Marriage and relationship education developed originally from the work of religious marriage celebrants such as priests and ministers who offered brief counsel to marrying couples (Hunt, Hof & Demaria, 1998). Religious organizations, and in particular the Catholic Church, began to offer structured group programs for marrying couples in the early 1950s. By the mid-1950s in the United States (Hunt et al. 1998) and in Australia (Harris et al. 1992) secular organizations also began to offer programs. Originally these programs focused largely on didactic input, but over time there was a transition toward more interactive learning processes (Harris et al. 1992).
In the 1970s there was increasing professionalization of the field of relationship education. In 1973 a seminar on pre-marriage education was held as part of the 40th International Eucharist Congress which led to the formation of an organization called the National Society of Pre-Marriage Education Organizations, which was the forerunner of the Catholic Society for Marriage Education. In 1979 the Australian Association for Marriage Education was formed, an equivalent organization for educators who were not necessarily Catholic. These organizations have actively promoted the value of marriage education, and provide continuing education opportunities through their conferences, workshops and newsletters.
Current approaches to marriage and relationship education reflect the history of the field, and are somewhat limited in the options they offer couples. The majority of programs are focused on couples planning marriage, involve face-to-face sessions with an educator, and occur at fixed times and places. Many of the couples who attend relationship education are required to attend by the religious celebrant performing their marriage. Most couples not required to attend choose not to do so. This chapter is an attempt to grapple with the limitations of current approaches and to suggest new directions for research and development of the field.
Limitations of current approaches
Accessibility to couples
Several studies in Australia (e.g., Halford, Wilson, & Lizzio, 1999; Keys Young, 1997; Simons, Harris & Willis, 1994) and overseas (e.g., Sullivan & Bradbury, 1997) have identified that relationship education is not attended by the majority of couples in committed relationships. For example, in Australia, about one third of all marrying couples attend some form of pre-marriage relationship education (Halford et al. 1999; Harris et al. 1992). Low rates of accessing of relationship education tend to occur by couples who are young, less well educated, from non- English speaking backgrounds, and who live in rural and remote areas (Halford et al. 1999; Simons et al. 1994). Couples who are married in churches are more likely to be referred to, and to attend, relationship education, whilst those who are not married or who are married by a civil celebrant are less likely to attend relationship education (Keys Young, 1997; Simons et al. 1994).
The barriers to couples attending relationship education are many and varied. In surveys couples often report they do not perceive a personal need for relationship education, seeing relationship education as being for couples with problems, and some couples even express concern that relationship education might raise problems in their relationships where none currently exist (Keys Young, 1997; Simons et al. 1994). A view that relationships are private, and that relationship education groups are too intrusive is often reported by those who do not attend relationship education (Simons et al. 1994).
Marriage celebrants also vary widely in their views of relationship education. Many civil celebrants report skepticism about the value of marriage and relationship education, and believe couples would respond negatively to suggestions that they attend such education (Simons et al. 1994). Some celebrants working in registry offices report similar views (Telephone conference 6). Low rates of referral from non-religious celebrants are widely reported by providers of marriage and relationship education (Telephone conferences1, 2, 4, and 8).
Is marketing the answer?
In consultations with the field (Telephone conferences 1, 2, 8) there were repeated requests to encourage larger expenditure on marketing of relationship education. In particular, relationship educators emphasized the perceived need to normalize attendance at marriage and relationship education programs. Many relationship educators expressed the view that the federal government should expend significant sums on a mass media marketing campaign.
Support was expressed for the Relate campaign, a multi-faceted media campaign funded and run by the Family Relationships Branch of the Department of Family and Community Services in February and March 1999 (Francas & Zappelli, 1999). Relate involved a series of 5 print media advertisements, established a telephone hotline, provided an information booklet, established a web site, and information kits were sent to key stakeholders. Relationship educators reported that they believed the campaign was too brief, and needed to include television advertising to a greater extent. The evaluation of the Relate campaign showed it had little impact upon the general public; there was very little awareness or recognition of the program or its key messages by the general public (Francas & Zappelli, 1999). Civil celebrants and Centrelink social workers were two key stakeholders who were targeted in the campaign, and these groups did show significant recall of the program and its contents. However, there was little reported use of the hotline, web site or handing out of provided kits to couples. The evaluation consultants concluded that the program needed much longer exposure and greater use of television advertising to be effective. Such a campaign is likely to be very expensive. At this point there is no evidence that such a campaign would produce large increases in attendance at marriage or relationship education programs.
