MARRIAGE PREPARATION
Running Head: MARRIAGE PREPARATION AS DIVORCE PREVENTION
Marriage Preparation as Divorce Prevention:
Background, Benefits, and Limitations
Monica L. Moore
University of Evansville
1
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
2
Abstract
Divorce is a significant concern due to the detrimental effects it is proven to have on the
psychological and physical health of many couples and their children. Unfortunately, the efficacy
of interventions for currently married, distressed couples is questionable, both due to underlying
societal influences on marriage and to methodological difficulties in evaluating the therapies,
themselves. However, studies of couples have found specific relationship qualities that predict
the likelihood of future divorce, and these discoveries can inform and strengthen marriage
interventions. This paper presents a review of the current literature surrounding divorce and
marriage intervention: the impact of divorce on individual and family health, the nature of the
divorce process, psychosocial causes of divorce, and marriage interventions, with an emphasis
on marriage-preparation programs and implications for future research.
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
Table of Contents
I.
Abstract
2
II.
Table of Contents
3
III.
Why is divorce a concern?
a. Effects of divorce
b. Divorce process
4
6
What causes divorce?
a. Trends in marriage and divorce: The view from sociology
b. Causes and correlates of divorce: The view from psychology
7
8
What has been done to inhibit divorce?
a. Towards marriage intervention
b. Efficacy of marriage intervention
13
15
What does the future hold for divorce prevention?
a. Rationale for and limitations of prevention
b. Specific premarital programs
18
20
VII.
Conclusions
25
VIII.
References
27
IV.
V.
VI.
3
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
4
Marriage Preparation as Divorce Prevention: Background, Benefits, and Limitations
Why is Divorce a Concern?
Effects of Divorce
The negative impact of divorce can be broken down into two main components: First,
divorce brings to an end the positive effects of marriage on the lives of adults and children.
Secondly, divorce is usually evidence of marital distress, and marital conflict, compounded by
the social and emotional upheaval of the divorce process, has negative effects on the
psychological and physiological functioning of the whole family.
To address the first component, a significant body of research has documented the
benefits of marriage. The positive effects of marriage are thought to stem from the emotional,
social, and physical intimacy of the secure spousal relationship. An extensive literature review
by Coombs (1991, Abstract) found that “the evidence is consistent with the protection/support
hypothesis that a marital partner who provides companionship and psychic aid buffers the
individual against physical and emotional pathology.” Married people are at less risk for specific
disorders such as alcoholism, as well as having lower overall mortality rates and higher levels of
personal happiness, although the benefits of marriage seem to be more significant for men than
for women (Coombs, 1991).
Healthy, supportive marriages promote personal health and well-being. Conflicted
marriages have the opposite effect, increasing a person’s risk of physical and psychological
dysfunction. Distressed marriages are correlated with increased incidence of “specific illnesses
such as cancer, cardiac disease and chronic pain (see Schmaling & Sher, 1997)” (Fincham &
Beech, 1999, p. 49). Conflict and divorce also have many psychological effects on couples.
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
5
Research indicates that women suffer more psychological harm than men, possibly due to the
increased burdens of singleness and childrearing.
The detrimental effects of conflict and divorce on children continue to be a subject of
scrutiny. Guttmann (1993) provided insight into the divorce experience of children compared to
that of adults:
For adults, divorce can be viewed as a crisis that starts with marital disharmony and, over
the course of time, approaches a potential resolution. For children, divorce represents a
traumatic transition from life with both parents to the condition of living with only one,
attended by the intermediate stages of personal imbalance, confusion, and disorganization
(p. 157-8).
Studies show that divorce comes as a shock to many children, even in households suffering from
obvious marital distress (Guttmann, 1993). Despite the admitted surprise of children at the
decision to divorce, the dysfunction within pre-divorce homes has been correlated with increased
stress and cardiac response to emotions and decreased self-control of emotional responses in
children before any divorce has taken place (Gottman, 1994). The factors most predictive of a
child’s response to divorce are the nature of family life before the divorce, the adjustment of the
parent retaining custody after the divorce, and the level of development the child has reached
(Guttmann, 1993).
Overall, marriage problems and divorce have been correlated with higher levels of
childhood “depression, withdrawal, poor social competence, health problems, poor academic
performance, and a variety of conduct-related difficulties” (Gottman, 1998, p. 170).
Unfortunately, the research on individual outcomes is plagued by conflicting reports and
confounding variables (Guttmann, 1993). At the societal level, however, the negative impact of
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
6
divorce on family economic status is clear. Nearly three-fourths of the $200 billion spent
annually on welfare is distributed to homes headed by single parents, and eighty percent of
children living below the poverty line in the U.S. are the offspring of unmarried or divorced
parents (Fagan, Patterson, & Rector, 2002). Some research has also indicated that children of
divorce are more likely to divorce, themselves, though definitive evidence has yet to be
presented (Gottman, 1998; Guttmann, 1993; Teachman, 2002).
