INCREASING MARITAL INTIMACY:LESSONS FROM MARITAL ENRICHMENT*

William Adrian Hickmon, Jr.Howard O. ProtinskyKusum Singh

ABSTRACT: Both marriage and family therapists and family life edu-cators work to increase marital intimacy. In this study the effective-ness of two marriage enrichment programs was assessed with impli-cations for practicing therapists. Participants were randomly assignedto an Adventure or ACME (Association for Couples in Marriage En-richment) treatment group or to a control group. Marital intimacywas assessed before and after treatment. Findings demonstrated thatboth enrichment groups had a statistically significant increase inmarital enrichment. Suggestions for adopting adventure-based inter-ventions for traditional therapy are discussed.

KEY WORDS: marital enrichment; adventure-based therapy; marital intimacy.

The Marriage Enrichment Movement is believed to have suc-cessfully contributed to the growth and strengthening of millions ofcouples. Marital enrichment "implies change, growth, enhancement,and development of already present ingredients in a relationship; andthe assumed direction of their change and growth is from the non-

William Adrian Hickmon, Jr., PhD, is assistant professor of marriage and familytherapy at Harding University, a licensed professional counselor, and co-owner andfacilitator of Capstone Adventures, Inc., Harding University, Box 2262, Searcy, Ar-kansas, 72149. Howard O. Protinsky, PhD, is professor and director of the marriageand family therapy program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg, Virginia, 24061. Kusum Singh, PhD, is associate professor of educationresearch at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia,24061. Reprint requests should be sent to the first author.

*Special thanks are expressed to Michael A. Gass and H. L. Lee Gillis.

Contemporary Family Therapy, 19(4), December 1997 1997 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 581

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

intimate to the intimate" (Schaefer & Olson, 1981, p. 47). The pre-dominant vehicle of change in marriage enrichment is the directtransfer of learning at a conscious cognitive level (Mason, 1980). Mostenrichment models work through an educational model, teachingskills of communication, conflict resolution, and decision making (Dis-kin, 1986). Many of these same skills are also taught by therapists totheir clients.

Adventure experiences stand in contrast to traditional ap-proaches to marital enrichment by providing a holistic experiencethat involves mind, body, and emotions (Gillis & Gass, 1993). Adven-ture initiatives are based on challenges with risks. Rising above thechallenge by taking the risks intensifies the transfer of learning tothe real life context (Galagan, 1987).

The utilization of adventure experiences in marriage enrichmentis virtually at its beginning. Adventure-based marriage enrichmenthas had relatively little exploration and even less published research.The little research that has been published has suffered from fourcommon weaknesses (Crompton & Sellar, 1981): (1) simple researchdesigns with poor control or randomization, and no long-term follow-up assessment; (2) small, unrepresentative samples; (3) assessmentinstruments with untested reliability and validity; and (4) researcherbias due to an inadequate research protocol. These criticisms can alsobe applied to the existing research on marriage enrichment programs(Adams & Gingras, 1982).

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of anadventure-based marriage enrichment program and a traditionalmarriage enrichment program in enhancing intimacy in married cou-ples' relationships. In addition, implications of the research resultsfor clinicians are addressed.

METHOD

Participants

The study participants consisted of married couples from threeChurch of Christ congregations in Arkansas. The Church of Christ isa relatively conservative group that places a primary emphasis on thefamily. Thirty-seven couples composed the sample. The demographicprofile indicated that these participants were similar to the typicalmarriage enrichment participant (Giblin, Sprenkle, & Sheehan, 1985).Male participants had a mean age of 33 while females had a mean of

582

W. A. HICKMON, JR., H. O. PROTINSKY, AND K. SINGH

32 with the age range being 21-47. Both men and women averagedclose to 16 years of education. The participants ranged in years mar-ried from nine months to 26 years, with 10 years being the mean, andtwo children being the average. Couples' incomes ranged from lessthan $10,000 to more than $50,000 with a mean of $29,600. Twelvecouples had no prior experience in any marriage enrichment program,while 25 couples had been involved in at least one marriage enrich-ment program. None of the couples had been divorced.

InstrumentationThe Waring Intimacy Questionnaire is a 90-item, self-report,

true-false questionnaire. Its purpose is to measure the quality andquantity of intimacy in a marriage. Based upon pilot studies, Waringoperationalized eight components of intimacy:

Conflict resolution: ease with which differences are resolved;Affection: expression of emotional closeness; Cohesion: Com-mitment to the marriage; Sexuality: sexual needs are com-municated and fulfilled; Identity: the self-confidence andself-esteem of the couple; Compatibility: the ability to workand play together; Expressiveness: Sharing thoughts, beliefs,attitudes, and feelings; and Autonomy: independence fromfamily of origin (Fredman & Sherman, 1987, p. 127).