[ top ]
Targeting marriage and relationship education
The targeting of relationship education can be undertaken in a variety of ways. Three possibilities often described in the prevention research area are referred to as universal, selective, and indicated programs. Universal refers to any program that targets all members of the population in an effort to promote positive functioning or reduce the overall prevalence of a problem within a defined community (Muñoz, Mrazek & Hogarth, 1996). In the context of relationship education, this consists of any attempt to target all people entering or in committed relationships, and to promote relationship satisfaction across the whole population. Selective prevention refers to attempts to specifically target individuals who are defined as being at high risk for problems, and to reduce the prevalence of problems in that high risk group. Selective programs target people who do not differ from the rest of the population in their current relationship functioning, but who are at high risk for future difficulties. For example, relationship education might be targeted particularly towards couples who had experienced parental divorce or violence in the family of origin, or couples who were marrying at a young age. Indicated prevention refers to early intervention that targets individuals with emerging relationship problems that have not yet developed into severe relationship distress. The goal in indicated prevention is to reduce both the chance of severe relationship problems developing now, and the chance of future relationship problems. For example, education might be targeted at couples who were engaging in relationship aggression, but who were not severely distressed, to try to prevent the development of severe problems.
Marriage and relationship education programs offered in Australia all are offered universally. That is, there is little evidence of assessment of couple needs, or selective or indicated targeting of couples. The universal targeting of relationship education has its positive aspects. Most educators presume that all couples may benefit from relationship education. However, as noted previously, the available evidence is that high risk couples and couples with mild relationship distress seem to benefit most from relationship education. Given that high risk couples probably are under-represented in couples presenting to marriage and relationship education, offering relationship education in a way that maximizes participation by high risk and mildly distressed couples is needed.
Format of relationship education
Almost all reported marriage and relationship education programs in Australia are delivered in a face-to-face format, either in groups or individual couples meeting with a relationship educator. Whilst this is an entirely legitimate format, it should not be the only format available to couples. Many people prefer the convenience and privacy afforded by self-directed learning resources. The development of videotape, audiotape, Compact Disc, Digital Video Disc, World Wide Web site, written and telephone based relationship education programs is needed, as well as evaluation of such options. Given the established effectiveness of skills based programs in promoting satisfying relationships, at least some of these alternative media programs should be focused on skills training as their approach.
Almost all marriage and relationship education occurs as a single course. Some education courses consist of a single session of an hour or two. Programs that attempt to teach relationship skills most often consist of five or six sessions of 1 to 2 hours duration per session, though such program also can be offered in block (e.g., a weekend workshop of 10 to 15 hours duration). The vast majority of relationship education is offered at the transition into the relationship. Whilst skills based programs of this format have positive effects for some four or five years into the relationship, the effects are known to attenuate over a 5 to 10 year period (Stanley & Markman, 1996). It seems unlikely that any single program by itself could alter life-long relationship satisfaction. An appropriate analogy would be tetanus injections: they protect against problems for quite a long time, but booster intervention is required eventually. Similarly, the transitions couples face years later, such as becoming parents, or supporting each other through severe illness in old age, might need to be addressed at the times of those transition. Offering a range of relationship education programs across the life span, and encouraging couples to perceive relationship education as part of life-long learning, seems desirable. Relationship education is like professional education: new knowledge and skills need to be developed over time as new challenges and opportunities develop.
One such example of relationship educators developing innovative means of engaging couples over sustained periods of time is the couples newsletters developed by Andrews and Andrews (1998). These educators mail out regular newsletters to couples who complete marriage preparation programs with them, and include a follow-up session six months after marriage in their programs. The newsletters include information and tips for couples to promote continuing attention to relationship development, and the follow-up session reviews couple progress and helps couples resolve any newly developed issues.
[ top ]
Innovations needed in marriage and relationship education
In order to explicate a way of developing innovations in marriage and relationship education to enhance its effectiveness, a series of general principles are set out below. These principles are based on the available empirical research, plus some assumptions made in the marriage and relationship education area. In the chapter that follows I make recommendations about specific projects that should be prioritized within these general principles.
Using empirically supported approaches
Relationship education content and process should reflect empirically supported approaches as far as possible. The current practice of marriage and relationship education in Australia is not sufficiently influenced by the available research evidence. In particular, the under-utilization of skills training approaches to marriage and relationship education is regrettable. Such skills training approaches have the strongest empirical evidence for their effectiveness, and yet these approaches are the least widely used within the field.
