005; Kamp Dush et al., 2008).
For example, one study utilised six waves of data
from the Study of Marital Instability over the Life
Course collected from 1980 to 2000. This involved
a random sample of adults under 55, married for
varied lengths of time at the start of the study
(see Booth et al., 2003). Kamp Dush and
colleagues (2008) found just under 40% of
participants were in relationships of high
relationship quality and just over 40% in
relationships of “middling” quality. For both these
groups their levels of relationship happiness
generally remained the same over the twenty
years of the study. Of course, this may mean that
those who became unhappy in their relationships
dropped out of the study.
100%
Chart 3
Responses to
elements of the
GRIMS amongst
Millennium Cohort
Study participants
(MCS, second sweep,
2001/2002)
90%
80%
Proportion
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Strongly agree
Agree
20%
Neither agree or disagree
10%
Disagree
Stongly disagree
0%
My partner is usually
sensitive to and
aware of my needs
My partner doesn't
I sometimes feel
seem to listen to me lonely even though I
am with my partner
Source: Millennium Cohort Study (2001/2002)
Our relationship is
full of joy
and excitement
I wish there was
more warmth and
affection between us
I suspect we may be
on the brink
of separation
% rating their marriage
Understanding Relationship Quality 15
Has relationship happiness in
the population changed over
recent decades?
whether their marriage is “very happy, pretty
happy, or not too happy” either every year or
every other year between 1973 and 2010.
What has been the impact on relationship quality
of the major changes in society and in family
norms described in previous chapters over the last
fifty years? Although these data are not available
in the UK, we can get some idea of national trends
in relationship quality in the USA. The US General
Social Survey has asked respondents to say
The findings, depicted in Chart 4, record a
modest drop in marital happiness levels from their
peak in the early 1970s at 67%-69% to below 60%
in the early 1980s. They have remained fairly
steady since then. The per cent of respondents
describing their relationship as “not too happy”
fluctuates between 2% to 4% (Rogers & Amato,
1997; Smith, 2011).
80%
Chart 4
70%
Trends in marital happiness
between 1973 and 2010 in
the USA
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Very happy
10%
Pretty happy
Not too happy
0%
73 74 75 76 77 78 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20
Source: General Social Survey, USA
Why have levels of marital satisfaction remained similar over the years?
We might have expected to see marital happiness rates rise over recent decades. One
reason is that, as divorce has become readily available and more acceptable, unhappily
married individuals have been able to opt out of marriage. Similarly, the increase in the
number of people cohabitating could mean that only those who are very sure of their
relationship will opt into marriage. That would leave only the “most happy” in marriage.
Using different data sets from two national US surveys, one in 1980 and one in 2000, Amato
and colleagues (2003) attempted to explore changes in marital quality over time.
They concluded that marital quality is subject to counteracting forces. Some social changes,
such as wives’ job demands, and premarital cohabitation are associated with declining
marital quality. On the other hand, factors around equality, such as more equal decisionmaking and non-traditional attitudes towards gender, have enhanced relationship quality,
with the exception of the redistribution of housework. Increases in husbands’ share of
housework appeared to depress husbands’ relationship quality but improve it for wives.
Understanding Relationship Quality
16
The course of relationship
quality
These studies of national trends are interesting
social indicators, painting a picture of “average”
levels of relationship quality at any one time.
However, they do not tell us about how
relationship quality develops over time for
different couples. Chart 5 indicates that a higher
proportion of respondents in the NCDS who have
been in a relationship for 21 years or more rated
their relationships as very unhappy compared
with those who have been in a relationship for
five years or fewer.
Nearly half of those who were in relationships of
under five years length were “very happy” (49%)
compared with 41% at 21-30 years. In fact, the
proportion of respondents who rated themselves
as very happy and were in a relationship of
between six and 20 years duration was even
smaller than those in relationships of 21 years
and over.
The NCDS findings point to a possible decline in
relationship quality over the course of a
relationship. This is borne out by other studies,
some of which have also used longitudinal data,
which suggest that relationship quality does
indeed decline over time (Van Laningham et al.,
2001), that is to say that partners experience a
drop in relationship happiness as a relationship
progresses. Some studies suggest that the decline
is a gradual process (Karney & Bradbury, 1995)
while others suggest that the decline is rapid after
the first ten years (Kurdek, 1999).
Researchers originally thought that this decline in
relationship quality followed a U-shaped curve,
declining following the birth of the first child and
picking up again once children left home (Glenn,
1990; see Umberson et al., 2005 for discussion;
Keizer and Schenk, 2012). However, most recent
findings, using longitudinal studies suggest that,
although relationship quality does indeed decline,
it does not “bounce back” in later years (Van
Laningham et al., 2001; Kamp Dush et al., 2008).
Where there is a recovery, it is only amongst
couples who started out with poor relationship
quality (Umberson et al., 2005).
100%
Chart 5
Reported relationship
happiness by duration of
relationship of those aged
42 yrs, 2000, England,
Wales & Scotland
90%
80%
Proportion
70%
60%
50%
Very happy
40%
6
30%
5
Neither happy/unhappy
20%
3
10%
2
Very unhappy
0%
up to 5 years
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
Duration of relationship
Source: National Child Development Study - 2000, age 42 yr sweep
16-20 yrs
21-30 yrs
Understanding Relationship Quality 17
Variations in relationship
quality
Patterns of change in relationship quality
In the same way that relationship quality may
change over time, researchers have also identified
different trajectories of relationship quality for
different groups of participants, with some
participants starting with much higher levels of
relationship satisfaction than others (Umberson et
al., 2005; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010; Birditt et al.,
2012). These studies found that couples
characterised by relatively high levels of
satisfaction in the first few years of their
relationship see a very modest or no decline in
relationship quality over the years. Couples,
however, who start with low levels of relationship
quality experience steeper and more rapid
declines in satisfaction. In all these studies low
levels of relationship quality and its on-going
decline predicted which couples would go on to
divorce.
Relationship quality and age
As well as varying with the length of the
relationship, there is a modest continuous decline
in relationship quality linked to aging (Umberson
et al., 2005). Although they are related, age and
relationship length may reflect different processes
and therefore mean different things for
relationship quality. For example, as individuals
mature they may be better at handling their
emotional responses and so be less likely to argue.
On the other hand, partners who have been
together longer may find themselves sharing
fewer interests and struggling to feel connected
(Umberson et al., 2005).
His and her relationship quality?
Are men or women more likely to experience
poorer relationship quality? Previous research has
found that women are generally less satisfied in
their marriages than men (Van Laningham et al.,
2001; Umberson et al., 2005; Amato et al., 2007).
However, recent studies have challenged this
assumption finding that just under half of newlywed husbands and wives shared the same level of
marital quality over the first four years of the
relationship (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010).
Relationship quality and marital status
Most studies find cohabiting relationships are
associated with poorer relationship quality
compared with married ones (see Jose et al., 2010
for a review). This is not true, however, for older
cohabiting couples. Older couples show little
difference in relationship quality whether they are
married or cohabiting. This probably reflects
differences in attitudes towards, and beliefs about,
cohabitation. Younger adults may see
cohabitation as a weaker tie than marriage, and
have lower levels of commitment or see it as a
stage in courtship leading to marriage. Older
cohabiting adults are more likely to see their
relationship as a long-term alternative to marriage
(Brown & Kawamura, 2010).
