Abstract
This study measured marital satisfaction of low-income couples in a Western state following participation in the Building Healthy Marriages program, which aimed to educate couples and increase relationship satisfaction. The researchers’ goals were the following: To determine the areas in which participants experienced the greatest number of problems before entering the program, to assess the program’s impact on marital satisfaction, and to examine the differences in program impact between various demographic groups. To assess the program’s impact, participants were administered the Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised before beginning the program and 1 year after completing the pretest. Before starting the program, couples experienced the greatest number of challenges in relationships within their families of origin and problem-solving communication and the fewest problems in areas related to their children. Couples reported significant improvements in marital satisfaction. These changes did not differ significantly between different gender and ethnicity groups.
Research indicates that marital relationships benefit men, women, and children emotionally, physically, socially, and academically (Wilcox, Doherty, Glenn, & Waite, 2005). Children raised by parents in a healthy marriage experience a number of advantages, including higher likelihood of attending college and achieving academically and better emotional and physical health (Wilcox et al., 2005). Women in healthy marriages are emotionally and physically healthier; less likely to be victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other violent crimes; and less likely to complete suicide and abuse drugs or alcohol (Wilcox et al., 2005). Men who are partners in healthy marriages live longer, are emotionally and physically healthier, experience more stable employment, make higher wages, and have better relationships with their children (Wilcox et al., 2005). Among the benefits for the community are more physically healthy, emotionally healthy, and educated citizens; less domestic violence, criminal activity, and pregnancy rates; and a decreased need for social services (Wilcox et al., 2005).
Nearly 10 years ago, the U.S. Congress recognized the importance of enhancing marriage for a better overall society and passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, allocating $150 million annually to promoting healthy marriages and fatherhood throughout the United States (Administration for Children & Families [ACF], 2005). This federal initiative was enacted to promote relationship education, which is focused on prevention of distress and strengthening the marital relationship (Bowling, Hill, & Jencius, 2005). This funding has resulted in the implementation of marriage education and enrichment programs throughout the country. The Building Healthy Marriages (BHM) program is one such program.
Given the demonstrated benefits of healthy relationships, research directed at investigating the efficacy of programs designed to foster such relationships is vital. This is particularly important given that funding availability is contingent upon the demonstration of success. Numerous studies have demonstrated that marriage and relationship education (MRE) programs have positive results on relationship satisfaction and communication skills (e.g., Blanchard, Hawkins, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2009; Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008). However, participants have included predominantly White, middle-class couples who were not experiencing any particular relationship distress. Less is known about the effectiveness of such programs for minority groups. Hispanics have been identified as being at greater risk than the majority of the population for poverty, teen pregnancy, and out-of-wedlock births (ACF, 2008). Thus, the Hispanic population may be at greater risk for relationship distress and consequently experience the negative ramifications of unhealthy relationships.
The BHM program’s central goal was the strengthening of families by providing relationship education and related support services to individuals and couples. Trained marriage educators provided the following educational programs to participants during the 5-year grant period: Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), Prepare/Enrich Relationship Assessment, and Within Our Reach (WOR). PREP was an educational program designed to help couples develop strong and rewarding marriages. PREP taught couples effective communication skills, how to solve problems as a team, and methods for dealing with conflict. It also aimed to enhance the commitment of couples (Bowling et al., 2005). The Prepare/Enrich Relationship Assessment was conducted with parties interested in premarital or marital education/enhancement. The program began with the couple taking an assessment to identify weaknesses and strengths (Prepare/Enrich, 2011). Following the assessment, partners met with counselors for feedback sessions in which they discussed areas of potential growth and strengths as individuals and couples (Prepare/Enrich, 2011). The WOR curriculum focused on the strengths of couples and the barriers that challenged them from meeting their relationship aspirations. WOR presented smaller amounts of material than PREP, with more couple and group activities between lessons (PREPInc, 2009).
In addition, the project provided the following supplementary services: conflict resolution coaching, financial management coaching, referral services, educational events, employ-ment support training, and marriage mentoring seminars. The BHM program offered all programs and services in English and in Spanish.
The purpose of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of the BHM program on levels of overall marital satisfaction for male and female participants and for couples who identified themselves as low-income Hispanic, White, or mixed ethnicity. The study was guided by the following research questions:
Research Question 1: In what areas did participants experience the greatest number of problems before entering the program?
Research Question 2: Did participants experience an increase in marital satisfaction after participating in the program?