The Divorce Process
In 1986, McIsaac conceptualized the divorce process as a series of three levels:
psychological, social, and legal (Donohue, 1991, p. 12-3). Kressel and Deutsch (1977) had
earlier described divorce as a developmental process consisting of predecision, decision,
mourning, and re-equilibrium stages (Guttmann, 1993). During the first stages of both of these
models, the emotional ties of the marriage relationship come undone in the minds of one or both
partners. This mental distancing culminates in the decision to divorce and the taking of social
and legal steps necessary to fulfill that decision, including physical separation of the spouses
(Donohue, 1991). The mourning period begins with this physical separation and continues for an
average period of one-and-one-half to two years (Guttmann, 1993). The mourning period is the
most emotionally and psychologically threatening phase to both adults and children, highlighting
an important consideration for clinicians: Parents undergoing divorce may be the least able to
provide care and support for their children at the very time their children most need them. Also
notable from a clinical standpoint is the 18 to 24-month time period: Significant disturbances
during this time are normal, while continued disturbances may be cause for concern. The reequilibrium stage is reached with varying degrees of success by individual spouses and children
(Guttmann, 1993).
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
7
What Causes Divorce?
Trends in Marriage and Divorce: The View from Sociology
Anecdotal estimates hold that “between 50% and 67% of first marriages end in divorce”
(Gottman, 1998, Abstract). Current projective statistics, however, suggest a divorce rate of only
40-45% for new marriages, with remarriages being in the upper end of that range (Whitehead &
Popenoe, 2001). Historically, divorce rates rose throughout the 1960s and 70s, finally leveling
off in the 1980s (Whitehead, 1996, p. 8). More important than the numbers, however, are the
changes in family structure those numbers represent.
Whereas just a few decades ago, a key purpose of marriage was to have children,
marriage and parenthood are increasingly seen as separate pursuits. Whitehead sees this as just
one piece of evidence for Alice S. Rossi’s observation that “Westerners are shifting from a
concern for their children’s futures to a self-orientation that gives priority to individuals’ desires
rather than to the needs of spouses and children” (Whitehead, 1996, p. 4). Marriage and
parenthood are now seen as personal goals to be achieved or as media for self-expression. This
development is concerning because over time, American families have also devolved from
extended kin networks to individual couples with children, making those children “dependent on
the permanence and stability of marital bonds” (p. 7), and therefore at risk.
Divorce has changed both parent-child relationships and the structure of the family.
According to Robert S. Weiss, though divorce is often seen as a way to put an end to conflict and
thereby benefit the family system, divorce commonly has the opposite effect, creating more
conflict and incapacitating the spousal check-and-balance system of effective parenting (p. 216).
Citing data on self-reported happiness of divorcing couples, sociologist Maggie Gallagher related
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
8
that, “the greatest drop in happiness has occurred among married women in their childbearing
years,” the very population to whom divorce is often meant to provide relief (1996, p. 238).
The June 2001 report from the National Marriage Project contained the results of a
Gallup poll of 20-29 year olds commissioned to measure young adults’ views of marriage. Some
of the results are quite encouraging from the standpoint of decreasing divorce. For example, a
1994 survey of the general population found that only 15% or respondents would remain married
out of concern for the children of that union. This report found, however, that 40% of young
adults would stay married in that situation (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2001, p.16). Unfortunately,
the results also indicate patterns of belief about cohabitation that are reason for concern.
Research has shown that cohabitation does not improve one’s likelihood of staying married to
one’s partner; in fact, cohabitation may even increase the risk of later divorce by decreasing
commitment to the relationship (p. 24). Of the young adults surveyed by the National Marriage
Project, however, 62% believed cohabitation is effective divorce prevention, and 43% claimed
they “would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you
could find out whether or not you really get along” (p. 10). These misinformed attempts at
divorce prevention point towards a significant need for increased public awareness of marital
risk factors.
Causes and Correlates of Divorce: The View from Psychology
Three theoretical models are commonly used to explain the causes of divorce: enduring
dynamics, disillusionment, and emergent-distress. The enduring dynamics model places the
blame for failed marriages on characteristics of the couples’ relationships continuing from their
initial stages of attraction and engagement (Huston, Neihuis, & Smith, 2001). The
disillusionment and emergent-distress models suggest that newlyweds’ “idealistic notions
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
9
become more realistic over time,” resulting in a decline in positivity (disillusionment) or an
increase in negativity (emergent-distress) (Kurdeck, 2002, p. 4-5).
Huston et al. (2001) and Kurdeck (2002) assessed the appropriateness of these three
models in explaining marital dissolution over time. Huston et al. found that disillusionment
explains divorce, while enduring dynamics from the beginning of the relationship predict the
early timing of divorce or the continuing level of “marital happiness” a couple may experience.
Their study cited important differences in the patterns of change in early versus later-divorcing
couples. The “early exiters” (divorced after two-six years) showed larger decreases in positive
and larger increases in negative appraisals of marriage over the first two years than did couples
who remained married. “Delayed-action divorcers” also experienced decreases in positive
aspects of marriage during their newlywed periods, but without the increases in negative aspects;
hence, the decision to divorce came after a longer period of time. Although Huston et al.
therefore advise that “researchers need to expand their theoretical vision beyond the emergentdistress model, with its focus on conflict and negativity” (2001, p. 118), the differences between
early and later divorcers could be the result of simple differences in the speed of disillusionment
or of a combination of disillusionment and emergent-distress: The decline in positivity could
create vulnerability in the couple to increases in negative emotion and behavior.