Relationship quality and religious status
Religious involvement is associated with a positive
impact on relationship quality (Wolfinger &
Wilcox, 2008), particularly among lower income
couples (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009). This is likely to
be because religion has both an indirect and
direct impact on relationship quality. Religion
influences relationship quality directly by
encouraging values, beliefs, and behaviours that
are helpful to marriage such as commitment,
fidelity, and forgiveness (Christiano, 2000; Wilcox,
2004; Lambert et al., 2012; Lambert et al., 2012).
Religion also has an indirect effect on marriage:
religious beliefs and practice tend to promote
psychological well-being, conformity to social
norms, and social support among partners, all of
which are linked to better marriages (Gottman
1998; Amato & Booth, 1997).
18
Understanding Relationship Quality
What affects relationship quality?
As we have shown so far, around 20% of people
are likely to be in unhappy relationships at any
one time (Kamp Dush et al., 2008). A key question
therefore is what affects relationship quality? Why
are some relationships happier than others?
Vulnerability-Stress
Adaptation Model
Researchers have drawn on a range of data from
many different samples of couples to attempt to
identify what factors influence relationship quality.
One influential and very comprehensive model,
known as the vulnerability-stress-adaptation
model, was developed on the basis of findings of
115 longitudinal studies – equivalent to over
45,000 marriages (Karney & Bradbury, 1995;
Bradbury & Karney, 2004). As Figure 1 shows,
marital quality and stability depend on three
interrelated factors: the personal traits and
experiences that partners bring to a relationship
(their Enduring Vulnerabilities); the life events they
encounter on the way (Stressful Events); and how
they communicate and cope during difficult times
(Adaptive Processes). Of course, it is not possible
to test the model as this would require unethical
social interference, but longitudinal evidence
comes as close as we can get to collecting reliable
evidence about whether the model holds true.
The arrows connecting the different domains in
Figure 1 illustrate how these factors impact on
relationship quality, and, over time on the
outcome of the relationship. Partners’ enduring
vulnerabilities influence how they relate to one
another and how they cope with the life events
they encounter. Couples with relatively poor
coping and communication skills might remain
happy in the relationship if they do not have to
cope with many stressful events. On the other
hand, couples that have to cope with a series of
stressful life events can run into difficulties when
stress affects how partners manage their
differences and interpret one another’s behaviour
(Neff & Karney, 2004). The figure also
demonstrates how relationship quality both
influences, and is influenced by, couple’s adaptive
processes.
More recent research has found that couples
vulnerable or “at risk” in one area, such as
adaptive processes, are also more likely to be
vulnerable in another. For example, couples with
negative communication styles also experience
more stress, report more aggression, and are
characterised by a range of difficult personality
traits (Bradbury & Lavner, 2011).
Figure 1: Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model of Relationships
Enduring
Vulnerabilities
Adaptive
Processes
Stressful
Events
Marital
Quality
Marital
Stability
Understanding Relationship Quality 19
Couples’ perspectives on
relationships
The importance of attitudes towards and
beliefs about relationships is highlighted
by a recent in-depth study of
relationships. The study differentiated
between couples where partners held a
“developmental” view of relationships
and those with a “non-developmental”
view (Coleman, 2011).
The following sections explore in more detail the
enduring vulnerabilities, stressful events and the
adaptive processes that are central to the
Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation model.
Enduring Vulnerabilities
Enduring vulnerabilities include partners’ past
experiences, personalities and genetic make-up,
beliefs and attitudes about relationships, family of
origin, and social background. Personality
variables, such as agreeableness, neuroticism,
negativity, propensity to be short-tempered, and
low self-esteem, are linked to the level of
relationship quality reported at the outset of a
relationship (see Karney & Bradbury, 1995;
Bradbury & Karney, 2004) and also discriminate
between couples where relationship quality
declined and those where it remained high in a
study of newly-weds (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010).
Family background is another factor associated
with relationship quality. One explanation for
these inter-generational patterns is that children
learn how to relate to others in their family home
and therefore bring to adult relationships the
unhelpful or negative ways of relating they
experienced in childhood (Bradbury & Karney,
2004; Whitton et al., 2008). Beliefs and attitudes
are also important, including attitudes towards
decision-making, commitment, and gender roles
(Kamp Dush et al., 2008).
“Developmental” couples were more
likely to initiate discussion about issues
even if it was uncomfortable to do so;
learn from difficult experiences; express
dissatisfaction; and engage in
constructive conflict. They were also
aware of how to protect their
relationship through closeness and time
together, independence, providing
support for each other, and
communicating effectively. Couples in
this group had sought external
professional support to improve their
relationship when they felt it was
warranted.
A “non-developmental” perspective was
apparent where people frequently
avoided confrontation with their partner
by subjugating their own needs,
resigning themselves to continuing their
dissatisfying relationship, and failing to
resolve arguments. They commonly held
a belief that a couple could not learn to
improve their relationship and
considered relationship support to be
ineffective and a sign that the
relationship was not worth saving.
Taken alongside the findings of other
studies, it appears that people who hold
‘developmental’ beliefs are likely to be
more motivated to maintain and
improve their relationship, as well as to
engage with support compared to
those less developmentally minded
(Coleman, 2011; Lavner & Bradbury, 2012).
20
Understanding Relationship Quality
Stressful life events
Relationship quality can also be affected by the
difficult events or circumstances couples
encounter (Umberson et al., 2005). How couples
cope with, and respond to, these events affects
the quality of the relationship. Their response to
stressful events is in turn influenced by their
patterns of relating and their “enduring
vulnerabilities”. For example, relationships where
partners experienced low levels of stress in
childhood are less vulnerable to stress in
adulthood (Umberson et al., 2005). One reason
that external stressors can undermine relationship
quality is that couples struggle to separate how
they feel about the relationship overall from the
negative feelings they experience day-to-day (Neff
& Karney, 2009). Some of the common stressful
life events that couples encounter are looked at in
more detail below.
Becoming parents
Becoming parents is one of the life
events most likely to precipitate a
decline in relationship quality
(Twenge et al., 2003; Mitnick et al.,
2009). Studies that compare relationship
quality before and after having children as well as
studies that compare couples with and without
children both find a decline in relationship quality
following the birth of a child (Twenge et al., 2003;
Lawrence et al., 2008; Hirschberger et al., 2009).
Couples that do not have children also experience
some decline in relationship quality over time,
albeit, it seems, a more gradual decline compared
with new parents (Doss et al., 2009; Lawrence et
al., 2008). However, a recent meta-analysis which
tested the findings of a number of longitudinal
studies surprisingly found no difference, on
average, between parents and non-parents in the
decline in relationship quality over a similar
period of time (Mitnick et al., 2009), and some
couples actually appear to become more satisfied
in the relationship when they become parents
(Doss et al., 2009).