In order to promote the adoption of empirically supported approaches to relationship education, there is a need to develop better resource materials for educators, and to provide better training. More specifically, the Commonwealth Government could play a major role in funding the development of audio visual and printed materials to assist educators to implement empirically supported skills training approaches to relationship education. For example, in the delivery of the Positive Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) significant emphasis is placed on communication skills and conflict management training. Videotaped materials which demonstrate the skills taught to couples within this program would be helpful to many educators, as would printed handouts which provide structured exercises couples could go through to acquire these skills. Providing training opportunities for relationship educators in skills training approaches would further enhance the effectiveness of these sorts of resource materials.
The Department of Family and Community Services can play an important role in the dissemination of information on empirically supported approaches to relationship education. The funding of newsletters and journals, and the subsidizing of costs of professional development conferences could enhance access of relationship educators to training in empirically supported approaches. For example, the Department might want to liaise with existing organizations that run national training conferences to encourage, and financially support, the provision of keynote speakers and workshop leaders. People active in the development and dissemination of empirically supported approaches to relationship education could be targeted for presentations.
Research to develop and evaluate new approaches to relationship education should be encouraged. Funding should promote active collaboration between researchers and service providers. The current state of knowledge has substantial gaps in it, and the Department of Family and Community Services could set aside money to fund large scale research and evaluation of relationship education programs. Priority in the development of relationship education research should be determined on the basis of the scientific merit of the research to be undertaken, and its likely impact on the quality of marriage and relationship education service provision.
[ top ]
Universal accessibility
Relationship education should be universally accessible to couples currently in, or planning to enter, committed relationships. Universal access can be enhanced by more active outreach to couples currently less likely to access relationship education. Particular attention needs to be paid to promoting access of relationship education by couples at high risk of relationship problems by virtue of their family-of-origin experiences, particularly offspring of divorce and violent relationships. Couples in which at least one partner has a psychological disorder or substance abuse problem also need to be provided for in services, and active outreach to such couples should be encouraged.
Couples from ethnic minority groups, particularly indigenous Australians and people with English as a second language, should be encouraged to attend relationship education programs. There are some good examples of effective collaboration between a number of indigenous and ethnic communities with relationship education providers at the moment. However few of these collaborative programs have led to the development of skills based relationship education programs. The possibility of collaborative development of materials which would be culturally sensitive and appropriate, and which would promote active skills training approaches to relationship education, should be explored.
Universal access can be further promoted by offering relationship education in a more varied range of formats, settings, and means of delivery so that couples can choose formats that suit their culture, lifestyles and individual circumstances. Particular attention needs to be paid to the development of relationship education programs that provide self-directed learning opportunities through written, videotape, audiotape, Internet, and telephone based services. Face-to-face programs need to be offered in a wide range of physical settings (e.g. community centres, work places, childcare centres and health services) to enhance the point of entry to services. Face-to-face programs also need to be offered in a variety of formats to enhance participant choice (e.g. multiple sessions over a period of weeks, or a single day or multiple day weekend workshop). Also, couples need to be offered the choice of group versus individual couple sessions, as there seem to be considerable differences in the preferences of many couples for these formats. While some relationship education agencies have developed a wide range of services available to couples, many other agencies offer very restricted choices, and this limits the accessibility to programs for couples.
[ top ]
Funding
Universal access also can be promoted by limiting the costs of relationship education to couples. The costs of relationship education should continue to be subsidized by the Federal Government as part of its family policy. The current focus of most of this funding is on couples who are getting married. (For example, the Department of Family and Community Services is examining a pilot voucher scheme, in which couples getting married are offered a voucher they can exchange toward the cost of pre-marriage education.) An predominant focus on couples at the time of getting married may be inadvisable in the long run. There are a diversity of life transition points at which couples might choose to seek access to relationship education, and restricting them to just the point of marriage may decrease the chance of couples accessing education programs. Broadening the relationship education programs that are subsidized so that couples can access relationship education at the times that suit them may enhance universal accessibility.
Existing relationship education providers should be assisted to develop strategic partnerships with potential sponsors of relationship education. Such funding could provide significant non-government subsidies to reduce the cost of relationship education to couples. For example, employers might offer relationship education as part of their employee assistance programs. This could be done in partnership with relationship education service providers. Health service providers might fund couples-based support programs for assisting patients with severe illness. Financial planners and advisers who target couples for retirement and other financial planning matters may be interested in co-sponsorship of relationship education programs that address relationship issues around retirement. There are a few examples around the country of such strategic partnerships, but they are relatively rare. The Department of Family and Community Services might play a crucial role in promoting such active collaboration.