The findings of Kurdeck (2002) indicated just such a combination of models. To improve
the representative status of previous studies, Kurdeck’s research sample included second
marriages and also assessed couples annually over an eight-year period. These considerations
strengthen his study because 46% of current newlyweds have been previously married, seven
years is the median time for divorce, and statistics show “about 30% of divorces occurring within
the first four years of marriage (Clark, 1995a)” (as cited in Kurdeck, 2002, p. 163). An additional
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
10
strength of the study was that time before physical separation of the couple was measured, rather
than the length of time before the conclusion of legal divorce proceedings (Kurdeck, 2002).
Physical separation, to review, marks the second level of the divorce process, in which partners
actually make social moves to distance themselves; before this step, the divorce is solely
cognitive (Donohue, 1991).
In his study, Kurdeck assessed 522 couples by mail-in surveys of four personal marital
satisfaction measures: love (sexual desire), like (friendship), trust (surety in the relationship), and
psychological distress (p. 165-6). Each partner was instructed to complete his or her survey
without consulting his or her spouse. The marital satisfaction variables were examined both as
yearly ratings and as overall marriage trajectories for each couple in order to test the “fit” of each
marriage dissolution model. Kurdeck’s results showed that both the disillusionment and the
enduring dynamics models were required to explain the variability in timing of separation and
continuing level of marital satisfaction; “both initial levels and change in how spouses appraise
their partners (i.e., love, liking, and trust) are critical in understanding long-term marital
outcomes” (2002, p. 177).
Taking a more exclusive stance, Gottman and Levenson (2002) conducted an in-depth
investigation of only the enduring dynamics model. Research had indicated that divorces occur
in two distinct time brackets, early or later, so the goal of this study was to assess two
hypothetical models for the differences in timing of divorce. The first was an “ailing marriage”
model in which placement on a continuum of marriage dissatisfaction predicts divorce (the lower
the satisfaction, the sooner the divorce). The second model suggested that two different
interaction characteristics predicted earlier or later divorce; couples with a “high level of
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
11
expressiveness” divorce early, while couples with an “absence of affect” divorce later (Gottman
& Levenson, 2002, p. 84).
The fourteen-year longitudinal study ran post hoc analyses on data from 79 Indiana
couples collected since 1983. Upon entering the study, the mean marriage length for the couples
was five years, and the sample contained a full range of “marital satisfaction” ratings, making it a
fairly representative sample. Each couple first gave an oral account of the course of their
relationship through courtship and marriage. The couples each then participated in three
videotaped discussions, one on that day’s happenings, one on a topic upon which they typically
disagreed, and one on a positive subject. During the discussions, bodily measures of heart rate,
electrical conductance of the skin (the measure of arousal used by polygraph tests to indicate
deceit), and overall movement were taken. At the four-year follow-up session, couples took
assessments of relationship happiness and stability. For the next ten years, the researchers
attained annual updates of whether or not the couples had divorced (Gottman & Levenson,
2002).
The videotaped disagreement was analyzed using the Ekman and Friesen Emotion Facial
Expression Coding System (EMFACS), tallying the number of facial expressions during each
couple’s discussion. Along with the daily events discussion, the disagreement discussion was
analyzed for verbal and nonverbal displays of specific affects. The oral history interview was
analyzed for characteristics indicative of the total negative or positive outlook of each
relationship.
At the end of the 14-year period, 21 of the 79 couples had divorced, one set of divorces
occurring after 8-9 years of marriage, and another set occurring after 15-16 years. The
characteristics of the terminated marriages gave no significant support to the ailing marriage
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
12
hypothesis regarding relationship satisfaction levels. Instead, communication patterns supported
the second hypothesis, with specific patterns predicting earlier or later divorce. According to
Gottman and Levenson, “The data may be suggesting two dysfunctional adaptations to marital
issues, one that is dysregulated by escalating negativity, and the other that is dysregulated by
having no affect” (2002, p. 92). These results support Gottman’s previous research on the
patterns of behavior and communication that characterize failing marriages, including “criticism,
contempt, defensiveness, and stone-walling,” his “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (1998, p.
184). Other traits he emphasized in a review of the literature are entrapping, extended sequences
of negative displays and responses between spouses (negative affect reciprocity), interchanges in
which the wife makes demands and the husband retreats, and a high ratio of negative to positive
verbal and nonverbal behavior (Gottman, 1998, p. 85), all of which are correlated with levels of
physical arousal, suggesting underlying biological processes are also at work in distressed
couples.