Understanding these potentially confusing
findings lies in recognising that becoming parents
can have a major impact on the couple
relationship for a proportion of parents, but not
all. Studies that average relationship quality
across the sample may not identify these different
groups of parents. Some of the factors that have
been found to increase the likelihood of a more
troubled transition to parenthood include: levels
of relationship satisfaction before becoming
parents (Lawrence et al., 2008); disagreements
about whether or not to start a family (Lawrence
et al., 2008; Cowan & Cowan, 2000); experiences
of a troubled home when growing up (Perren et
al., 2005); and constrained resources. For example,
unmarried, very young parents living on the
poverty line often do not have access to the
emotional, financial, and social resources they
need to manage their relationship over the
transition to parenthood (Carlson & McLanahan,
2006). Other factors include each partners’
expectations of one another and new parenthood
(Mitnick, et al., 2009; Cowan & Cowan, 2000), as
well as the psychological make-up of each partner
and their attachment profile (i.e. how secure they
feel in themselves and in the relationship, Kohn et
al., 2011).
How we measure relationship quality makes a difference
A recent rigorous statistical analysis of a number of longitudinal studies found differences
in the rate of decline depending on the type of measure of relationship quality used
(Mitnick et al., 2009).
Global satisfaction measures (those described as evaluations in the section on relationship
quality measures) were more sensitive to the transition to parenthood and showed a
greater decline than measures based on relationship adjustment measures, such as the
Marital Adjustment Test and Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The researchers suggest that more
recent, global relationship satisfaction measures (e.g. see Funk & Rogge, 2007; and
Fincham & Rogge, 2010) are more reliable than older adjustment measures (Mitnick et al,
2009) in detecting changes in relationship quality.
Understanding Relationship Quality 21
Economic strain and work stress
Work stress is another factor
associated with poor relationship
quality, particularly where this involves
work family conflict (Allen et al., 2000;
Greenglass et al., 1988). A recent survey found
individuals experiencing work-family conflict were
more likely to report poorer relationship quality
as were individuals who felt pressures at home
were affecting life at work (Burnett et al., 2011).
Too little work or no work can be equally
detrimental. Poverty is associated with poorer
relationship quality (Fincham & Beach, 2010).
This is because poverty is linked with a range of
stressors that exacerbate family conflict and
increase family instability (Conger et al., 2002).
One diary study of relationship conflict found
that, although money was not the most common
source of conflict, arguments about money were
more pervasive, problematic, and recurrent, and
remained unresolved, despite more attempts at
problem solving (Papp et al., 2009).
Other stressful circumstances associated
with poor relationship quality
Other factors associated with poor
relationship quality include drug and
alcohol abuse (Floyd et al., 2006);
partner ill-health, including depression,
and caring for a sick partner (d’Ardenne &
Morrod, 2003; Proulx et al., 2007), and caring for
children with disabilities (Berant et al., 2003;
Glenn 2007).
Relationships and the recession
Surveys conducted during this most
recent recession have found
respondents concerned about the
impact of money worries on their
relationships (see Glenn & Coleman,
2009 for a summary):
• 22% of respondents in a large scale
survey reported that they were
arguing more because of money
worries, and that 1 in 10 men, and 1 in
20 women were worried that money
concerns would cause them to break
up with their partner (Relate, 2009).
• Analysis of calls to a parenting
helpline service run by the Family and
Parenting Institute found half of all
callers felt under increased strain
because of the recession and 10% felt
that financial pressures were
threatening their relationship. A similar
number said that the recession was
increasing the chance of divorce or
separation from their partner.
Approximately 20% reported that they
were spending less time with their
families as a result of having to work
longer hours (Press Association, 2009).
• In a poll of 5000 parents, 29% of
respondents reported arguing about
family finances (Family and Parenting
Institute, 2008).
The stressful life events that are likely to undermine
relationship quality include: the transition to
parenthood, work stress, economic stress, partner
ill-health, and caring for a child with additional needs.
22
Understanding Relationship Quality
The importance of mutual support
How supportive partners are of one another can help explain why some relationships
succeed and others fail (Fincham, 2003). Having a supportive partner can buffer the
impact of stress on relationship satisfaction (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Support helps
couples to build trust and to interpret their partner’s behaviour in a positive light. For
example, a thoughtless comment is not perceived to be driven by a partners’ malice
but by less harmful factors, such as tiredness or a bad day. Researchers think that
these positives protect the couple so that the less supportive things they do and say do
not have a lasting impact on their relationship happiness (Bradbury & Karney, 2004).
Adaptive processes
Partners’ ways of coping and relating, or couples’
adaptive processes, refers to the third domain of
the vulnerabilities–stress-adaptation model,
in particular: how partners deal with conflict;
communicate; support each other; and think
about the relationship, their partner, and their
partner’s behaviour.
Much of the research on relationship quality and
relationship outcomes focuses on these
“behavioural” and “interactional” aspects of the
relationship. Although it is an extensive and
sometimes contradictory literature, some of the
key findings are surprisingly simple. Happy
partnerships can be distinguished from unhappy
partnerships by the ratio of positives to negatives
in the relationship (Bradbury, 2010). In happy
couples, the ratio of agreements to disagreements
is greater than 1 and for unhappy couples less
than 1 (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Couples in
unhappy or dissatisfied relationships tend to
engage in more negative ways of communicating,
such as complaining, criticising, blaming, and
denying responsibility, as well as in fewer positive
ways of communicating, such as agreeing,
laughing, using humour, and smiling (Bradbury,
2010; Lavner & Bradbury, 2012). These negative
behaviours tend to be reciprocated leaving
couples caught in negative cycles of relating that
undermine relationship quality over time. A
recent study of newly-weds, found couples with
negative communication patterns were more
likely to divorce, despite initially high levels of
relationship quality and despite having similarly in
positive ways of relating as couples who remained
together (Lavner & Bradbury, 2012).
20-25%
of the population are
estimated to be in
relationships of poor
relationship quality.
Understanding Relationship Quality 23
What makes a good relationship?
A review of studies on married couples
concluded that healthy relationships were
characterised by the following:
commitment: a long-term view of the
relationship; perseverance in the face of
difficulties; balancing couple and
individual needs; a sense of “we-ness” and
connection through friendship, shared
values, and history;
communication: positive and respectful;
contains elements of humour and
compromise;
conflict resolution: couples understand
that some conflict is inevitable; they “fight
fair” and learn to “pick their battles”;
however, violence is unacceptable;
Good quality relationships
are associated with
positive outcomes for
individuals, children and
families.
interaction and time together: quality and
quantity are both critical, as is the
balance of “couple time” and time spent
on individual pursuits, enjoyment of each
other’s company and of the time
together; and
intimacy and emotional suppport:
physical and, in particular, psychological
intimacy are core aspects of healthy
relationships which are developed and
strengthened over time, especially by
overcoming difficulties. Friendship is also
important, incorporating mutual respect
and enjoyment of each other’s company,
and deep knowledge of each other’s
likes and dislikes, hopes and dreams
(Gottman, 1999). Happily married couples
also express their affection for each other
on a daily basis, and in a range of ways.
Although these studies focused on
married couples, the findings are likely to
apply also to committed relationships
outside of marriage (Robinson & Parker,
2008).
Poor quality relationships
can lead to negative
outcomes and put both
couples and their children
at a higher risk of
depression and ill health.
Understanding Relationship Quality
24
What measures could improve
couple relationship quality?
What is relationship support?
So far we have seen how relationship quality
affects the well-being of family members and
how, for some people, relationship quality can
decline to such a low point that the relationship
breaks down. We have also looked at some of the
factors that help to explain why relationship
quality can start low or deteriorate for some
couples. The question raised by those findings is
what relationship support measures can be put in
place to improve couple relationship quality or
stem its decline?
