Couple Relationship Education Content: What We Have and What We Are Missing

Overview

Journal Fam Process

Specialties Psychology
Public Health
Social Sciences

Date 2024 Jul 31

PMID 39080820

Authors

Sarah E Griffes

Nathan R Hardy

Ty J Gregson

Matthew W Brosi

Brandt Gardner

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Couple relationship education (CRE) has decades of research showing mixed results for participants. Various competing frameworks for CRE content have emerged in the development of the field, yet content has not been systematically investigated. Through an inductive content analysis of 15 different CRE programs, this study explored content themes and categories that are common across programs. Analysis found four themes throughout the programs: interactional skills, the self in the relationship, partner bonding, and relationship motivations. Categories for each theme were identified and are presented and discussed. Findings validate the primacy of teaching interactional skills within CRE including consistency in topics (e.g., communication training, conflict management). Other themes were also common (e.g., self in the relationship), though their categories were more diverse (e.g., self-care, expectations, personality). Several factors that have emerged as more significant in relationship theory and research were not well-represented in the content analysis (e.g., socioecological contexts, systemic patterns).

Citing Articles

Couple relationship education content: What we have and what we are missing.

Griffes S, Hardy N, Gregson T, Brosi M, Gardner B Fam Process. 2024; 63(4):1790-1806.

PMID: 39080820 PMC: 11659094. DOI: 10.1111/famp.13043.

References

Spencer C, Anderson J . Online relationship education programs improve individual and relationship functioning: A meta-analytic review. J Marital Fam Ther. 2021; 47(2):485-500. DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12491. View

Huang W . An Asian perspective on relationship and marriage education. Fam Process. 2005; 44(2):161-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00051.x. View

Flood S, Genadek K . Time for Each Other: Work and Family Constraints Among Couples. J Marriage Fam. 2016; 78(1):142-164. PMC: 4712716. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12255. View

Karney B, Bradbury T . Research on Marital Satisfaction and Stability in the 2010s: Challenging Conventional Wisdom. J Marriage Fam. 2021; 82(1):100-116. PMC: 8186435. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12635. View

Williamson H, Hammett J, Ross J, Karney B, Bradbury T . Premarital education and later relationship help-seeking. J Fam Psychol. 2018; 32(2):276-281. PMC: 5907919. DOI: 10.1037/fam0000383. View

Schoenfeld E, Loving T, Pope M, Huston T, Stulhofer A . Does Sex Really Matter? Examining the Connections Between Spouses' Nonsexual Behaviors, Sexual Frequency, Sexual Satisfaction, and Marital Satisfaction. Arch Sex Behav. 2016; 46(2):489-501. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-015-0672-4. View

Hawkins A, Hokanson S, Loveridge E, Milius E, Duncan M, Booth M . How effective are ACF-funded couple relationship education programs? A meta-analytic study. Fam Process. 2022; 61(3):970-985. DOI: 10.1111/famp.12739. View

Bradbury T, Lavner J . How can we improve preventive and educational interventions for intimate relationships?. Behav Ther. 2012; 43(1):113-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.02.008. View

Barton A, Beach S, Wells A, Ingels J, Corso P, Sperr M . The Protecting Strong African American Families Program: a Randomized Controlled Trial with Rural African American Couples. Prev Sci. 2018; 19(7):904-913. PMC: 6177321. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-018-0895-4. View

10.

Halford W, Bodenmann G . Effects of relationship education on maintenance of couple relationship satisfaction. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013; 33(4):512-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.02.001. View

11.

Markman H, Hawkins A, Stanley S, Halford W, Rhoades G . Helping couples achieve relationship success: A decade of progress in couple relationship education research and practice, 2010-2019. J Marital Fam Ther. 2021; 48(1):251-282. PMC: 9298911. DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12565. View

12.

Halford W, Markman H, Stanley S . Strengthening couples' relationships with education: social policy and public health perspectives. J Fam Psychol. 2008; 22(4):497-505. DOI: 10.1037/a0012789. View

13.

Chen R, Hughes A, Austin J . The use of Theory in Family Therapy Research: Content Analysis and Update. J Marital Fam Ther. 2017; 43(3):514-525. DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12217. View

14.

Castro F, Barrera Jr M, Martinez Jr C . The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prev Sci. 2004; 5(1):41-5. DOI: 10.1023/b:prev.0000013980.12412.cd. View

15.

Wiltsey Stirman S, Baumann A, Miller C . The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019; 14(1):58. PMC: 6554895. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y. View

16.

Stanley S, Rhoades G, Whitton S . Commitment: Functions, Formation, and the Securing of Romantic Attachment. J Fam Theory Rev. 2011; 2(4):243-257. PMC: 3039217. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x. View

17.

Markman H, Ritchie L . Couples Relationship Education and Couples Therapy: Healthy Marriage or Strange Bedfellows?. Fam Process. 2015; 54(4):655-71. DOI: 10.1111/famp.12191. View

18.

Kumpfer K, Alvarado R, Smith P, Bellamy N . Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prev Sci. 2002; 3(3):241-6. DOI: 10.1023/a:1019902902119. View

19.

Doss B, Roddy M, Wiebe S, Johnson S . A review of the research during 2010-2019 on evidence-based treatments for couple relationship distress. J Marital Fam Ther. 2021; 48(1):283-306. DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12552. View

20.

Kennedy N, Johnson S, Wiebe S, Willett J, Tasca G . Conversations for Connection: An Outcome Assessment of the Hold-Me-Tight Relationship-Education Program, and Recommendations for Improving Future Research Methodology in Relationship Education. J Marital Fam Ther. 2018; 45(3):431-446. DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12356. View