Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

8/10/2019 Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

1/24

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Puerto Rico, Sistema de BibliotecasUPRRP]On: 09 November 2014, At: 05:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Marriage & Family ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20

Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

Couples and Individuals in Marriage

EducationMichael Lane Morris

a, Heather S. McMillan

b, Stephen F. Duncan

c&

Jeffry H. Larsonc

aDepartment of Management , The University of Tennessee ,

Knoxville, Tennessee, USAbDepartment of Management and Marketing , Southeast Missouri

State University , Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USAcSchool of Family Life , Brigham Young University , Provo, Utah, USA

Published online: 09 Mar 2011.

To cite this article:Michael Lane Morris , Heather S. McMillan , Stephen F. Duncan & Jeffry H. Larson(2011) Who Will Attend? Characteristics of Couples and Individuals in Marriage Education, Marriage &

Family Review, 47:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/01494929.2011.558463

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2011.558463

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the

Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2011.558463http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01494929.2011.558463http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20


2/24

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/24

Who Will Attend? Characteristicsof Couples and Individuals

in Marriage Education

MICHAEL LANE MORRISDepartment of Management, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

HEATHER S. MCMILLANDepartment of Management and Marketing, Southeast Missouri State University,

Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA

STEPHEN F. DUNCAN and JEFFRY H. LARSONSchool of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

There are two purposes of this marriage education marketingstudy: (1) to compare the self-reported intra- and interpersonalqualities of 121 married couples (n242 individuals) attendinga marriage education program with 46 married couples (n 92individuals) who were contacted through marketing promotionalmaterials to attend the program but did not participate and (2)to determine if intra- and=or interpersonal qualities would predictthe likelihood of marriage education attendance versus nonatten-dance. Results showed that compared with program nonpartici-

pants, program participants reported lower levels of self-esteem,marital communication quality, marital commitment, marital

satisfaction, family strengths, less consensus and intimacy, less

fulfillment of marriage expectations, and increased levels of

marital conflict. Levels of religiosity and fusion were the same forparticipants and nonparticipants. Wald logistic regression analysisindicated communication was the only significant predictor of marriage education participation. Implications for marriageeducation programming and practitioners are outlined.

Address correspondence to Michael Lane Morris, Department of Management, TheUniversity of Tennessee, College of Business Administration, 410 Stokely Management Center,

Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Marriage & Family Review, 47:122, 2011Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0149-4929 print=1540-9635 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01494929.2011.558463

1


4/24

KEYWORDS family life education, marketing, marriage education,training

INTRODUCTION

The marriage education (ME) movement has emerged in response to themany challenges facing marriage and families today (Hunt, Hof, & DeMaria,1998; Larson, 2004). Although a growing percentage of couples report inter-est in attending workshops designed to strengthen their marriage and family(Brotherson & Duncan, 2004; Johnson et al., 2002), the best reported rate isstill well below the majority of eligible couples. This is so despite researchshowing that marriage education significantly benefits participants (Hawkins,Blanchard, Balwin, & Fawcett, 2008). In fact, Giblin, Sprenkle, and Sheehan

(1985) reported that the average person who participates in ME is 67% betteroff than those who do not participate. Most ME programs available today areprimary prevention in focus, designed to assist reasonably well-functioningindividuals and couples at a modest level of risk for relational breakdownexperience greater individual and relational growth (Garland, 1983; Hof &Miller, 1981; Stanley, Markman, St. Peters, & Leber, 1995). Although techni-cally all couples are at risk, there is a growing interest in reaching those

who are at highest risk for marital disruption (e.g., DeMaria, 1993, 2005;Jacobson & Addis, 1993).

ME programs use a diverse array of theoretical foundations, program

content, group size, leadership facilitation styles, and program delivery sche-dules to teach couples intra- and interpersonal skills like increasing awarenessand self-disclosure techniques that foster insight and behavioral change(Halford, 2004; Halford, Markman, Kline, & Stanley, 2003; Stanley, Markman,& Whitton, 2002). Although most research in ME assesses outcomes, greaterattention is needed on better understanding the characteristics of the targetaudience (DeMaria, 2005; Duncan, Holman, & Yang, 2007). Marketingresearch emphasizes the understanding of target audiences as a prelude toor concomitant with program development in the effort to tailor programs

to meet audience needs (Duncan & Goddard, 2011; Katz, 1988).Twenty years ago Guerney and Maxson (1990) noted that marketingresearch in ME was almost nonexistent, calling on the field to identify waysME might be better marketed. Two decades later, marketing research in MEcontinues to face several challenges as numerous empirical questions remainunaddressed or have received limited attention (Duncan & Goddard, 2011;Hunt et al., 1998). Some recent analyses (Morris, Cooper, & Gross 1999;Roberts & Morris 1998) have explored numerous social marketing factors(e.g., attendance anxiety, purpose of ME, participant satisfaction) associated

with ME. These studies, however, focused on the broader dimensions of

the social marketing mix model (i.e., simultaneous examination of price,

2 M. L. Morris et al.


5/24

product, place, people, and promotion) rather than on specific elements ofthe marketing mix (i.e., in-depth examination of one factor like people).The current study extends earlier research by focusing only on the intra-and interpersonal characteristics of ME participants.