Relationship support refers to the range of
support available to people who either wish to
strengthen or protect their relationships from
difficulties, or people who are experiencing
problems. The sources of support available
include marriage preparation and marriage
enhancement courses, as well as couple
counselling, telephone helplines, mediation, online and offline self-help resources and a recent
wave of more innovative, web-based services.
There is also less formal support provided by
family, friends and peers. The forms of support
these sources offer vary and range from emotional
support in the form of talking about and listening
to relationship issues; informational support
through information or advice giving; and
instrumental support by providing needed
resources.
The case for providing relationship support has
been growing amongst UK policymakers over the
last decade, culminating in a coalition pledge to
invest in support that expressly targets adult
couple relationships. This follows a growing
acceptance, as has long been shown in the
literature, that the relationship between parents
has a significant impact on the wellbeing of their
children (Reynolds et al., forthcoming) and a
recognition that traditional forms of support are
limited by barriers of accessibility, acceptability
and availability (Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al.,
2011).
Where do people go for
relationship support?
Chart 6 depicts responses to a 2007 British Social
Attitudes survey asking respondents if they had
sought help from a professional of some type
because they were “especially worried, stressed or
down”. Forty per cent of respondents had done so,
of these 74% had mentioned relationship
difficulties (see Chart 6).
100%
Chart 6
90%
How many people seek
professional emotional
or therapeutic support?
(BSA, 2007)
80%
Proportion
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Mentioned
relationship issues
10%
Did not mention
relationship issues
0%
Male
Source: British Social Attitudes Survey, 2007
Female
Total
Understanding Relationship Quality 25
An e-survey paints a similar picture. Forty-two
per cent of those who had separated, all those
planning to separate, and 27% of those in intact
relationships had sought some help with their
relationship difficulties (Walker et al., 2010).
Doing nothing is also occurring. Approximately
one quarter of respondents said they would not
consider turning to any of the listed options for
support with their relationship (Gabb et al., 2013).
But where do respondents turn if they do seek
help?
43%
Attitudes towards and take-up
of support
Table 1 presents the responses to a series of
question in the BSA survey (2007) concerning
counselling or therapy. While just under 60% of
people indicated they would feel comfortable
talking to a GP if they were feeling “worried,
stressed or down” (not the same as having done
so, in the previous section), only 38% said that
they would feel comfortable talking to a therapist
or counsellor. Part of the explanation may relate
to stigma: 43% agreed with the statement “If I had
seen a therapist or counsellor I wouldn’t want
anybody to know” (Anderson et al., 2009).
of respondents in the British
Social Attitudes Survey would
not want anyone to know
if they had seen a counsellor
or therapist.
Table 1. Attitudes towards therapy and counselling 2
Agree %
Neither %
Disagree %
Would feel comfortable talking to GP if feeling
worried, stressed or down
58
14
25
Would feel comfortable talking to a therapist or
counsellor if feeling worried, stressed or down
38
23
35
Would know how to find counsellor/ therapist
if needed
50
12
33
Counselling or therapy is only for people with really
serious problems
31
23
42
Doesn’t really know anything about counselling
or therapy
35
19
43
Wouldn’t want anyone to know if had seen a
counsellor or therapist
43
27
26
2. Table taken from Anderson et al (2009, p160). Proportions do not add to 100 but there is no note regarding this in the original source.
Understanding Relationship Quality
26
100%
Chart 7 Attitudes to
talking about feelings
in the British Social
Attitudes Survey
90%
80%
Proportion
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Agree
10%
Neither
Disagree
0%
I find it easy
to talk about
my feelings
People spend too
much time talking
about their feelings;
they should just
get on with things
It’s important for
me to be able to
talk about my feelings
I grew up in the
sort of household
where people
didn’t really talk
about their feelings
People nowadays
spend more time
talking about their
feelings than
in the past
Source: Anderson et al, 2009, Page ?
How comfortable are people talking
about their feelings?
Attitudes towards different
types of support
Chart 7 depicts responses to five statements
relating to BSA participants’ feelings about general
emotional support. Overall, the majority of
respondents found it easy to talk about their own
feelings, although a significant minority felt
otherwise. Around two thirds agreed with the
statement, “It’s important to me to be able to talk
about my feelings,” while a similar proportion
agreed that they found it “easy” to do so.
Those least comfortable talking about their
feelings tended to be at the younger or older age
spectrum (Anderson et al., 2009).
The BSA survey (Anderson et al., 2009) also asked
respondents if they had actually ever talked to any
professionals at a time when they felt “especially
worried, stressed or down”. One third of
respondents in the BSA who had ever sought help
(see Table 2) had talked to their GP. Similar
proportions were found in a recent e-survey
(Walker et al., 2010), although respondents were
mixed in their views on how helpful their GP had
been (Walker et al., 2010). Some respondents had
been signposted to counselling or specialised
support, while others had received medication
only.
30-40%
of people have
approached their GP
about relationship
difficulties.
Understanding Relationship Quality 27
Table 2. Percentage of respondents in the BSA 2007 survey who
had ever actually talked to any of the following when they had
felt especially worried, stressed or down.
% contact ever
% contact in
last year
GP
31
19
Psychologist
2
1
Psychiatrist
4
2
Therapist or counsellor (in person)
13
4
Therapist or counsellor (by telephone)
2
1
Someone form a support service who is trained to help
people or to listen
3
1
Social worker or care worker
2
2
Minister /priest / other religious leader
4
2
Some other kind of profession
2
1
Any of the above
40
25
Source: Anderson et al, 2009, Page ?
Relatively few respondents in this same study had
discussed the relationship with a health visitor,
echoing the interim findings of the Enduring Love
survey (Gabb et al., 2013), and even fewer had
found the conversation helpful (Walker et al.,
2010). In contrast, other studies have found that
health visitors can provide a welcome source of
support to parents experiencing relationship
difficulties, particularly where health visitors have
been specially trained to do so (Elkan et al., 2000;
Simons et al., 2003).
Counselling
What about counselling? Twenty one percent of
respondents in the BSA study had talked to some
kind of therapeutic professional, 13% of whom
had talked to a counsellor. This finding is echoed
elsewhere where studies have found that relatively
few people make use of couple counselling
services (Chang and Barrett, 2009; Walker et al.,
2010; Ramm et al., 2011). Accounts of whether or
not people found counselling helpful vary (Chang
and Barrett, 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Gabb et al.,
2013). Overall, evaluations of couple counselling
services find counselling rarely enhances
relationship quality or saves the relationship, most
probably because counselling is often seen as a
last resort, when couples have reached the end of
the relationship (Barrett et al., 2011).
Helplines
Helplines are another source of support, although
people appear to be more positive about them in
theory rather than in practice. The majority of
people who completed an e-survey said they
would be prepared to use telephone helplines to
talk about their relationships, however few had
done so (Walker et al., 2010). In a trial of
relationship support with a dedicated helpline
none of the parents eligible to contact it did so
(Simons et al., 2003).
28
Understanding Relationship Quality
Peer support
Relationship enhancement
Attitudes towards peer support are complex.