Research Question 3:Was the program equally effective for male and female participants?
Research Question 4: Was the program equally effective for Hispanic, White, and mixed ethnicity couples?
Method
Participants
Participants for this study were a subset of those who participated in the BHM program. Beginning with an eligibility assessment, the needs of couples were identified. Couples were then referred to PREP, Prepare/Enrich Relationship Assessment, or WOR curricula. The current study only includes couples who met the eligibility criteria of the program, which included being married or in a committed relationship, having no recent history of domestic violence or substance abuse, and earning an annual income less than 200% of federal poverty guidelines. Other eligibility criteria included completing a thorough needs assessment and domestic violence screening by BHM staff and completing the Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised (MSI-R) pretest and posttest.
During the course of the program (January 1, 2007 to June 11, 2011), 192 participants completed MSI-R pretests and posttests, giving a posttest response rate of 54%. Ethnicity was divided into Hispanic (i.e., both partners identified as Hispanic), White (i.e., both partners identified as White, non-Hispanic), and mixed (i.e., partners had different ethnicities). Couples who did not provide complete information about ethnicity, couples in which only one partner completed the posttest, and couples who did not meet criteria for one of the three ethnicity groups (e.g., Black couples) were excluded from this particular analysis, reducing the sample size to 186 participants.
While the majority of participants identified as White, about one third identified as Hispanic. This is a notable percentage, given the lack of representativeness of previous research samples, and is illustrative of the ethnic composition in the county where the program was implemented. For more information about the demographic characteristics of participants who completed MSI-R posttests, see Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics of Posttest Participants (n = 186).
Measures
MSI-R
The MSI-R measured marital satisfaction. It is widely used in research and has been translated into Spanish. The MSI-R is one of the more current marital satisfaction assessments, is written at the reading level appropriate for our sample (sixth- or seventh-grade reading level is suggested), and consists of 150 questions. In addition, the psychometric properties of the instrument are generally considered good (Bernt, 2001; Snyder, 1997).
MSI-R Subscales
The MSI-R has a number of subscales that measure various aspects of marital satisfaction. With the exception of the Role Orientation scale, all scales are scored in the direction of dissatisfaction, with high scores reflecting greater levels of dissatisfaction in a specific area within the relationship (Snyder, 1997). The Global Distress scale measures individuals’ overall dissatisfaction with the relationship. It also gauges negative expectancies regarding the relationship’s future and consideration of divorce. The Affective Communication scale evaluates dissatisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by the other partner and is the best single measure of emotional intimacy. The Problem Solving Communication scale is a measure of overt discord in the relationship. This scale assesses the ineffectiveness of the couple in resolving differences. The Aggression scale assesses intimidation and physical aggression experienced by the partner. The Time Together scale evaluates the couple’s companionship, as expressed in shared leisure time. The Financial Disagreement scale evaluates the extent to which the respondent partner experiences discord in the relationship over the management of finances. The Sexual Dissatisfaction scale measures general dissatisfaction with the sexual relationship and inadequate affection during couples’ interactions. The Role Orientation scale evaluates the extent to which a partner identifies with traditional versus nontraditional attitudes regarding marital and parental gender roles. The Family History of Distress scale measures the respondent’s perception of the dysfunction of relationships in the family of origin. The Dissatisfaction with Children scale assesses the quality of the relationship between respondents and their children, as well as parental concern regarding the emotional and behavioral well-being of one or more children. The Conflict over Child Rearing scale evaluates the extent of conflict between partners regarding their approaches to raising children.
Internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach’s α) for each of the subscales range from .70 (Dissatisfaction with Children scale) to .93 (Global Dissatisfaction scale). Mean internal consistency reliability is .82. Validity has been established through convergent and discriminant validity. High scores on the Global Dissatisfaction scale have been found to correlate highly (.66 to .90) with the Marital Adjustment Test and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, two frequently used and respected marital inventories (Bernt, 2001; Snyder, 1997). Discriminant validity has been demonstrated for marital therapy samples, pretreatment versus posttreatment comparisons, and divorced couples (Snyder, 1997).
Each scale of the MSI-R has a cutoff score that indicates whether the respondent perceives his or her problems to be significant. These cutoff scores are based on gender-specific norms that were developed for the MSI-R due to differences found between men and women on the older MSI-R scales (Snyder, 1997). The Role Orientation scale is not a measure of relationship distress per se, but the potential for relationship distress may be inferred by partners’ differences on this scale.