Arcus (1995) has challenged family life educators to answer importantquestions, such as what programs and learning conditions best serve pro-spective family life educator audiences. Marketing research in ME needs tohelp answer questions about the suitability of various programs for people

with varying degrees and types of relational challenges, intra- and interper-sonal conditions and traits, and social and demographic characteristics(Duncan & Goddard, 2011; Gilley, Eggland, & Gilley, 2002; Powell & Cassidy,2001). Such information would be useful for customizing curriculum to bettermeet the learning transfer needs of prospective ME participants (Halford,2004; Holton, 2000; Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2001).

Using a sample of individuals who made decisions about whether or notto attend a ME experience, this study sought answers to the following twoquestions: (1) how do the intra- and interpersonal traits of ME participants

versus nonparticipants compare? (2) How do specific intra- and interpersonaltraits predict ME attendance versus nonattendance?

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Decisions to attend ME are not simply made randomly. Duncan and Goddard

(2011) correctly noted that theoretically based approaches for developingsocial marketing messages and research for family life educators, morespecifically ME, are nonexistent; however, theories used in the field of healthand social behavior can provide an ample basis. Our research questions wereguided by Ajzens (1991) theory of planned behavior, which asserts thatintention is the strongest predictor of behavior. Behavioral intention is afunction of three major factors: ones attitude toward the behavior, subjectivenorms about the behavior, and perceived behavioral control. A personsattitudes toward a behavior reflect the individuals beliefs about the likely

positive and negative consequences for performing a behavior. Subjectivenorms involve an individuals beliefs about what significant others thinkabout the behavior and how motivated they are to live up to their expecta-tions. Perceptions of behavioral control involve an individuals view of

whether or not they have the ability to actually perform the behavior.As applied to decisions to attend or not attend ME, clientele might be

expected to attend if they perceive by doing so they will experienceimproved relational consequences, such as improved communication andintimacy, that outweigh potentially negative ones, such as feelings ofdiscomfort in making the needed changes. They are more likely to attend

if they perceive a need for involvement if in doing so it promises positive

Marketing Marriage Education 3


6/24

consequences they are not already currently experiencing. If close friendshave participated and reported their marriage is better as a result or if impor-tant significant others, such as trusted clergy, recommend it, they will bemore likely to attend. Based on the theory of planned behavior, the concepts

of volition and intention seem particularly relevant to the question ofwhether or not an individual will participate or not participate in ME pro-gramming. Specifically, if given the opportunity to attend, what dispositionaland relational factors of prospective ME participants might influence anattendance decision?

COMPARING PARTICIPANTS AND NONPARTICIPANTS INMARRIAGE EDUCATION

Research suggests that an important challenge to consider in evaluating thepotential effectiveness of ME programs to reach targeted populations is deter-mining if there are intra- and=or interpersonal differences between ME pro-gram participants (attendees) and nonparticipants (DeMaria, 2005; Hof &Miller, 1981; Hunt et al., 1998; Powell & Cassidy, 2001). From our theoreticalperspective, various intra- and interpersonal factors likely lead audiences toforesee consequences of involvement in ME differently, resulting in differinglevels of intention. Unfortunately, few studies have explored this unique andcomplex question. Most ME studies (e.g., Halford, ODonnell, Lizzio, &

Wilson, 2006; Hill, 1991; Krug & Ahadi, 1986; Powell & Wampler, 1982) have

compared the characteristics of participants from the population-at-largethrough various sampling procedures (e.g., control group, waiting-list con-trol, or no-treatment control) rather than comparing individuals who werefirst informed and then made personal decisions about participating or notparticipating in a ME experience. It is possible that participants randomlyassigned to a control group hold similar interests in ME as do participantgroups and would elect that intervention if research protocol allowed themto do so. Intentionality to attend among these audiences has not beenassessed.

In addition, few studies have compared program participants with thosewho made personal a priori informed choices not to participate in a ME pro-gram. As a notable example, Roberts and Morris (1998) found no differencesbetween ME participant and nonparticipant groups on measures of satisfac-tion, marriage and family strength, and commitment to change. Nonpartici-pants were significantly more satisfied than participants with their abilitiesto communicate, and the nonattending wifes self-esteem was also higher.