While support from someone familiar, such as
friends, peers or a relative, is usually seen as more
acceptable than seeking professional support
(Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al., 2011). Informal
emotional support plays an important role in
many people’s lives (Anderson et al., 2009). For
example, in the BSA, the proportion who said they
had talked to close friends or family about an
emotional problem “in the last month”, was higher
than the proportion that had used any form of
formal emotional support ever (47% compared
with 40%). Differences vary notably for men and
women. Only 10% of women said they had never
sought support from a close friend or relative
compared with a quarter of men (Anderson et al.,
2009). On the other hand, particularly when it
comes to discussing relationship issues, people are
also wary of burdening friends or relatives and
conscious of how those close to them may
respond to the disclosure (Anderson et al., 2009;
Ramm et al., 2011).
The provision of support that aims to strengthen
relationships is relatively limited. Despite that,
attitudes towards these options are positive,
whether or not people would take advantage of
this provision in practice. Respondents to an
e-survey were interested in courses, for example
on problem-solving and conflict management,
and would like help to improve couple
communication. They would also consider
involvement in relationship preparation courses
(Walker et al., 2010).
Websites and Online Services
Websites and on-line services offer an alternative,
and seemingly popular, form of support (Walker
et al., 2010; Gabb et al., 2013) to traditional faceto-face support. A survey of users of
OnePlusOne’s online service,
theCoupleConnection.net found user’s
value its anonymity (77%); support at any time
(68%); and free access (67%). Fifty per cent of
respondents said they would never use face-toface services (Coleman & Houston, 2011). Nearly
40% of respondents in Walker and colleague’s
(2010) study had browsed websites and another
40% said they would definitely try this method of
seeking help. Making use of a website was also the
fourth most popular choice for men and women
in the recent “Enduring Love” survey, which asked
respondents what they would do if they needed
relationship support (Gabb et al., 2013). Of course,
as both surveys used web-based technology,
respondents are likely to be representative of
people more comfortable with and keen to use
online resources and services.
Differences in attitudes
towards support
In general women are more positive about and
more likely to make use of formal support than
men (Anderson et al., 2009; Chang & Barrett,
2009; Walker et al., 2010; Gabb et al., 2013). For
example, in the recent “Enduring Love” e-survey,
out of a list of options of what they would do in
the face of relationship difficulties, the most
commonly chosen option amongst men was not
to consult anyone (23%). There is also a
perception among men that support services are
geared towards and focused on the needs of
women, particularly those available in the
postnatal period when relationships are
particularly vulnerable (Walker et al., 2010).
Differences in preferences for support are also
apparent between peple with and without
children. Most notably fathers are more likely to
consider some form of support than childless men
(Gabb et al., 2013).
Differences are also apparent across different age
groups. In the BSA study, for example, those aged
25-44 were most aware and most positive about
professional forms of therapeutic support, while
the youngest and oldest age groups were least so
(Anderson et al., 2009). A similar pattern was
apparent in those comfortable talking about their
feelings.
Understanding Relationship Quality 29
Barriers to utilising support
Despite some seemingly positive attitudes
towards different types of support, a range of
sources provide evidence of both the perceived
and actual barriers to seeking help for relationship
difficulties. A recurring theme in studies is the
belief that relationships are essentially private and
that seeking support is not “the done thing”
(Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al., 2011). As Chang
and Barrett (2009) Page ? conclude:
Forming good, intimate
couple relationships is still
commonly believed to be a
private and personal
matter despite a growing
demand for couple support
services in the UK.
Other attitudinal barriers include a sense of stigma
about needing or seeking help; a preference to
stick it out and cope alone; a failure to recognise
the seriousness of difficulties; or reluctance on
one or both partners’ part to admit to having
troubles. There are also concerns about the
nature of help, for example that support might be
intrusive and raise problems or uncomfortable
issues. People also tend to believe that nothing
and no one can help (Robinson & Parker, 2008;
Anderson et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Ramm
et al., 2011).
There are also practical barriers to accessing
services. These include the time required to attend
appointments or courses, the limited access to or
non-availability of services (such as waiting lists,
restricted appointment times) the financial costs,
transport issues, distance, clash with other care
commitments, lack of disabled access, and the
presence of other health problems (Robinson &
Parker, 2008; Walker et al, 2010; Barrett et al.,
2011; Ramm et al., 2011). Other barriers include
the lack of awareness of services or lack of
understanding of what is available.
Where next? Relationship
support for the future
Bringing together our understanding of
relationships and the insight provided by research
into attitudes and experiences of relationship
support, it is clear that there can be no “one-size
fits all” model of support. Couple relationships
are diverse and complex, they follow different
pathways. For some groups of couples these
pathways are more predictable and easier to
explain than for others. For example, we are only
just beginning to understand why couples
satisfied with their relationships at the start and
who possess the positive skills important to
sustaining a happy relationship, fail to do so
(Lavner & Bradbury, 2012).
Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter, we
are also still learning about what support is most
effective with whom and when (e.g. see Chang &
Barrett, 2009; Bradbury & Lavner, 2011; Reynolds
et al., forthcoming). Again, one size does not fit all
and even if we devised the perfect menu of
interventions, the data on attitudes to support
indicate that the challenge remains of getting
couples to sign up.
As a range of recent studies have suggested, the
support of the future needs to be diverse,
reflecting the diversity of the population, their
different attitudes and needs and addressing the
different barriers they face (Chang and Barrett,
2009; Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al., 2011).
Support needs to be available to all — a universal
intervention — and available across a continuum
from preventive initiatives, such as relationship
education through to more intensive support for
those grappling with more serious difficulties. That
also means services need to be more accessible
and available; addressing issues such as location,
opening times, and cost (within an emerging
culture of relationship enhancement seen as a
“normal” thing to do).
Couple support also needs to be available during
and targeted at the challenging transitions and
situations that couples, such as becoming parents,
partner ill-health, unemployment or bereavement.
30
Understanding Relationship Quality
That might mean providing courses or
programmes targeting these times or issues (See
Reynolds et al., forthcoming, for a review of
support). It also means training those who work
on the front-line of family support, e.g. health
visitors, GPs, Sure Start workers, and many others
who engage with families and who are frequently
turned to by them when things are tough. The
Brief Encounters® course has been especially
designed to do this. Courses are available in a
mixed delivery format, combining on-line and
face-to-face learning, to maximise their impact
and minimise the time required for practitioners
to attend. Training can also result in much
needed improvements in signposting by
practitioners to relationship services and
resources available to couples (Ayles & Reynolds,
2001; Simons et al., 2003) and developing skills in
holding appropriate conversations about
relationship support with clients (Coleman et al.,
2013).
There is also a role for specially trained peer
supporters who can provide “informed” informal
support, as in the case of two recent, innovative
projects trialling training in peer-led relationship
support within two community volunteer
schemes: Peer Supporters in Pregnancy, Birth, and
Beyond (PBB), and Healthy Relationship
Champions (HRCs). The preliminary results are
encouraging (Casey et al., 2013). Rather than a
generic approach, it seems important to target the
peer support provision to the relational needs of
particular groups. Taking the time to build up a
trusting relationship between peer supporters and
those receiving support is also crucial.