The WIQ can be utilized with couples in three different ways andadapted to therapeutic or enrichment settings. First, the qualitativeprofile is the individual's level of intimacy in each of the eight areas ofintimacy and the social desirability subscale. Second, intimacy incom-patibility is the discrepancy between the two spouse's perception ofintimacy in the marriage. Third, total intimacy is a quantitative scoreon the 30 items with an Item Efficiency Index of greater than ,5, mi-nus the score on the social desirability subscale (Waring, 1984).Waring, Patton, Neron, and Linker (1986) have operationally definedfour types of intimate relationships based on the above calculations.These include: optimal intimacy, pseudo-intimacy, average intimacy,and deficient intimacy.

The WIQ test-retest reliability for the Total Intimacy score is .89for males, and .86 for females. Internal consistency scores for the To-tal Intimacy score is .78 for males, and .81 for females (Fredman &Sherman, 1987).

In addition to the Waring, two other measurements were admin-

583

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

istered that can be useful both for the clinician and the researcher.The researchers devised a Participants' Self-Rating of Intimacy Scale.This consisted of asking the participants to rate their perception ofthe present level of intimacy in their marriages on a scale of 1 to 10,with the highest score representing ideal intimacy. A second scale, theIntimacy Change Rating Scale, was also devised by the researchers inwhich the participants were asked to rate their perception of thechange in their marital intimacy as a result of the program they expe-rienced. This was a five-point scale, with the lowest score indicating adecrease in intimacy and the highest score indicating a considerableincrease in intimacy.

Treatment

One-third of the sample was randomly assigned to the Adventureenrichment group, one-third to the ACME (Association for Couples inMarriage Enrichment) group, and one-third to a non-treatment con-trol group. Participants from all three groups completed the instru-ments during the first hour of the treatment and the last hour of thetreatment.

The Adventure and ACME enrichment groups retreated for atwo-day weekend at a 1400-acre camp in the Ozark Mountains. Thetwo groups ate meals separately and used different parts of the campfacility so that there was no interaction between the groups and thus,no knowledge of what each group was doing. The two treatmentgroups were also residing in different cabins as well as different cabinareas. The programs were conducted entirely separately from one an-other.

The ACME enrichment group can be described as didactic/experi-ential because it consists of educational lessons, followed by role-play-ing and skill practicing. "All learning is experiential . . . . but somelearning is more experiential than others" (Quinsland & Van Ginkel,1984, p. 9). On a continuum, ACME is located toward the less experi-ential. One of the primary objectives of the ACME program is to in-crease the couples' level of mutual intimacy. The approach to buildingcouple intimacy by the ACME program is based on three types oflearning which include: "cognitive or intellectual; affectivebeliefs,insights, feelings, attitudes; and behavioral/relational or experien-tiallearning by doing" (Michael & Michael, 1992, p. 5). All of theselearning media are included in the first two types of transfer of learn-

584

W. A. HICKMON, JR., H. O. PROTINSKY, AND K. SINGH

ing as suggested by Gass (1991), direct transfer of skills, and transferof attitudes and principles.

The ACME group followed the two-day retreat schedule (Michael& Michael, 1992). The ACME format is a dialogue format between theleader couple and the group, and the spouses in each couple. Theleader couple models communication skills, presents educational ma-terial, and leads group discussions to process the experience. TheACME format works through five stages: (1) security and communitybuilding; (2) awareness development; (3) knowledge and skill develop-ment; (4) plan for growth; and (5) celebration and closure (Michael &Michael, 1992). Each couple was provided with a retreat workbookthat included written exercises, inventories, evaluations, and activityinstructions (Messick, 1992).

In the Adventure group, Waring's (1984) eight components ofmarital intimacy: affection, cohesion, expressiveness, compatibility,sexuality, conflict resolution, autonomy, and identity, served as thefocus for the design of the research initiatives. An adventure initia-tive for each of the areas was either adopted from the adventure liter-ature or created by the primary researcher. These initiatives weredesigned to be isomorphic experiences that were metaphorically con-nected to each real life area of intimacy.

A complete description of each of each of the eight initiatives maybe received from the first author. Briefly, the adventure initiative se-lected for the intimacy component, affection, was the Trust Fall/Spot-ting Sequence; for cohesion was the Treasure Hunt; for expressive-ness was The Wall; For compatibility was the construction of a tri-linerope bridge; for sexuality was the Blind Climb; for conflict resolutionwas the Obstacle Course; for autonomy was Dam Building; and foridentity was the Maze.