Marriage research has tested many other hypothetical causes of divorce. For example, the
issues about which couples argue have been thought to reflect divorce potential. To test this
assumption, a recent study by Stanley, Markman, and Whitton (2002) hypothesized that couples
who named finances as their number one topic of disagreement would not differ significantly
from couples who listed other specific topics. The researchers interviewed 908 engaged, married,
or cohabiting participants and found that money and children were the top two subjects of
disagreement for first and second marriages, respectively. Disproving Stanley et al.’s conflict
content hypothesis, couples who reported money as their top disagreement did experience fewer
positive interchanges and did display a greater trend towards unhappiness that those who
reported other subjects of conflict. Stanley et al. also hypothesized that commitment levels would
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
13
predict divorce. This hypothesis was proven true for both males and females; higher commitment
levels in married participants were correlated with fewer thoughts of divorce or of marriage as a
restrictive arrangement.
In addition to these communication patterns, certain sociological traits have also been
correlated with divorce. Couples with lower divorce rates tend to hold more esteemed jobs and to
have waited till their 20s to get married, rather than wed as teenagers (Donohue, 1991). Divorce
is also negatively correlated with completed years of education (Stanley, 2001) and with
religiousity (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2001). Extremely young couples, couples in which the
husband is in and out of work, and African American couples, on the other hand, are more likely
to divorce (Donohue, 1991).
What Has Been Done to Inhibit Divorce?
Towards Marriage Intervention
Searches for the causes of divorce have led to the development of new conceptualizations
of marriage as well as new instruments for measuring those theoretical constructs. For example,
Bagarozzi’s (1997) recognition of intimacy as a plausible correlate of marital well-being (see
Coombs, 1991) led him to create the Marital Intimacy Needs Questionnaire, a series of Likertscaled items to measure satisfaction with a partner’s efforts to meet one’s intimate needs.
Bagarozzi’s instrument rates nine subtypes of intimacy: emotional, psychological, intellectual,
sexual, spiritual, aesthetic, social and recreational, physical, and temporal (1997, p. 287). This
tool is useful both as a self-assessment and as a means to address particular facets of marital
dissatisfaction; the questionnaire quantifies and locates areas of the marriage relationship in need
of improvement, data often lacking in marital research.
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
14
In the same spirit of pinpointing and operationalizing marital conflicts in order to lessen
their frequency and impact, Fincham and Beech (1999) proposed viewing marriage from a goal
orientation. They cited earlier research (Birchler et al, 1975; Burleson & Denton, 1997) that
found conflict is not a result of having too few communication skills, but instead of failing to use
those skills to recognize and de-escalate disagreements. These findings could be explained by a
goals perspective: An individual would be less likely to prevent or end a disagreement if he or
she viewed the disagreement as a means of attaining a personal goal. Fincham and Beech (1999)
concluded that a goals perspective would help therapists to develop more effective, multifaceted
interventions by creating a system for comparison of all research studies, as well as by providing
an easily understood basis for client assessments and discussions.
After a 1998 review of the literature, Gottman proposed another conceptualization of
marriage, the Bank Account Model (BAM) (p. 191). Instead of implicating problem-solving
behavior, BAM attributes divorce to the lack of three preventive behaviors. First is the
maintenance of a high degree of positive to negative exchanges (a high degree of responsive,
warm behavior), in everyday, non-confrontational situations. The second behavior is the
maintenance of a current love map of one’s spouse’s psyche, “knowing one’s partner’s world and
continually updating that knowledge” (Gottman, 1998, p. 192). The third and final behavior is
the ongoing expression of fondness and admiration between the marriage partners (p. 192).
According to Gottman, these three behaviors increase both cognitive and behavioral indices of
marital stability and satisfaction, spawning self-perpetuating cycles that build and strengthen
marriages. To Gottman, developing these behaviors is therefore more important than training
couples in conflict-resolution skills.
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
15
Marriage Intervention Today
In a 2002 report from the Heritage Foundation on marriage interventions as a dimension
of Welfare reform, Fagan, Patterson, and Rector highlighted findings on the efficacy of a variety
of premarital and marriage intervention programs in improving marital satisfaction and
preventing divorce. Citing a meta-analysis by Giblin et al. (1985), Fagan et al. reported similar
effect sizes for all kinds of marriage interventions: .44 overall, which means couples who
complete marriage programs display a higher level of skills and satisfaction than 66% of control
couples, although some individual programs’ effect sizes are much higher (2002, p. 5). Despite
the development of numerous models for marriage intervention, these efficacy measures remain
debatable due to the nonstandardized, observational data upon which the field of marital therapy
is based (Gottman, 1998). However, goals of different interventions allow programs to be
classified as either behavior or insight-oriented to allow for some comparisons between outcome
studies (Kadis & McClendon, 1998).
Behavioral interventions emphasize changing interaction patterns to improve the quality
of the marriage. Specific dimensions of communication assessed by these therapists include the
structure of conflict and “behavior-exchange” relationships (Kadis & McClendon, 1998, p.2732). Behavioral therapy remains the most extensively studied form of marital intervention, and
these programs have an average effect size of 65-70%, meaning a couple undergoing treatment is
likely to experience a more positive outcome than 60-70% of couples not in treatment
(Christenson & Heavey, 1999, p. 167). However, as Christenson and Heavey indicate, effect size
is relative; a significant effect size does not necessarily translate into meaningful change within a
couple’s relationship. Meta-analyses by Jacobson et al. (1984) and Shadish et al (1993), as cited
by Christenson and Heavey (1999), found clinically significant improvements in only 35 and
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
16
41% of couples, respectively (p. 168-9). These rates are similar to those found in other
psychotherapeutic methods (Fagan et al., 2002). Unfortunately, longitudinal data on most marital
treatment programs is almost nonexistent, and the few long-term studies that have been
conducted indicate a relapse rate of 25-50% within four years of treatment (Christenson &
Heavey, 1999, p. 169).
