Couple Relationships

Practical Reasons for Greater Attention to Marriage

The Future of Marriage in the 21st Century

Rationale for Marriage Preparation

Marriage Education Myths

Practical Reasons for Greater Attention to Marriage

Seven Reasons for "Getting Your Marriage Right from the Start"

Expectations of marriage are changing. When marriage was for economic security and husbands ruled the roost, the rules were more simple and straightforward. Expectations for affection were minimal, as were options outside marriage. Today, with love, companionship and equality so important, communication and problem-solving skills have become even more valuable for happiness.
Terms of marriage are changing. At the turn of the century, lifespan was shorter, more of marriage revolved around parenting, and couples often drew on family and friend networks for support. Today, couples are expected to meet their own needs (with minimal extended family support) and coordinate adult growth and roles through 50-60 years.
Life doesn't prepare most persons for new marriage roles. Couples face more demands and fewer supports, but few persons learn to be mature and equal partners in traditional dating roles. Conflict resolution and problem-solving skills are part of many job-training and volunteer groups, yet couple communication remains sorely neglected.
Benefits of marital adjustment. Research finds happily married couples have lower rates of illness, depression, and conflict in and outside their marriage. Well-adjusted partners make easier transitions to parenting and tend to be more supportive parents. For most persons, marital satisfaction is the best index of family satisfaction; family satisfaction is the best predictor of well-being.
Consequences of divorce. Divorce is not a long-term trauma for most children and adults and may be a preferred alternative to domestic violence. However, partners, their children, and their social networks experience emotional and financial stress which may have long-term effects. In particular, poverty, continued partner conflict, and isolation from old friends and family can limit the horizons of divorcees and their children. Most persons would choose to avoid these stressors if they could.
Benefits of assessement and training. During the past two decades, researchers have successfully identified "high-risk" partnerships before marriage (allowing for cancelling or postponing weddings). Training programs have increased couples' skills and satisfaction long-term, lowered divorce rates by half, and reduced family violence rates.
Starting early sets a pattern. Couples who check compatability, learn to problem-solve, and connect with support and skill resources become more aware and more capable of handling the challenges of marriage. Proactive couples tend to avoid relationship-threatening crises and enjoy the benefits of life together.

BACK TO THE TOP

The Future of Marriage in the 21st Century

Copyright Family Impact Seminar, April 1997

Used by permission. For more information on the Family Impact Seminar, a non-profit, non-partisan family policy institute, contact Theodora Ooms, Executive Director, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Suite 209, Washington, DC 20036 (202/496-1964).

Views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the Cooperative Extension Service or the University of Wyoming.

Background: The Decline in Marriage

Statistics documenting the decline in marriage are well known. Divorce rates, which climbed fairly steadily for about sixty years, peaked in 1980 and then leveled out. More than 50% of all first marriages taking place are expected to end in divorce. Out-of-wedlock births comprise more than 30% of all births. Nearly 40% of all children do not live with their biological fathers, and the typical nonresident father neither supports nor even sees his children on a regular basis (Popenoe, 1996). Marriages are occurring considerably later for both sexes, and more couples are cohabiting than ever before. Paradoxically, however, there has been very little change in Americans' desire to marry, and 90% eventually marry at least once during their lifetime.

These basic trends in family formation and dissolution are found across income and racial groups, although they are more marked among African-Americans, and also exist in most other industrialized countries. Researchers cite numerous contributing causes, including the rise in female labor force participation, declining wage rates for low-skilled workers, high black male unemployment, improvements in contraceptive technology, liberalization of values towards nonmarital sex, changing gender roles, increased expectations of marriage, declining social and community support, the emergence of an ethos of expressive individualism at the expense of commitment, and the passage of no-fault divorce laws.