The adventure initiatives were presented so that participantscould develop isomorphic connections between the experiential meta-phor and the real life situation. Instructions that highlighted the iso-morphic links were given. For example, the Wall, which was isomor-phic for expressiveness, was introduced by a brief presentation focusingon couples' difficulties in expressing their thoughts, feelings, andideas with each other. The location of these difficulties was identifiedas being within and between the individuals. The actual physical ex-perience of climbing the wall was a metaphor for the psychologicalexperience of expression.

The adventure initiatives were conducted and then followed bythe debriefing phase. There was a group processing activity following

585

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

each initiative to reinforce the isomorphic links and focus on the goalsof the activity. The Adventure group was facilitated by the first au-thor.

The ACME program was facilitated by a couple in their mid-30s.The husband was in his final week of a masters' degree program inBible and Religion, training to be a family life minister. The ACMEstaff allowed this couple to facilitate their program with the typicalACME training due to his training and experiences as a family lifeminister.

RESULTS

Analysis of covariance was used to test for differences between allthree groups in post-test means on the Waring Intimacy Question-naire using the pre-test as the covariate. A significant improvementin the WIQ Total Intimacy scale was found after the treatment for theACME and Adventure groups. The ACME group (M = 26.94), and theAdventure group (M = 26.32) reported a significantly greater in-crease in total intimacy scores than did the control group (M =24.75). The increases in the treatment groups' total intimacy meanswere statistically significant, F (2,70) = 3.96, p < .05. The Neuman/Keul's Range Test indicated that both the ACME and Adventuregroups showed statistically significant increases in total intimacyscores.

After the treatment, a statistically significant improvement wasfound for ACME and Adventure groups in the Self-Rating of IntimacyScale. The treatment groups, ACME (M = 8.31) and Adventure (M =8.17), reported significantly greater differences in Participants' Self-Rating of Intimacy post-test scores compared to the control group (M= 7.31), F (2,70) = 12.03, p < .001. The Neuman/Keul's Range Testindicated that both the ACME and Adventure groups showed statis-tically significant differences in Self-Rating of Intimacy post-testscores.

The treatment groups also showed a significantly higher rating oftheir intimacy improvement after the treatment than did the controlgroup on the Intimacy Change Rating Scale. Analysis of variance wasused to test the differences in participants' post-treatment rating ofchange intimacy. The treatment groups, ACME (M = 4.25) and Ad-venture (M = 4.35), reported a significantly greater intimacy changerating compared to the Control Group (M = 3.08), F (2,70) = 12.03, p

586

W. A. HICKMON, JR., H. O. PROTINSKY, AND K. SINGH

< .001. The Neuman/Keul's Ranger Test indicated that both theACME and Adventure groups showed statistically significant higherintimacy change scores.

Effect sizes, calculated on the WIQ Total Intimacy Scores, showedrelatively strong magnitude of the treatment effects: Acme, .71 andAdventure, .45. The effect size refers to the effectiveness, or magni-tude of the treatment. It is a standardized measure of the treatmenteffect when contrasted with the control group. Effect size is especiallyvaluable in intervention research due to the small sample sizes in-volved and can reveal information useful to the clinician. According toCohen's proposed conventions of effect size levels, .20 is a small effect,.50 is a moderate effect, and .80 is a large effect (Howell, 1987).

DISCUSSION

Program Effectiveness

The focus of this study was to determine if an adventure-basedmarriage enrichment program and an ACME program were effectivein increasing intimacy in married couples. Participants' responses onthe Waring Intimacy Questionnaire, the Self-Rating of IntimacyScale, and the Intimacy Change Scale produced strong evidence infavor of the effectiveness of both programs. Also, solid evidence of theACME and Adventure programs was manifested by the effect sizecalculations. According to Cohen's conventions (Howell, 1987), the ef-fect size for the ACME program was relatively strong and relativelymoderate for the Adventure program.

Implications for Enrichment

The implications of the present study's results for the adventureprogramming in marriage enrichment and the ACME program weresubstantial. The Adventure program showed strong promise as a me-dium for marriage enrichment. The strength of the research design ofthe present study adds to the potency of the findings. The criticismsof many enrichment studies include a small size, no control groupand/or no alternate treatment group, no random assignment, invalidmeasurement treatments, and utilizing only simple statistical pro-cedures. The current study fulfills these criteria for solid enrichmentresearch design.

Hof, Epstein, and Miller (1980) identified the ideal marriage en-

587

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

richment approach as being built on a sound theoretical foundationthat is clearly linked to marriage enrichment. They asserted that thisapproach should be founded on the philosophy that people have thecreative resources and strengths necessary to reach a high level ofrelationship potential. The challenge of enrichment is creating appro-priate theory-based experiences in which a wide diversity of peoplecan tap into their resources. The results of the present study providestrong indications that adventure programming is a productive me-dium in rising to this challenge in addition to the more traditionalACME approach.