Developing support also means looking at more
innovative models of support including interactive
web-based approaches, such as the
theCoupleConnection.net, where users can
engage with a range of resources either alone, in
company with other users through the forum, or
with the help of a trained guide. These kinds of
approaches are more than repositories of
information but are designed to mirror and lead
users through the helping process (Braun et al.,
2006). The developing links between these
specialist sites and the far-reaching social media
networks, such as Netmums, mean that a literal
“web” of support can be provided, comprising a
seamless provision of support ranging from selfhelp to assistance from trained counsellors.
Innovative and evidence-based internet support
services provide a way of bypassing some of the
significant barriers that people face when seeking
relationship support. They are also one vehicle for
delivering courses or modules on those aspects of
relationships that may help to sustain a healthy
partnership (Bradbury & Lavner, 2011).
The workplace, a potential source of stress on the
relationship, also has the potential to be a source
of support (Walker et al., 2010). Work has already
begun on joining with employers to enhance
support for individuals, grounded in the evidence
that happy homes contribute to productive
workplaces (Burnett et al., 2012).
Finally, delivering effective relationship support
means initiating a culture change that breaks
down attitudinal barriers to support and enhances
people’s understanding of relationships, such as
what makes relationships work, that good
relationships take work, and all relationships go
through difficult times. This has started on a small
scale through a recent Government funded
project involving a network of partners to
disseminate targeted messages to key groups,
such as young people. If the outcome is positive, a
review of attitudes to and take-up of support in
years to come might have a different story to tell.
Understanding Relationship Quality 31
Summary
Relationship quality refers to how happy or satisfied partners are in a
relationship and how well they get on. Relationship quality is an increasingly
important concept as the composition of family life has become more
diverse. Good relationship quality is linked with a range of positive outcomes
for couples and their children, including better health, well-being and life
satisfaction. There exist a number of different measures of relationship quality
that could be useful for work with families, both as diagnostic tools and as
tools to assess the outcome of family-focused interventions. Relationship
quality may be affected by a number of factors including: the experiences
and personalities partners bring to the relationship, the stressful life events
couples encounter, and couples’ patterns of coping and relating. Particularly
difficult life events include becoming parents, economic pressures, and illhealth. Although surveys report that people are fairly positive about
relationship support, relatively few people have made use of relationship
support services. Where they have sought help it is often from a GP or from the
internet. In general, there remains a prevailing belief that relationships are a
private matter. In view of the attitudinal and practical barriers to seeking
support, relationship support for the future needs to develop a spectrum of
services, making use of innovative methods of delivery and recognising
people’s preferences for informal and self-directed help alongside more
traditional, therapeutic approaches.
32
Understanding Relationship Quality
References
Acevedo, B., Aron, A., Fisher, H. & Brown, L., 2012. Neural
correlates of marital satisfaction and well-being: reward,
empathy, and affect. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9 (1) 20-31.
Bradbury, T. & Karney B., 2004. Understanding and altering the
longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66, (4) 862–879.
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E., Bruck, C.S. & Sutton, M., 2000.
Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A
review agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 5, (issue?) 278–308.
Bradbury, Y. & Lavner, J., 2011. How can we improve
preventive and education interventions for intimate
relationships? Behaviour Therapy, 43, 113-122.
Amato, P. & Booth, A., 1997. A generation at risk: Growing up in
an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Amato, P. Johnson, D., Booth, A. & Rogers S., 2003. Continuity
and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 65, (issue?) 1–22.
Amato, P., & Booth, A., 2001. The legacy of parents’ marital
discord: Consequences for children’s marital quality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 627-638.
Amato, P., Booth, A., Johnson, D. & Rogers, S., 2007. Alone
together: How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, S., Brownlie, J. & Given, L., 2009. Therapy culture.
Attitudes towards emotional support in Britain, in A. Parks
(Eds.) British Social Attitudes Survey 25th Report. London: Sage
http://www.yudu.com/britishsocialattitudes-25threportchapter7/
Ayles, C. & Reynolds, J., 2001. Identifying and managing
patients’ relationship problems in primary care: The perspective
of health professionals and counsellors. London: OnePlusOne.
Barrett, H., Chang, Y-S. & Walker J., 2011. Improving children’s
outcomes by supporting couple relationships, reducing family
conflict and addressing domestic violence. London: Centre for
Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s
Services.
http://www.c4eo.org.uk/themes/families/reducingconflict/file
s/reducing_conflict_full_knowledge_review.pdf
Beach, S. (Ed). 2001. Marital and family processes in depression.
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Beach, S., Fincham, F., Amir, N. & Leonard, K., 2005. The
taxometrics of marriage: is marital discord categorical?
Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2) 276-85.
Berant, E. Mikulincer, M. & Florian, V., 2003. Marital
satisfaction among mothers of infants with congenital hear
disease: The contribution of illness severity, attachment style,
and the coping process. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(4), 397-415.
Birditt, K., Hope, S., Brown, E. & Orbuch T., 2012.
Developmental trajectories of marital happiness over 16 Years.
Research in Human Development, 9 (2), 126–144.
Booth, A., Johnson, D., Amato, P. & Rogers, S., 2003. Marital
instability over the life course: A six-wave panel study, 1980,
1983, 1988, 1992-1994, 1997, 2000. (Version 1) [Data file]. Ann
Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
Research.
Bradbury, T., 2010. Intimate Relationships. New York, NY:
Norton.
Brannen, J. & Collard, J., 1982. Marriages in trouble: The process
of seeking help. London: Tavistock.
Braun, D., Davis, H. & Mansfield, P.,2006. How helping works:
Towards a shared model of process. ????? Parentline Plus.
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Guzman, L., Jekielek, S., Moore, K. A., Ryan,
S., Redd, Z., Carrano. & Matthews, G., 2004. Conceptualizing
and Measuring “Healthy Marriage” For Empirical Research and
Evaluation Studies: A Review of the Literature and Annotated
Bibliography. Washington D.C: Child Trends, Inc.
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends2004_01_01_FR_HMFullLitReview.pdf
Brown, S. & Kawamura S., 2010. Relationship quality among
cohabitors and marrieds in older adulthood. Social Science
Research, 39, 777-786.
Burnett, S., Coleman, L., Houlston, C. & Reynolds, J., 2012.
Happy homes and productive workplaces. London:
OnePlusOne.
Carlson, M. & McLanahan, S., 2005. Do good partners make
good parents? Centre for Research on Child Well-being.
Working Paper, No. 02-16-FF. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University.
Carlson, M. & McLanahan, S., 2006. Strengthening unmarried
families: Could enhancing couple relationships also improve
parenting? Social Service Review, 80(2), 297-321.
Casey, P., Coleman, L. & Houlston, C., 2013. Peer supporters in
“Pregnancy, Birth, and Beyond”, and “Healthy Relationship
Champions”: A formative evaluation. London: OnePlusOne.
Chang, Y-S. & Barrett, H., 2009. Couple relationships: A review
of the nature and effectiveness of support services. London:
Family and Parenting Institute.
Christiano, K., 2000. Religion and the family in modern
American culture. In S. Houseknecht & J. Pankhurst. (Eds.) 7378. in Family, religion, and social change in diverse societies.
New York: Oxford.
Coleman, L. & Glenn, F., 2009. When couples part:
Understanding the consequences for adults and children.
London: OnePlusOne.