Since the late 1970s, family issues have increasingly captured the attention of public officials. Congressional committee hearings begain in 1973, a White House Conference on Families was held in 1980, a congressionally appointed National Commission on Children reported in 1991, and numerous studies and conferences studied and debated the causes and consequences of marital and family change. Their reports documented the many negative effects of recent family trends on the well-being of young children, adolescents, adults, and society at large, and examined the extent to which public policies and programs contributed to family stress and breakdown and should be reformed.

The New Field of Family Policy Avoids the Marriage Issue

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, policymakers placed family issues much higher on their agendas. Increasingly, officials on the left and the right came to declare that a major public policy goal should be to "strengthen and support families." New laws and funding at both federal and state levels have addressed parental and family leave, child care, teen pregnancy, parent education, family preservation, divorce mediation and education, welfare reform, and child support enforcement.

However, this evolving family policy agenda is seriously incomplete. Programs and services designed to support "families" focus, in fact, only on mothers and children. Until quite recently, fathers were left out of the picture entirely. In addition, most family programs focus solely on parent-child relationships; the cornerstone of the family--the relationship of the married couple--has been esentially ignored.

It is puzzling that policymakers have invested so little in exploring the possibility of helping marriages succeed. In fact, federal collection of national marriage statistics was actually reduced in 1996. Public investment in marriage-related research and analyses, and in the development and evaluation of divorce prevention efforts, has been minimal to non-existent. Third-party health care payers seldom reimburse for the costs of treating troubled marriages. Private foundations have eschewed the topic of marriage and divorce prevention althogether.

Since so many social problems have been linked to the decline in marriage, and since Americans still place such a high value on marriage for themselves, why has the topic of marriage been avoided for so long by public officials and others? In the course of conversations held over the past several years, it has become clear to FIS that there are many reasons why people in leadership positions avoid talking publicly about marriage. Some of these reasons affect primarily those on the political left, others those on the right (see "Reasons for Avoiding the 'M Word," below).

Reasons Why Marriage Should be on the Public Agenda

Family Impact Seminar believes that there are at least seven compelling reasons why marriage should be placed high on the public agenda:

1.	Marriage remains a personal goals for the vast majority of Americans: 90% marry and want their marriage to succeed. The pheonomenal success of self-help books and tapes such as gary Smalley's "Making Love Last Forever," John Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus," and Harville Hendrix's "Getting the Love You Want" is dramatic evidence of the public's desire to learn how to improve their relationships with their spouse or partner."
2.	Marriage is society's best insurance against child poverty. Moreover, "families formed by marriage--where two caring adults are committed to one another and to their children--provide the best environment for bringing children into the world and supporting their growth and development." (National Commission on Children, 1991, p. 6)
3.	Marriage helps promote and support responsible and caring fatherhood. Studies show that a satisfying relationship with the mother is the surest route for fathers to achieve a good relationship with their children. (Doherty, et al., 1996)
4.	A growing body of research shows that marriage is good for adult health and well-being. Married men and women are healthier and live longer than single people. They are less likely to be depressed, have lower rates of problem drinking, avoid risky behavior more, and have healthier lifestyles. Married men and women also report more active and satisfying sex lives than single individuals (Waite, 1996).
5.	Marriage is good for employers and taxpayers. Married individuals earn more, save more, and accumulate greater wealth than single persons, while employees experiencing serious marriage problems or the stress and conflict of divorce are distracted, poorly motivated, and considerably less productive (Employee Assistance Professional Association, 1996; Forthofer, et al., 1996). The rise in single parents is a major cause of the increase in child and family poverty and dependency and the resulting rise in welfare and social service budgets.
6.	Strong, stable marriages are the seedbed of moral character and civic virtue and help build stronger, more stable, less violent communities (Glendon & Blankenhorn, 1995).
7.	We are beginning to learn why marriages fail and how to help marriages succeed. In the last few years, new knowledge has emerged from several academic disciplines--demography, economics, sociology, psychology, human development, and family relations-- that helps us understand a great deal about why people marry or do not marry, the predictable changes and cycles of marriage, new models of marriage, why so many marriages fail, and how divorce can be prevented. This research is little known outside the narrow circles of the academic and practitioner community, and its implications for policy and programs have not yet been addressed.