[ top ]
Relevant content
Relationship education programs need to assess more systematically the learning needs of couples, and to individualize program content to meet specific needs. In particular, greater attention needs to be paid to assessing for psychological disorder or substance abuse in partners presenting for relationship education, and the detection of aggression in couples. The current practice of marriage and relationship education seems largely not to do such assessments, and the specific needs of couples may be overlooked.
Relationship education also needs to assist couples with major normative life transitions that are known to impact upon couple relationships. In particular, programs need to be developed that better address the transition to parenthood, physical relocation of the couple, unemployment, retirement, care giving to an ill spouse, care giving of offspring with special needs, and change of work. The possibility of the development of key resource materials to assist relationship educators in providing effective programs for each of these life transitions should to be encouraged.
There is a strong reciprocal influence between relationship satisfaction and effective parenting (Sanders et al. 1997). Greater attention to relationship education to enhance the couple relationship for parents can improve the effectiveness of parenting programs. Conversely, attention to providing empirically supported approaches to enhancing effective parenting in couples can enhance couples' relationship satisfaction (Sanders, 1995).
Couples forming stepfamilies have been the focus of a number of relationship education programs around the country. There has been a general report that recruiting couples into these programs has often proved problematic. The development of self-directed learning materials for couples who often have significant numbers of dependant children, and limited financial resources, should be a priority. Programs that can be done in couples' homes, and in their own time, might well enhance the responsiveness of education content and process to the special needs of step-families. Step-family programs that are developed need to address issues known to be particularly important in reconstituted families, in particular the step-parent/child relationship and co-parenting with ex-partners.
Evaluation
Relationship education programs should routinely be evaluated, and evaluation should guide further program development. The provision of relationship education programs that are funded by the Department of Family and Community Services currently is contingent on assessment of the satisfaction of couples with the relationship education programs delivered. In addition, it would be helpful to assess the acquisition of key relationship skills across the course of the program, and to evaluate the global relationship satisfaction of couples before and after programs. Self-report measures of acquisition of relationship skills could be developed that are brief, and there is some evidence that such measures can be reliable and valid.
Continuity of contact with couples
Continuity of contact between relationship education providers and couples is likely to be important in the long-term promotion of satisfying couple relationships. The most effective referral systems to relationship education are those that involve referrals from people who have continuous contact with the couples. More specifically, religious celebrants who have ongoing contact with couples are particularly likely to refer couples to relationship education, and often these ministers, priests, and other religious celebrants have ongoing contact with the couples. This ongoing contact has a number of advantages. Couples can be referred for other forms of relationship education when major life transitions present, such as the transition into parenthood. In addition, should relationship problems emerge couples can be referred early for relationship counseling. There is very strong evidence that the earlier couples present in the development of relationship problems the more likely that relationship counseling and therapy will be successful (Halford, in press).
Relationship education providers could enhance their continuity of contact with couples in a number of ways. First, provision of relationship education for secondary school students would enable initial contact with most young people. Relationship education programs for young people have been shown to enhance the quality of dating relationships, and to reduce the frequency of undesired dating behaviours such as relationship aggression (K. D. O'Leary, personal communication, April, 1999). Moreover, it is believed that skills learned at this time enhances the chance of entering later committed relationships with good skills in communication and conflict management. The provision of relationship education programs for people as they enter cohabiting relationships, and this being complemented by follow-up contact with couples, might ensure greater continuity of contact with couples. If a wide variety of relationship education services are available, comprising self-directed learning, telephone-based services, and face-to-face programs, this might enhance the chance of couples remaining in contact with the relationship education service provider. Currently most secular relationship education providers have short-term contact with couples, and this represents a significant disadvantage in their ability to engage couples in other services.
Research
There is a paucity of quality research on the effectiveness of relationship education. In particular, there is little research that has evaluated the effects of relationship education for couples going through major transitions other than the entry to relationships. Given that these other transitions are associated with increased risk for relationship problems, such research is needed. Research on the effects of flexible delivery of relationship education also is needed. In addition, research on the effects of relationship education in enhancing the relationships of couples across diverse cultures is needed. A strong research program in relationship education can benefit the field greatly.