Insight-oriented marriage interventions are based on psychoanalytical principles, and
according to Kadis and McClendon (1998), their main goals are to “locate the important affect,
then to trace the roots of the affect to the early experience, and finally to understand and explain
the current conflict in the context of that early experience” (p. 19). Of use in couple therapy are
the object-relations, family-of-origin, and experiential approaches because they address feelings
or patterns of interaction that may have been carried into the marriage from past familial
relationships. Another insight approach is the strengths perspective touted by Dinkmeyer (1993).
Viewing the couple as a self-contained system, the strengths perspective urges spouses to focus
and build on relationship successes. In this intervention, the therapist helps clients to assess their
own irrational, perfectionistic expectations of marriage as well as to see and gain confidence
from the potential within their relationships. The theory is that by focusing on positive aspects of
the relationship, the couple will recognize the worth of their marriage and will take ownership of
its future (Dinkmeyer, 1993).
Although backed by clinical experience, insight therapies are sorely lacking in supportive
empirical data. In their review of the efficacies of various therapeutic methods, for example,
Sandberg, Johnson, Dermer, Gfeller-Strouts, Seibold, Stringer-Seibold, Hutchings, Andrews, and
Miller (1997, p. 132) found that “nearly one half of the models (eight) [mostly insight-oriented]
are backed by one or no outcome studies” with rigorous enough testing procedures to be
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
17
included in their report. However, in a controversial study in 1991, Snyder et al. compared
insight and behavior-oriented interventions and found both therapies equally effective. Tracing
the divorce rates of the two groups of couples, however, the researchers found that 38% of the
behavior group had divorced within four years of treatment, while only 3% of the insight group
had done so (as cited in Gottman, 1998, p. 189). Snyder et al.’s original comparison of outcomes
between insight and behavioral therapies, though in need of replication, nevertheless points out
an important observation about the efficacy of marriage intervention: The success rates are very
similar across a variety of treatments (Christenson & Heavey, 1999). Even component analyses
of behavioral approaches have resulted in no one significant factor most responsible for couple
outcomes, leaving researchers in a quandary over why marital interventions work at all
(Gottman, 1998).
One area in which marital interventions have made significant gains, however, has been
the treatment of specific disorders. Behavioral marriage therapies, for example, have proven
especially helpful in cases of substance abuse. Stable marriage relationships have been correlated
with lower rates of alcoholism in both men and women (Coombs, 1991). Recent studies cited by
the Heritage Foundation reported decreases in physical and voiced spouse-directed aggression, as
well as decreased substance abuse and increased relationship happiness among alcoholics and
drug addicts in marriage therapies. These results held true when clients were compared to both
users receiving no therapy and users only receiving individual psychotherapy (Fagan, Patterson,
& Rector, 2002, p. 9-10). Another study reviewed empirical data on the efficacy of marriage
interventions and found that the effectiveness of behavior-oriented marital therapy for the
treatment of alcoholics was limited by the dedication of the spouses to their marriages (Sandberg
et al., 1997).
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
18
Marital interventions have also proven effective for the treatment of depression (Fincham
& Beech, 1999). Studies have shown that behavior-oriented marriage therapy has similar
outcomes to cognitive therapy for clients suffering from depression. An important caveat,
however, is that the depression in these studies was linked to marital conflict; for depression due
to other causes, improving the marriage relationship was not as helpful as cognitive interventions
for the depressed spouse (Christenson & Heavey, 1999). A small, introductory study by Waring,
Chamberlaine, Carver, Stalker, and Schaefer (1995) tested the effectiveness of Enhancing
Marital Intimacy Therapy (EMIT) in treating depression. EMIT is an insight-oriented
intervention that focuses on the reciprocal disclosure of both spouses’ attributions for the
depression, with the therapeutic goals being to teach intimacy skills while alleviating depression
(Waring et al.). Though the study was subject to attrition and is in need of replication, the results
indicate that revealing intimate cognitive processes to a marriage partner is an effective treatment
for female depression, though the effect is linked to the act of disclosure, itself, not to increased
levels of spousal intimacy. In sum, research indicates that integrating spousal involvement with
cognitive interventions for depression increases the effectiveness of the treatment for populations
experiencing marital distress.
What Does the Future Hold for Divorce Prevention?
Rationale for & Limitations of Prevention
Given the benefits of marriage and the negative effects of divorce, informed by empirical
data on relationship qualities that predict impending dissolution, and recognizing the
questionable efficacy of treatments for already-distressed couples, preventing the union of illsuited individuals and the development of later marital conflict should be a top priority of social
science professionals. Scott M. Stanley (2001) highlighted four positive effects of marriage
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
19
preparation programs: encouraging relationship assessment, emphasizing the importance of
marriage, informing couples of social supports, and decreasing probabilities of future distress.