References

Doherty, W.J.; Kouneski, E.F.; Erikson, M. September, 1996. Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Final Report. Prepared for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluations/DHHS. Available from the authors, Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, 1985 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108.

Forthofer, M.S.; Markman, H.J.; Cox, M.; Stanley, S.M.; & Kessler, R.C. (1996). Associations between marital distress and work loss in a national sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, (3), 597-605.

Glendon, M.A.; & Blankenhorn, D. (Eds.,1995). Seedbeds of virtue: Sources of competencee, character, and citizenship in American society. New York: Madison Books.

Waite, L. (1996). Social science finds: "Marriage matters." The Responsive community: Rights and responsibilities. Volume 6, Issue 3, Summer.

Appendix: Reasons for Avoiding the "M" Word

In the course of planning the Future of Marriage Project, FIS has encountered a number of reasons that help to explain why public officials, foundation officers, and others have avoided focusing on marriage, the "M-word." Several of these are cited here:

The "M-word" brings with it many different kinds of baggage. For feminists, it appears as a smokescreen for re-instituting patriarchy. For single people, gays and lesbians, it raises concerns about discrimination. For conservatives, it can stir up fears of legitimization of same-sex marriage. For many front-line social workers and low-income advocates, it evokes images of domestic violence and abuse.

Promoting marriage is believed to stigmatize and blame single parents, many of whom are doing a good job under very difficult circumstances. Since single-parent households are more prevalent in African-American communities, this becomes an especially sensitive racial issue.
Many consider marriage to be a natural, voluntary relationship based on the ideal of romantic love. Love is the "magic cement" that binds couples together and it is either present or isn't. The notion of conducting research and designing programs and policies to "do something" to strengthen marriage seems incongruous.
The idea of government intruding into marriage makes some people very uncomfortable. For the religious, marriage is a matter between individuals, their God, and faith-based organizations. For the secular, marriage represents a private contract between individuals which they can enter and leave as they please, with minimal interference.
Many demographers and sociologists have argued that attempts to strengthen marriage are futile since marital behavior is a result of powerful, world-wide social forces that are irreversible. They point out that nothing is permanent anymore: jobs, houses, careers, lifestyles, community residence, and education change constantly throughout our lives. Therefore changing partners through "serial" marriages and creating "alternative" family forms may be appropriate norms for the future.
Finally, marriage, divorce, and out-of-wedlock childbearing are very personal and often very painful subjects. The overwhelming majority of Americans have had some direct experience of divorce, either in their own families or in those of their friends. Many have had some acquaintence with unwed pregnancy and/or out-of-wedlock childbearing. Although the stigma attached to these events has lessened, the experience typically remains fraught with pain, disappointment, guilt, and feelings of failure.

BACK TO THE TOP

Rationale for Marriage Preparation

Overview

Marriage preparation refers to a variety of formal and informal efforts by which persons become ready for the roles and responsibilities of marriage. Rapid technological and social changes over the past two centuries has increased the need for individuals, families, and societies to enhance partners' therapeutic and decision-making skills and reinterpret the meaning of commitment, as well as maintain support for their economic self-sufficiency and emotional stability. Rising rates of divorce and family violence and falling indices of marital satisfaction and time together suggest that couples are inadequately prepared for (or supported in) the challenges of marriage. Yet the number of stable, satisfying, and growing marriages--amid personal and social pressures and in spite of limited preparation and support--suggests that many partners are seeking to build strong marriages. Likewise, enrollment increases in relationship skills courses at high school, college, and community settings perhaps signal a growing desire to invest in the success (or avoid the distress) of intimate relationships.