Coleman, L. & Houlston, C., 2011. TheCoupleConnection.net:
Evaluation evidence from August 2008 (launch) to February
2011. London: OnePlusOne
Coleman, L., Houlston, C., Casey, P., Bryson, C. & Purdon, S.,
2013. An evaluation of a training programme “Relationship
Support: An Early Intervention” for frontline practitioners to help
their clients find ways to improve their relationship. London:
OnePlusOne.
Conger , R., Rueter, M. & Elder G. Jr., 2002. Couple resilience to
economic pressure. In P. Boss (Ed.) Family stress: Classic and
contemporary readings. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
pp.292-319
Understanding Relationship Quality 33
Cooke G. & Muir R., 2012. The possibilities and politics of the
relational state. In: Muir R. & Cooke G. (Eds.) The relational
state: How recognising the importance of human relationships
could revolutionise the role of the state. London: IPPR.
Cowan, C. & Cowan, P., 2000. When partners become parents.
The big life change for couples. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cummings E.M. & Davies, P.T., 2010. Marital conflict and
children: An emotional security perspective. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Cunningham, M. & Thorton, A., 2006. The influence of
parents’ marital quality on adult children’s attitudes toward
marriage and its alternatives: Main and moderating effects.
Demography, 43(13), 659-673.
d’Ardenne, P. & Morrod, D., 2003 The counselling of couples in
healthcare settings: A handbook for clinicians. London: Whurr
Publishers.
Doss, B., Rhoades, G., Stanley, S. & Markman, H., 2009. The
effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality:
An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96 (3), 601–619.
Elkan R., Kendrick D., Hewitt M., Robinson J., Tolley K. & Blair
M., 2000. The effectiveness of domiciliary health visiting: a
systematic review of international studies and a selective
review of the British literature. Health Technology Assessment
4 (13), pages ????
Family and Parenting Institute, 2008. Money worries are
depriving parents of sleep. Retrieved 10th June 2009 from
http://www.familyandparenting.org/item/1933.
Fincham, F., 2003. Marital conflict: correlates, structure, and
context. Current Directors in Psychological Science, 12 (1), 23-27.
Fincham, F. & Beach, S., 2006. Relationship satisfaction. In D.
Perlman & A. Vangelisti (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of
Personal Relationships Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 579-594.
Fincham, F, & Beach, S., 2010. Marriage in the new
millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72, (issue?) 630-649.
Fincham, F. & Rogge, R., 2010. Understanding relationship
quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment.
Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, (issue?) 227-242.
Floyd, F. Klotz Daugherty, M., Fitzgerald, H., Cranford, J. &
Zucker, R., 2006. Marital interaction in alcoholic and nonalcoholic couples: Alcoholic subtype variations and wives’
alcoholism stats. Abnormal Psychology, 115 (1), 121-130.
Freeston, M. & Plechaty, M., 1997. Reconsideration of the
Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test: Is it still relevant for
the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 81, (issue?) 419-434.
Funk, J. & Rogge, R., 2007. Testing the ruler with item response
theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship
satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of
Family Psychology, 21, (issue?) 572-583.
Gabb J., Klett-Davies, M. Fink J. & Thomae, M., 2013. Enduring
love? Couple relationships in the 21st Century. Survey Findings.
An Interim Report.
Garriga, A. & Kiernan, K. (2013) Parents’ relationship quality,
mother-child relations and children’s behaviour problems:
evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Working Paper.
http://www.york.ac.uk/media/spsw/documents/research-andpublications/Garriga-and-Kiernan-WP2013.pdf
Glenn, N., 1990. Quantitative research on marital quality in
the 1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52,
(issue?) 818-831.
Glenn, F., 2007. Growing together or drifting apart? Children
with disabilities and their parents’ relationships. London:
OnePlusOne.
Glenn, F. & Coleman, L., 2009. Relationships and the
Recession. London: OnePlusOne
Gottman, J., 1998. Toward a process model of men in
marriages and families. In A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.) Men in
families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gottman, J., 1999. The seven principles to making marriage
work. New York: Crown Publishers.
GreengIass, E., Pantony, K. & Burke, R., 1988. A gender-role
perspective on role conflict, work stress, and social support.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, (issue?) 317-328.
Hirschberger, G., Srivastava, S., Marsh, P., Cowan C. & Cowan,
P., 2009. Attachment, marital satisfaction, and divorce during
the first fifteen years of parenthood. Personal Relationships
16(3), pp. 401–420.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., & Jones B., 2008. Is there
something unique about marriage? The relative impact of
marital status, relationship quality, and network social support
on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Annals of
Behavioural Medicine, 35(2), 239-44.
Hunsley. J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M. & Vito, D., 2001. The sevenitem short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: further
evidence for construct validity. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 29 (4), 325-335.
Ireland, J., Sanders, M. & Markie-Dadds, C., 2003. The impact
of parent training on marital functioning: A comparison of
two group versions of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program
for parents of children with early-onset conduct problems.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31 (2), 127-142.
Johnson, D., 1995. Assessing marital quality in longitudinal
and life course studies. In J. Close Conoley & E. Buterick (Eds.)
Werth, Family Assessment. Lincoln, NE, Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Jose A., O’Leary, D. & Moyer, A., 2010. Does premarital
cohabitation predict subsequent marital stability and marital
quality? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,
(issue?) 105-116.
Kamp Dush, C., Taylor, M. & Kroeger, R., 2008. Marital
happiness and psychological well-being across the life course.
Family Relations, 57 (2), 211–226.
34
Understanding Relationship Quality
Karney, B., 2001. Depressive symptoms and marital
satisfaction in the early years of marriage: Narrowing the gap
between theory and research. In S. Beach (Ed.), Marital and
family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical
practice . Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. (pp. 45 – 68)
Karney, B. & Bradbury, T., 1995. The longitudinal course of
marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, (issue?), 3-34.
Keizer R. & Schenk N., 2012. Becoming a parent and
relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal dyadic perspective.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, (4), 759-773.
Kohn, J., Rholes, W., Simpson, J., McLeish Martin A., Tran, S. &
Wilson, C., 2012. Changes in marital satisfaction across the
transition to parenthood: The role of adult attachment
orientations. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin,
38(11) pp.1506-1522.
Kovacs, L., 1988. Couple therapy: an integrated and
developmental family systems model. Family Therapy, 15(2),
133-155.
Kurdek, L., 1998. The nature and predictors of the trajectory
of change in marital quality over the first 4 years of marriage
for first-married husbands and wives. Journal of Family
Psychology, 12, pp. 494–510.
Kurdek, L., 1999. The nature and predictors of the trajectory
of change in marital quality for husbands and wives over the
first 10 years of marriage. Developmental Psychology, 35,
(issue?) 1283-1296.
Lambert, N.M., Fincham, F. D. & Stanley, S. (2012). Prayer and
satisfaction with sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 29, (issue?), 1058-1070.
Lambert, N.M., Fincham, F. D., LaVallee, D.C., & Brantly, C.,
2012. Praying together and staying together: Couple prayer
and trust. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, (issue?), 1-9.
Lauer, R. & Lauer, J., 1986. Factors in long-term marriages.
Journal of Family Issues 7 (4), 382-90.
Lavner, J. & Bradbury, T., 2010. Patterns of change in marital
satisfaction over the newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72 (5), 1171–1187.