Demographics
Gender and ethnicity were self-reported by participants. Ethnicity was subdivided into Hispanic, White, and mixed.
Procedures
Program staff assessed couples to be sure they qualified for BHM services in a semistructured interview that lasted 45–60 min. Each qualifying individual was administered an MSI-R pretest. To ensure that each individual’s answers did not influence those of his or her partner, each partner was administered the MSI-R in a separate room. After the pretest was completed, couples were referred to at least 8 hr of relationship education. Couple’s relationship needs (based on the assessment) and availability were considered when referring them to various programs. No couples dropped out of the relationship education program. PREP and WOR seminars/workshops were offered in a group setting. Couples referred to the Prepare/Enrich program completed an hour-long premarital/relationship inventory, and participated in six 90-min follow-up sessions with an educator. Referrals to additional services (i.e., conflict resolution, financial management, employment support training, and marriage mentoring seminars) were based on the needs of each particular couple. Thirty-six percent of the participants engaged in one BHM event, 29.9% completed two events, 24% took part in three events, and 10% engaged in four or more activities. Each couple could spend up to 1 year in the program. Couples were asked to complete the MSI-R posttest 12 months after MSI-R pretest completion. The intake coordinator and assessment technicians contacted couples up to three times to set up appointments to complete the MSI-R posttest at the BHM location. If couples did not respond or preferred to complete posttests at home, the evaluator mailed a posttest, consent form, and self-addressed stamped envelope to the couples. To increase the response rate, a $30 gift card incentive was offered to each couple who completed and returned the surveys.
Data Analysis
Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 18 was used to analyze the data. The first step included compiling descriptive statistics from the MSI-R. To answer the last three research questions, a repeated measures two-factor analysis of variance was conducted using a significance level of .05. The MSI-R prescores, postscores, and gender were treated as within-couples repeated measures factors; ethnicity (White, Hispanic, and mixed) was treated as a between-couples factor; and marital satisfaction was the dependent variable. As part of the analysis, researchers calculated F values for change in marital satisfaction by ethnicity, change in marital satisfaction by gender, and the interaction of the main effects (gender and ethnicity). Each subscale of the MSI-R was analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance for each of the main effects and their interaction.
Results
What Were the Greatest Problem Areas for Participants Before Entering the Program?
MSI-R pretest results indicate that 44.1% of the couples in the sample reported experiencing significant problems in their family of origin relationships. In addition, about 41.4% of the couples reported extensive conflicts in the area of problem solving. About one third of the participants reported significant problems in the areas of global relationship distress (36.6%), finances (32.8%), and time spent together (30.6%). About one fourth of the participants indicated severe problems in the areas of affective communication (27.4%), sexual relationships (23.7%), and partner’s aggression (22.0%). The areas of least concern were child rearing (15.1%) and Dissatisfaction with Children (11.6%). Unlike the other scales, the Role Orientation scale measures whether one views roles traditionally or nontraditionally, and neither of these views on its own constitutes problems in a relationship. Scores on this scale only indicate problems when there are large differences between partners.
Did the Program Impact Marital Satisfaction?
There was a significant increase in marital satisfaction scores between the pretest and posttest in a number of areas. Table 2 illustrates how many participants perceived problems before and after participation in the BHM program. There were four areas in which more than one third of the participants experienced high levels of stress: family history of distress, problem solving communication, global distress, and financial disagreement. Three of these areas (problem solving communication, financial disagreement, and global distress) were significantly positively different after participation in BHM classes. The classes did not have an influence on scores on the Family History of Distress subscale. About 41% of males and females evidenced the most stress in the Problem Solving Communication area, F(1, 58) = 27.883, p< .05, and this is also the area in which the program made the greatest positive change. Significant improvements were also found in the areas of Time Together, F(1, 75) = 19.302, p< .05; Affective Communication, F(1, 70) = 14.535, p< .05; Financial Disagreement, F(1, 72) = 14.040, p< .05; Global Distress, F(1, 56) = 13.686, p< .05; and Aggression, F(1, 80) = 4.292, p< .05. After completion of the program, less than one fourth of participants experienced high levels of stress in all areas except for family history of distress. Lowest levels of stress for both males and females were found in the areas of Dissatisfaction with Children and Conflict over Child Rearing, indicating that this sample was overall very satisfied with their children.
Percentage of Males and Females Perceiving High Levels of Stress on MSI-R Subscales.