Rationale for Intervention

Demographers expect a continuation of the trend whereby over 90% of the population marry, although many are cohabiting before marriage and most are marrying later. Marital distress and breakup are cited prominently in the literature on adult economic and mental health problems as well as in their effects on child adjustment. Divorced and distressed partners surveyed often mention lack of knowledge or skills as reasons for poor mate selection or interaction. Research on assessment instruments and relationship enhancement programs are suggesting that distress "warning signs" can be identified and addressed and interaction patterns improved early, with positive results. Each and all of these developments recommends additional efforts in preparation, enrichment, and support.

History

Families and the church are traditional socialization agents, via modeling, direct and indirect teaching. However, during the 19th century, extra-familial sources such as magazines became popular as role changes outpaced parent experience and mobile young adults were more often at a distance from family. College and community-based classes formalized such training in the 1920s and 1930s. Courses more often emphasized role fulfillment, personalities, personal and practical issues than interactive skills. The growth of pastoral counseling and family therapy after World War II added to the frequency, length, and depth of "premarital counseling." Changing roles, skyrocketing divorce rates, and the transition of a large Baby Boom cohort into marriage spurred program expansion and research in the 1970s and 1980s. Programs for remarrying couples emerged during these decades. Education and promoting couple/family strengths began to gain prominence over counseling and the focus on couple/family problems. Despite evidence for the effectiveness of lab-based programs, relatively few couples receive any formal training. While early marriage is a critical formative period for partners and future parents, couples receive relatively little support or education to enhance bonding and coping skills. Efforts to translate and extend insights of a few programs into community- based initiatives serving a majority of couples are critically needed.

Practice

The majority of providers (primarily counselors and clergy) use a variety of self-selected materials, individualizing their approach to fit their background, audience, and setting. Thus typical resources and practices are largely unreported in popular, ecclesiastical, or research and professional journals. Research- and/or scientifically evaluated assessments and training programs which seem to have positive effects, include:

Assessments

PREPARE/ENRICH: A 125-item questionnaire covering attitudes and behaviors in 14 marital issues and 2 family-of-origin factors, completed separately by both partners, and scored electronically to yield strengths and work areas (which can be used in provider- couple dialogue), based on couple compatability and comparison to a well-adjusted reference group. For more information, contact:

PREPARE/ENRICH, P.O. Box 190, Minneapolis, MN 55440-0190; 1-800-331-1661.

PREP-M: A 206-item survey, assessing 5 areas of readiness and background factors completed by individuals (in class or counseling settings), scored electronically, and used as a guide to discuss relationship strengths and work areas. For more information, contact: The Marriage Consortium, 1000 SWKT, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602; (802) 378-6419.

PreMarital Inventory Profile: A 170-item questionnaire developed by the Roman Catholic Church covering a variety of marital issues. Individual responses are completed and compared as a context for education. For more information, contact: Intercommunications Publishing, Inc., 52-A Dogwood Acres Dr., Chapel Hill, NC 22516; (919) 968-0680.

FOCCUS, a 156-item inventory on 11 marital and faith issues (+ demographics) developed by the Roman Catholic Church, is completed by each partner, with responses used to guide discussion in couple and small group sessions. For more information, contact: Barbara Markey and James Healy. (1995). Marriage preparation in the Catholic Church: Getting it right. Omaha, NE: Creighton University Center for Marriage and Family; 1-800-637-4279.

Evaluation for Marriage, a 275-item inventory developed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, examines 10 marital issues (+ demographics), tapping individual responses and couple patterns which can be used to guide educational experiences. For more information, contact: Cleveland Diocese Evaluation for Marriage, 2392 S. Belvoir Blvd., Cleveland, OH 44118. Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis, a 180-item self/partner survey of 9 bipolar personality traits is widely used as a context for provider-couple discussion of compatability and interaction issues. For more information, contact: Psychological Publications, Inc., 5300 Hollywood Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90027.

Programs

Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) developed from cognitive behavioral theory by clinical psychologists, uses a variety of formats (12-20 hrs.) to talk about commitment and realistic expectations and facilitate practice of communication and problem solving skills by for dating, cohabiting, engaged, and married couples. Extensive research shows significant improvement on communication skills short-term and long-term differences in satisfaction, conflict/communication skills, violence, and divorce rates between participant and control group couples. For more information, contact: PREP Educational Products, Inc., 1780 S. Bellaire St., Suite 621, Denver, CO 80222; (303) 750-8798.