First, delaying marriage in order to complete a premarital education program would increase the
amount of time for a couple to get to know each other, decreasing their risk of unrealistic
expectations going into marriage (Stanley, 2001). The extended engagement period and
premarital assessments would also increase the likelihood that high-risk couples would decide
not to marry. This hypothesis is supported by program researcher David Olson, who reported that
“10-15% of couples taking PREPARE [a premarital inventory] within 6 months of their
intended wedding date decide not to marry” (Stanley, 2001, p. 273). Widespread marriage
preparation courses would also raise the status of marriage, which is often demeaned by our mass
media, would put couples in contact with social supports such as clergy or counselors to turn to
in the event of future marital problems, and would make couples aware of the personal risk
factors they might need to combat.
Despite these many projected benefits, marriage preparation programs are sorely limited
by their lack of empirically supportive data. The November 1999 Briefing issued by the
Australian Institute of Family Studies summarized challenges of the field of premarital
intervention: According to Parker (1999), marriage preparation programs typically contain
structured assessments of risk factors, group discussions, interaction with a religious official, or
some combination of the three. Unfortunately, scientific studies of these programs are fraught
with problems. The most troubling aspects are the small numbers and selection biases of
participants, the lack of longitudinal data, and the lack of controls or standardized means of
comparison between studies. For example, couples who participate in voluntary marital
interventions “are by definition different from those who do not” (Parker, 1999, p. 2).
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
20
Characteristics of willing participants, such as dedication to marriage, may influence the results.
Longitudinal studies are expensive, time-consuming, and subject to high dropout rates, resulting
in non-representative final samples. Finally, “Few studies… have focused on the same outcomes
or employed the same measures, resulting in a lack of cohesion in the literature” (2). For
example, programs measure their effectiveness according to their different goals, and the selfreport measures that are often employed by marital studies are subject to the self-serving biases
or placebo effects of the participants.
Specific Premarital Programs
Les and Leslie Parrott, directors of the Center for Relationship Development at Seattle
Pacific University, have developed a Christian-based marriage preparation program called
SYMBIS, or “Saving Your Marriage Before it Starts” (Parrott & Parrott, 2003). In keeping with
its Christian background, the program emphasizes the strengthening of marriage through the
“development and maturity of each marriage partner,” the integration of faith and everyday
living (Parrott & Parrott, 2003, p. 211). The program includes skills training and assessments as
well as mentoring by a stable couple during the first year of marriage. Disagreeing with an
observation made by Gottman that communication skills are used such a low percentage of the
time that skills training is of little use, the Parrotts listed numerous benefits of communication
training. They argued that a framework of active listening, a basic communication skill, provides
couples with a way to de-escalate heated disagreements. Furthermore, the Parrotts emphasized
the representative value of skills training: Participating in this segment of the marriage education
program causes couples to devote time to their relationship, as well as introduces a placebo effect
of increased confidence through learning new skills. These positive feelings may increase faith in
the efficacy of the program, giving time for larger issues within marriages to be addressed
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
21
(Parrott & Parrott, 2003). Despite numerous rallies and marriage enrichment seminars, empirical
evidence on the efficacy of the SYMBIS program is lacking.
Another premarital program, PAIRS, has been shown to cause significant improvements
in marital relationships. The Practical Application of Relationship Skills training program is an
insight-oriented approach (Durana, 1996) that emphasizes personal responsibility and self, not
spouse, control. A study by Durana (1996) examined the effects of the BER (Bonding and
Emotional Re-education) segment of PAIRS training on four premarriage classes. BER is a
weekend of group exercises meant to improve physical and affective openness through the
cathartic release of emotions in dealing with past relationship patterns.
The participants in Durana’s study were assessed on marital adjustment, self-esteem, and
well-being four times over the course of the 4-5 month PAIRS course: before PAIRS, before the
BER segment, after BER, and after PAIRS (1996). The study found significant increases in selfesteem due to BER and significantly less anxiety for both men and women, as well as less
depression in women from pre-BER to the end of the program, possibly indicating a connection
between female anxiety, depression, and self-disclosure, echoing the findings of other depression
studies (see Waring et al., 1995). Both marriage partners also displayed increased adjustment
over the course of PAIRS (Durana, 1996). Initial comparisons of troubled and untroubled
couples also found that BER was more effective for troubled couples, though longitudinal data in
support of these findings is not available.
The Preventive and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), as its name suggests, is
a preventative treatment that seeks to keep untroubled couples from becoming troubled by
teaching “those skills identified by research as predicting happy, healthy relationships and ways
in which to thwart those behaviors that predict later marital distress” (Renick, Blumberg, and
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
22
Markman, 1992, p. 142). The program was based on research studies by Gottman, Markman, and
Notarius that found that distressed marriages are characterized by interchanges of increasing
negativity, a communication pattern that forms in the premarital relationship and foretells marital
strife. From the very beginning, therefore, PREP has valued researching marriage and evaluating
the program’s immediate and future efficacy. This empirical orientation sets PREP apart from
other premarital interventions, whose outcome studies tend to be much more short-term
(Australian Family Briefing, 1999, p. 2). PREP dominates the literature on premarital
interventions.