Note. MSI-R = Marital Satisfaction Inventory–Revised; GDS = global distress, AFC = affective communication, PSC = problem solving, AGG = aggression, TTO = time together, FIN = financial disagreement, SEX = sexual dissatisfaction, ROR = role orientation, FAM = family history of distress, DCS = dissatisfaction with children, and CCR = conflict over child rearing.
*p < .05.
Was the Program Equally Effective for Male and Female Participants?
Results indicate that the changes in marital satisfaction scores over time did not differ significantly for males and females. However, there were significant gender effects on specific MSI-R subscales. Gender had a significant influence on participants’ ratings on the Global Distress scale; males were more satisfied than females, F(1, 56) = 10.544, p< .05. Participants’ ratings on the Affective Communication scale also differed significantly by gender, with males indicating greater satisfaction than females, F(1, 70) = 10.259, p< .05. However, on the Sexual Dissatisfaction scale, females indicated greater satisfaction than males, F(1, 68) = 7.509, p< .05. Gender had a significant influence on participants’ ratings on the Role Orientation scale; males had more traditional views than females, F(1, 65) = 10.221, p< .05. See Table 2 for the MSI-R scores of males and females at the beginning of the BHM program with the scores 1 year later.
Was the Program Equally Effective for Hispanic, White, and Mixed Ethnicity Couples?
Analyses indicate that ethnicity did not account for a significant portion of the variability in test scores. The differences in test scores over time did not differ significantly for Hispanic, White, and mixed couples, indicating that the program was equally effective for all three groups. However, ethnicity did have a significant influence on participants’ ratings on the Role Orientation scale, F(2, 65) = 5.816, p< .05. Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicate that the mixed couples (M= 8.83, SD= 0.52) had less traditional views toward marital and parental gender roles than the White couples (M= 6.79, SD= 0.35) and the Hispanic couples (M= 6.77, SD= 0.54). There were no statistically significant differences in Role Orientation scores between the White couples and Hispanic couples.
Discussion
The MSI-R pretest results indicate that couples perceived the greatest number of conflicts in the area of family of origin, with 44.1% perceiving problems in this area. Also, 41.1% of participants perceived conflicts in the area of problem solving. Other areas of concern for participants were global relationship distress (36.6%), finances (32.8%), and time spent together (30.6%). The MSI-R pretest scores indicate that many couples experienced conflicts in their relationships. In their meta-analysis of MRE programs, Blanchard et al. (2009) found modest evidence that these programs have positive effects on couples’ communication skills for both well-functioning and distressed couples. However, most studies have either not had a large portion of participants who were dissatisfied with their relationships or have not reported the percentage of participants who were distressed. To better understand how MRE programs specifically help couples in relationship distress, it will be important for researchers to conduct more studies with this population.
Results of the pretest and posttest analyses indicate that the most significant improvements in satisfaction were in the areas of Problem Solving and Time Together. Couples who participated in the BHM classes reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Problem Solving Communication after completing the BHM program than prior to entering the program. In addition, couples who participated in the program were more satisfied with the time they spent with their partners after completion than before they entered the program.
There was also a positive change between the pretest and posttest scores on the Affective Communication scale. The results suggest that couples experienced increased satisfaction with the amount of affection and understanding expressed by their partners. Reardon-Anderson, Stagner, Macomber, and Murray (2005) reviewed 13 studies investigating communication following MRE programs. They found a significant positive effect of programs on communication skills. Hawkins et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of marriage and education programs, examining 117 independent studies. They found that these programs significantly improved communication skills but noted that most studies only examined improvements 3 to 6 months after the programs, so research about long-term results is lacking. However, the present study assessed satisfaction 12 months after the pretest was given, providing support for more long-term results. The current literature is in line with our findings that the BHM program substantially improved communication skills for participants.
In addition, improvements in satisfaction were found in the areas of Financial Disagreement, Global Distress, and Aggression. These findings suggest that couples experienced less discord in their relationships concerning finances, less negative expectancies regarding the relationship’s future, and less intimidation and physical aggression by their partners than prior to entering the BHM program.
There were no significant changes over time for Role Orientation, Family History of Distress, dissatisfaction with children, and conflict over child rearing, indicating that the BHM program did not impact those areas. However, it is important to note that a small percentage of participants perceived high levels of stress in the areas of Dissatisfaction with Children and Conflict over Child Rearing prior to beginning the program, making it difficult to produce significant improvements in these areas because participants were generally already satisfied. Also, the program’s focus was not on discussing family history or gender roles, so it is not surprising that these areas were not impacted.