Relationship Enhancement (RE), created by humanistic clinical psychologists, focuses (via 8 3-hr. small group sessions) on self-disclosure, empathy, problem solving skills. Research, primarily with college students, documents increases in positive/decreases in negative relationship skills (vs. lecture group), sustained over a short term (6 mo.). Relationship Enhancement Training, c/o Individual and Family Consultation Center, Beecher- Dock House, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; (814) 865-1715.

B.C. Council Marriage Preparation Program, a knowledge and communication training using an eclectic/systems framework in a 10 hr. large-group format with married and remarrying couples reports high satisfaction as well as gains in knowledge and interpersonal skills, especially among older couples and those most near marriage. For more information, contact: B.C. Council for the Family, Suite 204, 2590 Granville St., Vancouver, BC V6H 3H1; (604) 660-0675.

Minnesota Couples Communication Program (MCCP), a self- and partner-awareness and communication skills program emerging from a developmental/systems perspective, MCCP's 12-18-hr. small group approach has been found effective in enhancing communication skills and relationship satisfaction in immediate and short-term (several weeks) tests. The principal author can be contacted at: Interpersonal Communications, Inc., 7201 S. Broadway, Littleton, CO 80122; (303) 794-1764.

Canadian Marriage Preparation, based on a developmental and systems framework by Bader, et al. (1980) offered pre- and post- marital small group sessions on 8 key issues and found positive short- and long-term (12 mo., 5 yrs.) gains in knowledge in several areas, increased use of social and helping networks, and sustained levels of communication and conflict resolution (as compared to declines in control group couples). For more information, consult 1980 Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, issue number 2.

A PREPARE workshop (6 2-hr. sessions) developed by Nichols, Fournier, & Nichols (1986) significantly increased knowledge and realistic expectations on communication, sex, children, religion, friends and increased individual and couple scores in some, but not all PREPARE issues. Both assessment and program components distinguised marrying and non-marrying participants. For more information, consult the October 1986 Family Relations journal. Premarital Assessment Program, developed from systems theory/ practice by Buckner & Salts (1985) focuses on couple self- examination, problem areas, rapport-building for a variety of marital issues and interactive skills in 5 major areas via 10-15 hr. individual/small and large group formats. Couples appreciated increased partner awareness and knowledge, desired more skill teaching. For more information, consult the October 1985 Family Relations journal.

Extension Roles

The Cooperative Extension Service can support marriage preparation in one or more of the following ways:

1.	Enhance public awareness on the challenges of marriage, strengths of successful relationships, consequences of distress and dissolution, significance of family and community support for partners (esp. newlyweds) and available resources for preparation, enrichment, and counseling.
2.	Consult with local and state officials on public policy implications of the abovementioned issues.
3.	Provide informational training on relationship issues and educational programming resources and options to existing and potential providers (clergy, teachers, counselors, etc.) of marriage preparation.
4.	Facilitate support groups for young marrieds and/or provide resources to workplaces, schools, churches, or community groups which might sponsor such groups.
5.	Develop community coalitions of professionals, organizations, and concerned citizens to aid in public awareness, cultivation of support networks, planning and sponsorship of formal training, resource and referral to local and statewide resources.
6.	Offer training and program evaluation with an established curriculum, in cooperation with community agencies.

References: A Place to Start Reading

Bader, et al. (1980). Do marriage preparation programs really work? A Canadian experiment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, (4), 171-179.

Fournier, David G.; & Olson, David H. (1986). Programs for premarital and newlywed couples. In Ronald J. Levant (Ed.). Psychoeducational approaches to family therapy and counseling. New York: Springer.

Larsen, Andrea S.; & David H. Olson. (1989). Predicting marital satisfaction using PREPARE: A replication study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, (3), 311-322.