The PREP intervention exists in many formats, the two most common varying only in
duration. The lengthier version consists of six weekly small-group meetings of lecture and skills
practice. The brief version is typically held as a weekend event, with lectures conducted in a
large-group setting and couples being responsible for their own skills-practice (Renick et al.,
1992). The lecture topics begin with explaining current marriage and gender-role research and
emphasizing the need to build structures into marriages that support positive communication.
The first lectures also go about defining communication, describing and practicing good verbal
and listening skills, and identifying and avoiding communication patterns that hinder
relationships. Presentations then turn to identifying expectations, practicing relationshipenhancing skills such as conflict-resolution, and identifying and communicating spiritual values
in relationships, such as “honor, respect, intimacy, and forgiveness” (Renick et al., 1992, p. 143).
Judeo-Christian spiritual images are used in this segment of PREP, but no specific, dogmatic
theology is endorsed; PREP can be adapted to fit a variety of religious denominations. The final
lectures address communication and physical intimacy and reiterate the responsibility of couples
to form and practice contingencies for communication within their relationships (Renick et al.).
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
23
This behavioral component of PREP further highlights the importance of maintaining high levels
of positive interaction and developing “protective factors such as friendship, commitment,
teamwork, fun, spiritual connection, and sensuality” while decreasing chances for negativity
(Stanley, Markman, Howard, Prado, Olmos-Gallo, Tonelli, St. Peters, Lever, Bobulinski,
Cordova, & Whitton, 2001, p. 2).
The efficacy of PREP has been studied by numerous researchers in multiple parts of the
world. Renick et al. (1992) presented the results of a ten-year longitudinal study by the Center
for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver comparing 20 PREP couples to 24
untreated couples. The couples were evaluated via annual questionnaires on marital adjustment,
sexual and relationship satisfaction, perceived problem severity and conflict-resolution styles, as
well as through videotaped discussions. The taped interchanges were rated on “verbal and
nonverbal communication skills and styles,” as well as by “The Communication Box (Markman
& Floyd, 1980), a measure of husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of one another’s communication
during interaction” (Renick et al., 1992, 144). Immediate results of the training included
increases in skill usage for the PREP group, signifying that the program had effectively
transmitted the intended information. Over the first five years of follow-up, significant
differences included increased positive regard for the relationship and a decline in perceived
number and severity of troubles for PREP couples, versus decreased positive regard, increased
severity of troubles, and increased number of sexual difficulties for control couples. The PREP
group also displayed fewer destructive interchange styles and less domestic violence, and “while
both groups showed a decrease in satisfaction over time, such declines were greater for the
control couples” (Renick et al., 145). Only eight percent of the PREP marriages failed, but
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
24
nineteen percent of the untreated marriages ended in divorce, a difference that demonstrates the
efficacy of the program.
The University of Denver study also found an important difference between husbands
and wives: over time, the differences between PREP and control husbands remained, while the
differences between the two groups of wives abated; the wives eventually displayed similar
levels of positive regard toward their marriages. Renick et al. (1992) explain that this leveling of
differences was due not to PREP wives increasing negativity but to control wives increasing
positivity, possibly as the result of other life events such as bearing children. A comparison study
by Blumberg (1991) of PREP and Engaged Encounter (EE), another popular premarital program,
found similar short-term results to those of the longitudinal study. PREP couples showed higher
communication and satisfaction scores than did EE couples. Blumberg (1991) also examined
commitment, and another gender-related pattern emerged: men from both groups were more
committed to their relationships than women, although the women’s commitment levels rose
over time and the levels observed could possibly be due to selection effects (Renick et al., 1992).
Another comparison study highlighted both the efficacy of PREP and its practical use in
naturally occurring settings such as pastoral counseling with engaged couples. A 2001 study by
Stanley et al. randomly assigned 138 couples to three treatment groups: a PREP course led by a
religious official (RO), a PREP course led by a university official (DU), and a group that
received the normal marriage preparation counseling offered by their various religious
organizations (NO). This study avoided the selection bias because all the participants had signed
up for premarital guidance with and were recruited through their own religious leaders. The
participants took a battery of background assessments including a program satisfaction
questionnaire, and the couples were also videotaped discussing their top subject of disagreement,
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
25
the conversations then being coded for positive and negative interactions. Results of this study
showed that PREP is totally suitable for clergy use; both RO and DU groups experienced
identical increases in marital communication skills, which were significantly higher than those
achieved by the NO group. Other self-report measures were the same among the three groups,
suggesting that the communication skills-building component of premarital interventions is the
most salient. Indeed, communication training was rated as the most helpful part of marriage
education by all three groups, and in the PREP groups, 78% of the men and 95% of the women
rated the speaker-listener model the most helpful technique presented (Stanley et al., 2001).