Clinical Implications

The findings of this study can be used beyond the arena of mar-riage enrichment. Most marriage and family therapists probably havefound the interventions used in the ACME program (communicationtraining, conflict resolution, etc.) to be useful in their practices. How-ever, it is interesting to discover that the more action oriented initia-tives of the adventure-based program are also effective in promotingmarital intimacy. Knowing their effectiveness, it may be possible forthe marriage and family therapist to adopt these initiatives for use ina standard marital therapy session rather than restricting their useto a marital enrichment group setting.

A more detailed explanation of an additional adventure initiativemight be useful in attempting to bridge the gap between marital en-richment and marital therapy. The Blind Climb initiative was used asa metaphor for the intimacy component of sexuality in this study.Waring (1984) defined sexual intimacy as the degree to which sexualneeds and desires are communicated and mutually fulfilled. The chal-lenge in developing intimacy is in risking sexual expression and ex-ploration within the marriage at an individual and relational level. Inthe Blind Climb (emphasis on "climb" to reinforce the isomorphism ofthe initiative), the husband is blindfolded for the climb up the moun-tain and the wife for the climb down. The spouse who can see isnamed the scout, and the blind spouse is called the adventurer. Thevulnerability of being blind demands that the adventurer communi-cate his or her needs to the scout. The scout's responsibility and plea-sure is to fulfill the needs of the adventurer. The scout's role is toenhance the exploration by helping the adventurer experience theclimb through his or her four remaining senses. The joy of exploringis highlighted instead of the arrival at a destiny. The debriefing fo-

588

W. A. HICKMON, JR., H. 0. PROTINSKY, AND K. SINGH

cuses on the couple's experiences on the climb that are isomorphicwith the real life challenge of developing sexual intimacy.

It is important for the marital therapist to understand that theunderlying purpose of all the adventure initiatives is to help the cli-ent develop isomorphic connections between the experiential meta-phor of the initiative and the intimacy issue being addressed. Thera-pists can then develop their own adventure initiatives for the coupleor use those developed in this model.

REFERENCES

Adams, D., & Gingras, M. (1982). Short and long term effects of a marital enrichmentprogram upon couple functioning. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 8, 97118.

Crompton, J. L., & Sellar, C. (1981). Do outdoor education experiences contribute topositive development in the affective domain? The Journal of Environmental Edu-cation, 12, 21-29.

Diskin, S. (1986). Marriage enrichment: Rationale and resources. Journal of Psycho-therapy and the Family, 2, 111-125.

Fredman, N., & Sherman, R. (1987). Handbook of measurements for marriage and fam-ily therapy. New York: Bruner/Mazell.

Galagan, P. (1987). Between two trapezes. Training and Development Journal, 41, 40-50.

Giblin, P., Sprenkle, D. H., & Sheehan, R. (1985). Enrichment outcome research: Ameat-analysis of pre-marital, marital, and family interventions. Journal of Maritaland Family Therapy, 11, 257-271.

Gillis, H. L., & Gass, M. A. (1993). Bringing adventure into marriage and family ther-apy: An innovative experiential approach. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,19, 275-286.

Hof, L., Estonia, N., & Miller, W. R. (1980). Integrating attitudinal and behavioralchange in marital enrichment. Family Relations, 25, 117-126.

Howell, D. C. (1987). Statistical methods for psychology. Boston: PWS-Kent PublishingCompany.

Mace, D. (1981). The long, long trail from information-giving to behavioral change.Family Relations, 26, 599-606.

Mason, M. J. (1980). Relationship enrichment: Evaluating the effects of a couples' wil-derness program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Dissertation Ab-stracts International.

Messick, C. (1992). Marriage enrichment: Retreat workbook. Winston-Salem, NC: Asso-ciation for Couples in Marital Enrichment.

Michael, P. E., & Michael, R. (Eds.) (1992). Basic training workshop: Participants guideand resource manual. Winston-Salem, NC: Association for Couples in MarriageEnrichment.

Quinsland, L. K., & Van Ginkel, A. (1984). How to process experience. Journal of Expe-riential Education, 7, 8-13.

Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The pair inventory. Journalof Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 47-60.

Waring, E. M. (1984). The measure of marital intimacy. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 10, 185-192.

Waring, E. M., Patton, D., Neron, C. A., & Linker, W. (1986). Types of marital intimacyand prevalence of emotional illness. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 720-726.

589