Larson, Jeffry; & Thomas B. Holman. (1994). Premarital predictors of marital quality and stability. Family Relations, 43, (2), 228- 237.

Larson, Jeffry; Thomas B. Holman; David M. Klein; Dean M. Busby; Robert F. Stahmann; & Diane Peterson. (1995). A review of comprehensive questionnaires used in premarital education and counseling. Family Relations, 44, (3), 245-252.

Markman, Howard J; Scott M. Stanley; & Susan L. Blumberg. (1994). Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, Sherrod; Daniel B. Wackman; Elam W. Nunnally. (1983). Couple communication: Equipping couples to be their own best problem solvers. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, (3), 73-77.

Ridley, Carl A.; & Ingrid E. Sladeczek. (1992). Premarital relationship enhancement: Its effects on needs to relate to others. Family Relations, 41, (2), 148-153.

Russell, Mary; & Rosanne Farnden. (1992). Marriage preparation: Factors associated with consumer satisfaction. Family Relations, 41, (4), 446-451.

Schumm, Walter R.; & Wallace Denton. (1979). Trends in premarital counseling. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 5, (4), 23-32.

Silliman, Benjamin; Walter R. Schumm; & Anthony P. Jurich. (1992). Young adults' preferences for premarital preparation program designs. Contemporary Family Therapy, 14, 89-100.

Stahmann, Robert F.; & William J. Hiebert. (1987). Premarital counseling: The professional's handbook. Second edition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Stanley, Scott M.; Howard J. Markman; Michelle St.Peters; & B. Douglas Leber. (1995). Strengthening marriages and preventing divorce: New directions in prevention research. Family Relations, 44, (4), 392-401.

BACK TO THE TOP

Marriage Education Myths

Popular Myths about Marriage Education

Marriage education is a political agenda

    -Marriage education is viewed by some as an attempt to invade family privacy and
    authority and impose a secular or non-traditional standard for marital behavior

    -Others consider marriage education a forum for promoting traditional roles and values
    reinforcing male authority

In fact, caring people from a wide variety of religious and philosophical backgrounds and professional disciplines find common ground in their concern to reduce dating and domestic violence, reduce family distress and breakup, affirm women and men, support children, and strengthen community. Faith in the institution of marriage is typically linked to concern about contemporary couples' success in maintaining satisfying and stable marriages and a desire to help them do so.

Marriage education is a practical necessity, not a political agenda.

Marriage is a private, not a public concern

    -The historical tradition--legal and religious--for formal and common-law marriage
    recognizes the family and community investment in couple relations. Recognizing the social
    implications of couple decisions, law and custom reflect efforts to support and sanction
    marital relations.

In fact, persons from a variety of viewpoints recognize that growing personal autonomy and decreasing social networks, together with rising economic pressures have increased couple isolation from family and community support. Consequences of these trends are negative for couples and communities.

Marriage is a personal choice and responsibility which works best when supported and regulated by family and community.

Marriage counseling is already available

    -Couple therapy in response to crisis is widely available, if not universally successful.
    Typically time-limited, problem-oriented, and after-the-fact, counseling often cannot offer
    the quantity or quality of learning and support that education and enrichment activities
    provide.

In fact, those who deal with marital conflicts--counselors, clergy, lawyers, and relatives--are recommending more extensive efforts to prevent distress and promote marital strengths. Couples who receive training and support and maintain a growth orientation have fewer conflicts and greater satisfaction with their life together.

Education and enrichment build strengths which avert, but do not eliminate needs for crisis counseling.

Religious insititutions already offer services for couples

    -Religious organizations provide much spiritual and practical guidance for couples. Most
    recognize that they could do more for members and that not all couples will seek their
    programs.

In fact, both religious and non-religious organizations are increasing support and educational resources for couples. Neither has the resources, expertise, or couple demand to do it alone and both can benefit by working together.

BACK TO THE TOP