In their discussion of the results, Stanley et al. (2001), like the Parrotts (2003), voiced
their disagreement with the suggestion of Gottman et al. (1998) to forgo communication skills
training. Cole and Cole (1999) also strongly challenged the belief of Gottman et al. that “the use
of I-statements, being empathetic, remaining non-defensive, and paraphrasing (central to most
active listening models) are not only rarely practiced by normal happy couples in routine
discussions by might be impossible and unrealistic in conflict situations” (p. 274). In opposition,
Cole and Cole argued that clinical experience and common sense uphold the value of
communication training; of course “it would be unrealistic… for couples to use speaker-listener
to deal with conflict without training. Isn’t this true with any skill?” (1999, p. 274) As the results
of the Stanley et al. study illustrate, the efficacy of PREP at improving communication and the
participants’ approval of specific communication techniques indicate that communication
training has a definite role in successful marriage preparation programs. Stanley et al. have
voiced plans to conduct longitudinal follow-up assessments of the participants in this study, so
time will tell what patterns of communication, divorce, and marital success will surface (2001).
Conclusions
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
26
To summarize, research from both psychology and sociology has implicated the
experience of divorce as causing adverse physical and psychological conditions in children and
adults, as well as causing adverse socioeconomic conditions, especially for women. Researchers
have determined several specific factors that predict future divorce, including demographic
characteristics, communication styles, and underlying cognitions and physiological responses.
Although marital interventions have proven effective for the treatment of some specific
disorders, their overall effects on marital distress are disputed and subject to relapse. Therefore,
marriage preparation programs should be the focus of continuing research to determine effective
ways of preventing marital distress from forming in the first place. Implications for future
research include the integration of personality assessments and group interaction in marital
therapy, as well as the development of standardized measures and procedures for use in marriage
studies and effective means for distributing information about relationship risk factors to the
community at large.
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
27
References
Bagarozzi, D. A. (1997). Marital intimacy needs questionnaire: Preliminary report. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 25 (3), 285-291.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1999). Interventions for couples. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, 165-190.
Cole, C. L., & Cole, A. L. (1999). Marriage enrichment and prevention really works:
Interpersonal competence training to maintain and enhance relationships. Family
Relations, 48 (3), 273-275.
Dinkman, D. (1993). Marriage therapy through strength assessment. Individual Psychology, 49
(3-4), 412-418.
Donohue, W. A. (1991). Communication, marital dispute, and divorce mediation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fincham, F. D., & Beech, S. R. H. (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with
couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 47-77.
Gallagher, M. (1996). Re-creating marriage. In David Popenoe, Jean Bethke Elshtain and David
Blankenhorn (Eds.), Promises to keep: Decline and renewal of marriage in America (pp.
231-46). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Gottman, J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 169-197.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A two-factor model for predicting when a couple
will divorce: Exploratory analyses using 14-year longitudinal data. Family Process, 41
(1), 83-96.
Guttman, J. (1993). Divorce in psychosocial perspective: Theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Huston, T. L., Niehuis, S., & Smith, S. E. (2001). The early marital roots of conjugal distress
and divorce. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10 (4), 116-19.
Kadis, L.B., & McClendon, R. (1998). A concise guide to marital and family therapy.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
Kurdeck, L. A. (2002). Predicting the timing of separation and marital satisfaction: An eight-year
prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family: 64 (February), 163-179.
Parker, R. (1999). A framework for future research in premarriage education. Australian Family
Briefing, 8, 1-4.
MARRIAGE PREPARATION
28
Parrott, L., & Parrott, L. (2003). The SYMBIS approach to marriage education. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 31 (3), 208-12.
Renick, M. J., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (1992). The prevention and relationship
enhancement program (PREP): An empirically based preventive intervention program
for couples. Family Relations, 41, 141-147.
Sandberg, J. G., Johnson, L. N., Dermer, S. B., Gfeller-Strouts, L. L., Seibold, J. M., StringerSeibold, T.A., Hutchings, J. B., Andrews, R. L., & Miller, R. B. (1997). Demonstrated
efficacy of models of marriage and family therapy: An update of Gurman, Kniskern,
and Pinsof’s chart. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 25 (2), 121-137.
Stanley, S. M. (2001). Making a case for premarital education. Family Relations, 50, 272-80.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Prado, L. M., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., Tonelli, L., St. Peters, M.,
Leber, B. D, Bobulinski, M., Cordova, A., & Whitton, S. W. (2001). Community-based
premarital prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations, 50
(1), 67-77.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and
commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey.
Family Process, 41 (4), 659-675.
Teachman, J. D. (2002). Childhood living arrangements and the intergenerational transmission
of divorce. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 64(3), 717-730.
Weiss, R. S. (1996). Parenting from separate households. In David Popenoe, Jean Bethke
Elshtain and David Blankenhorn (Eds.), Promises to keep: Decline and renewal of
marriage in America (pp. 215-30). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Whitehead, B.D. (1996). The decline of marriage as the social basis of childrearing. In David
Popenoe, Jean Bethke Elshtain and David Blankenhorn (Eds.), Promises to keep:
Decline and renewal of marriage in America (pp. 3-14). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Whitehead, B.D., & Popenoe, D. (June 2001) The state of our unions. The National Marriage
Project.
.