Lavner, J. & Bradbury, T., 2012. Why do even satisfied
newlyweds eventually go on to divorce? Journal of Family
Psychology, 26 (1), 1-10.
Lawrence, E., Rothman, A., Cobb, R., Rothman, M. & Bradbury,
T., 2008. Marital satisfaction across the transition to
parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22 (1), 41–50.
Lichter, D. & Carmalt, J., 2009. Religion and marital quality
among low-income couples. Social Science Research, 38,
(issue?), 168-187.
Lloyd, G. & Lacey, R., 2012. Understanding 21st Century
Relationships: A Compendium of Key Data. London:
OnePlusOne.
Mead, E., 2002. Marital distress, co-occurring depression and
marital therapy. A review. Journal of Marital And Family
Therapy, 28 (3), 299-314.
Mitnick, D., Heyman, R. & Smith Slep, A., 2009. Changes in
relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23 (6), 848–852.
Moore, K. A., Kinghorn, A. & Bandy, T., 2011. Parental
Relationship Quality and Child Outcomes across Subgroups.
Child Trends: Research Brief.
Neff, L. & Karney, B., 2004. How does context affect intimate
relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes
within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
(issue?), 134-148.
Neff, L. & Karney, B., 2009. Stress and reactivity to daily
relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive
processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97 (issue?), 435–450.
Papp, L., Cummings, E. & Goeke-Morey, M., 2009. For richer,
for poorer: Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home.
Family Relations, 58 (1), 91-103.
Perren, S., von Wyl, A., Burgin, D., Simoni, H. & von Klitzing, K.,
2005. Intergenerational transmission of marital quality across
the transition to parenthood. Family Process, 44 (4), 441-459.
Press Association, 2009. Parents “feel the strain of crunch”.
Retrieved 10th June 2009.
www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jdgPOj
KG4eitbdtGpMOQAVEWwbMA
Preveti D. & Amato P., 2003. Why stay married? Rewards,
barriers, and marital stability, Journal of Marriage and Family,
65 (3), 561–57
Proulx, C., Helms, H. & Buehler, C., 2007. Marital quality and
personal well-being: A meta- analysis. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 69 (issue?), 576-593.
Ramm, J., Coleman, L., Glenn, F. & Mansfield, P., 2010.
Relationship difficulties and help-seeking behaviour – Secondary
analysis of an existing data-set. London: OnePlusOne.
Relate, 2009. A quarter of families arguing more because of the
recession. Retrieved 8th June 2009 from
http://www.relate.org.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/PressRele
ase_SXA734-A78005D3. Html
Reynolds, J. & OnePlusOne, 2008. Supporting couple
relationships: A sourcebook for practitioners. London:
OnePlusOne.
Reynolds , J., Houston, C., Harold, G. & Coleman, L.
forthcoming. Parental conflict: outcomes and interventions
for children and families. London: Policy Press.
Robinson, E. & Parker, R., 2008. Prevention and early
intervention in strengthening families and relationships:
challenges and implications. Australian Family Relationships
Clearing house, Issues, 2. pages
Robles, R., Slatcher, R., Tombello, J. & McGinn, M., in press.
2013, Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, Issues, pages?
Rogers S. & Amato P., 1997. Is marital quality declining? The
evidence from two generations, Social Forces, 75, (issue?),
1089-1100.
Understanding Relationship Quality 35
Rust, J. & Golombok, S., 1986. The GRISS: A psychometric
instrument for the assessment of sexual dysfunction. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 15 (2), 153-161.
Rust, J., Bennun, I., Crowe, M. & Golombok, S., 1986. The
construction and validation of the Golombok Rust Inventory
of Marital State, Sexual and Marital Therapy, 1 (1), 34-40.
Sharpley, C.F, & Cross, D.G., 1982. A psychometric evaluation
of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage
and the Family; 44 (issue?), 739-747.
Sharpley, C.F. & Rogers, R.J., 1984. Preliminary validation of
the abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some
psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital
adjustment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44,
(issue?), 1045–1049.
Simons, J., Reynolds, J. & Morison, L., 2001. Randomised
controlled trial of training health visitors to identify and help
couples with relationship problems following a birth. British
Journal of General Practice, 51 (issue?), 793-799.
Simons, J., Reynolds, J., Mannion, J. & Morison, L., 2003. How
the health visitor can help when problems between parents
add to postnatal stress. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44 (4),
400-411.
Smith, T., 2011. Trends in well-being, 1972-2010NORC/
University of Chicago. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Spanier, G. & Lewis R., 1980. Marital quality: A review of the
seventies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42 (issue?), 825-839
Twenge, J., Campbell, W. & Foster, C., 2003. Parenthood and
marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 65 (3), 574-583.
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, A., Chen, M. & Campbell.
A., 2005. As good as it gets? A life course perspective on
marital quality. Social Forces, 84 (1), 493–511.
Vaillant, G. E., 2012. Triumphs of Experience; The Men of the
Harvard Grant Study. London: Belknap Press.
Van Laningham, J., Johnson, D. & P. Amato, 2001. Marital
happiness, marital duration, and the u-shaped curve: Evidence
from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79 (4), 1313–1341.
Waite, L. & Gallagher M., 2000. The case for marriage. New
York: Doubleday.
Walker, J., Barrett, H., Wilson, G. & Chang, Y-S, 2010.
Relationships matter: understanding the needs of adults
(particularly parents) regarding relationship support. London:
DCSF. http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/
DCSF-RR233.pdf
Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M. & Markman, H. J.
2008. Effects of parental divorce on marital commitment and
confidence. Journal of Family Psychology, 22 (issue?), 789-793.
Wilcox, B., 2004. Soft patriarchs, new men: How Christianity
shapes fathers and husbands. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wolfinger, N. & Wilcox, B., 2008. Happily ever after? Religion,
marital status, gender, and relationship quality in urban
families. Social Forces, 86 (issue?), 1311-1337.
Zubrick, S.R., Ward, K.A., Silburn, S.R., Lawrence, D., Williams,
A.A., Blair, E., Robertson, D. & Sanders, M.R., 2005. Prevention
of child behaviour problems through universal
implementation of a group behavioral family intervention.
Prevention Science, 6 (4), 287-304.
OnePlusOne strengthens relationships by creating resources that help
families and frontline workers tackle relationship issues early.
Design and print: Creative Media Colour Ltd www.cmcolour.co.uk
Understanding relationship quality is a resource from OnePlusOne,
which offers a timely review of the research evidence concerning
relationship quality. The scope of this review is deliberately broad and is
intended for “front-line” family workers, as well as policy makers and
commissioners. Students, researchers and those interested in families
and relationships are also likely to find this a starting place for
understanding more about relationship quality. This report will allow you
to understand why good relationships matter for the health and wellbeing of partners and, if present, children. It will also show how
relationship quality is a useful indicator of a populations’ well being.
OnePlusOne
Strengthening relationships
1 Benjamin Street, London EC1M 5QG
www.OnePlusOne.org.uk
T: +44(0)207 553 9530
F: +44(0)207 553 9550
Powering theCoupleConnection.net
and theParentConnection.org.uk
Registered charity no. 1087994. Company no. 4133340.
9 781874 207245