It is important to note that this program was effective for a low-income population. While efforts to study minority and low-income groups are increasing, most previous research has examined the effectiveness of MRE programs among White, middle-class couples (Hawkins, Stanley, Blanchard, & Albright, 2011). Hawkins and Fackrell (2010) examined results from MRE programs for low-income couples and found support for program effectiveness, supporting the results of this study. This study adds further support to the sparse literature on MRE program effectiveness among low-income and Hispanic populations.
In addition, the results suggest that the program was equally effective for male and female participants. This is consistent with the meta-analysis conducted by Hawkins et al. (2008), which found no gender differences in the effectiveness of MRE programs.
Results indicate that males and females expressed significant differences in ratings for four scales: Global Distress, Affective Communication, Sexual Dissatisfaction, and Role Orientation. Data indicate that females were less satisfied with their overall marriages and the affection and understanding expressed by their partners than males. Research supports these findings and has found that men tend to have more overall marital satisfaction (Fowers, 1991; Whisman, Uebelacker, & Weinstock, 2004) and more satisfaction with issues concerning children and parenting (Fowers, 1991). Research has also shown preliminary support that women whose husbands have better emotional communication skills have greater marital satisfaction (Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005). However, women’s emotional communication skills do not affect their husbands’ marital satisfaction. This research suggests that women are more concerned with affective communication, which may be why they were less satisfied with the affection and understanding their partners expressed. In addition, females showed greater satisfaction than males on the Sexual Dissatisfaction scale. These findings are partially consistent with other research using the MSI-R (Snyder, 1997). Snyder looked at gender differences on the MSI-R subscales using a sample of 1,020 couples and found that “men are more likely than women to have complaints regarding the frequency of sexual relations” (p. 50). In addition, he found that “women are more likely than men to express dissatisfaction with the quality of relationship affect than nonsexual intimacy, and to have complaints regarding inadequate support from their partners in the responsibilities of child rearing” (p. 51). However, more current research suggests that women may actually be more dissatisfied with the sexual relationship than men, especially in midlife (Carpenter, Nathanson, & Kim, 2009). Differences were also found on the Role Orientation scale; males had more traditional views than females. Significant differences between the attitudes of the partners can negatively impact marital satisfaction. A stronger emphasis on identifying and evaluating expectations regarding roles would be helpful.
The data indicate that Hispanic, White, and mixed couples increased in marital satisfaction. These findings are congruent with findings evaluating other relationship communication workshops that have been effective in benefiting Hispanic couples (e.g., Kotrla, Dyer, & Stelzer, 2010; Moitinho, 2000, as cited in Hawkins et al., 2008). Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, and Wong’s (2009) study also provides support for these findings. Cowan et al. examined how different types of MRE programs affected fathers’ engagement with children and relationship quality among low-income Mexican American and White couples (a sample very similar to the sample in this study). They found equal gains in relationship quality and engagement with children when comparing Mexican Ameri-cans and Whites.
Limitations and Future Directions
Due to the small sample size, caution should be exercised in interpreting the results. To obtain larger samples for future studies, we recommend further efforts to contact and interview participants who are not satisfied with programs or who drop out before the education programs end. Also, we only collected data 1 year after the completion of the pretest. Future studies could use longitudinal designs to examine more long-term effects by giving multiple posttests at various time points after program completion. Finally, there was no control group for comparison in this study. Future studies could use a nontreatment group for comparison in order to provide more support for the effectiveness of MRE programs.
Hawkins et al. (2008) found no differences in the effectiveness of MRE programs for different ethnicities. However, they caution that because there was minimal racial diversity in previous MRE studies, fair tests of differences could not be conducted. More research using diverse samples would be useful in order to gain a better understanding of how differences in ethnicity and socioeconomic status may affect the success of MRE programs.
As shown by the MSI-R pretest scores, many couples experienced problems in various areas in their relationships. This clearly indicates the necessity for a program like this one in the community. According to Hawkins et al. (2011), it will be especially important for developers to use creativity by experimenting with new interventions when planning future MRE programs. Most MRE programs are similar to each other, teaching communication skills in classroom settings (Hawkins et al., 2011). While these programs have been effective, it is important to develop new MRE curricula and formats to discover what will be most effective for couples.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded in part by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FEO134.