However, a limitation of this and other earlier research involves thebreadth of comparisons that have been made between participants andnonparticipants. To date, most studies (e.g., Malcom, 1992; Spoth, Redman,

Hockaday, & Shin, 1996) have compared individual differences on a narrow



7/24

range of intra- and interpersonal characteristics (i.e., 2 or 3) rather than on abroader set of characteristics (i.e., 8 to 10). As examples, in a meta-analysis of85 studies of premarital, marital, and family enrichment, Giblin, Sprenkle,and Sheehan (1985) reported that individuals and couples with different per-

sonality types may be more likely than others to volunteer for ME. Similarly,compiling information from a diverse number of studies, Powell andWampler (1982) found ME participants were less satisfied in their marriagesthan nonparticipants. However, ME couple participants are more satisfiedthan couples pursuing marriage counseling or therapy. However, these stu-dies only compared participant differences on a few select variables (e.g.,marital satisfaction). Thus, there is a greater need for marriage educationresearch that systematically and simultaneously compares program parti-cipants on a broader array of different types of intrapersonal (e.g., emotionalhealth) and interpersonal (e.g., communication skills) qualities (Hunt et al.,

1998) that represent a fuller consideration of the most important contextsfor marriage.

An additional research question in this study was to determine if theintra- and=or interpersonal characteristics of prospective participants predictsparticipants decisions to attend versus not attend marriage education. Amongmarriage preparation audiences, Duncan, Holman, and Yang (2007) sought toidentify the individual, couple, family, and social context characteristics thatdistinguished couples who do and do not participate in marriage preparation.They found that the individual characteristics of valuing marriage; being kind,considerate, and mature; and the couple characteristic of perceived relation-

ship problems predicted involvement, whereas none of the family or socialcontext characteristics did. Similarly, a significant marketing issue worthy ofresearch attention among married couple audiences is the important needto determine the attendance characteristics and motivations of individualsas expressed through their perceived personal and relational qualities. Larson(2004) noted a vast array of motivational factors and processes (e.g., programcost, time involvement, awareness of program availability, fear, stigmatiza-tion, willingness of other spouse, personal=interpersonal characteristics)influencing the decision of participants to attend ME. Hunt et al. (1998) sug-

gested that most attendance decisions are voluntarily made by individualsbased on their self-assessment of their relationship situation, an understand-ing or interest in the topic(s) being covered, and with a belief that the contentis relevant or capable of meeting their individual or relational needs ordistresses. Taken together, these studies identify factors that may translate intofelt needs (Arcus, 1993; Powell & Cassidy, 2001) of a ME audience, leadingto increased intentionality of ME involvement.

In consideration of this prior research and in determining whatbroad and more comprehensive set of variables should be considered inattempting to predict involvement or noninvolvement in ME programs, a

review of intended ME program antecedents and outcomes seemed relevant



8/24

(e.g., Goddard & Olsen, 2004; Gurman & Kniskern, 1977; Hawkins, Carroll,Doherty, & Willoughby, 2004; Stahman & Salts, 1993). This review identifieda blend of marital adjustment and dynamics variables like intimacy andfusion, individual personality variables like self-esteem and religiosity, per-

ceptions of spouse, and relationship skills variables like communicationand conflict resolution that all contribute to positive and healthy maritaloutcomes (DeMaria, 2005; Elin, 1999; Stahman & Salts, 1993). Specifically,our intent in this study was to compare two groups, ME participants versusnonparticipants, on several individual and relational characteristics (maritalfusion=individuation, self-esteem, marital and family strength, dyadic con-sensus, intimacy, marital satisfaction, communication skills, marital conflict,marital expectations, religiosity, and relational commitment) to determine ifself-reported dispositions and relational characteristics would predict theirprogram attendance.

METHODS

ME Program Description

Survey data were collected from couples invited to participate in the Buildingand Enriching Stronger Tennessee (BEST) Families program in eightcommunity workshops over a 9-month period. The BEST program is a train-ing series of prevention-based family life education seminars focused onmarriage, parenting, and the family (for an expanded description of the

program, see Morris & Roberts, 1997) and conducted in a wide variety ofcommunity settings (e.g., workplace, church, community centers) with a costof $30 dollars per couple to cover the expenses associated with workshopprogram materials, refreshments, lunch, and so on. The BEST program seriesis consistent with many of the qualities (e.g., setting, timing, content,methods, cost, schedule and format) of other effective ME training programs(Hawkins et al., 2004; Hunt et al., 1998).

The BEST Families marriage education program used in this studyinvolved seven highly interactive lecture sessions on topical content like

enriching communication, juggling work and family life, and enhancingrelational intimacy. The BEST Families marriage education program is simi-lar to many other ME programs emphasizing the need to promote positivecommunication, worklife balance, and interpersonal intimacy in improvingthe quality and satisfaction of the marriage relationship (e.g., Markman,Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). Decadesof research show these topics are desired by prospective participants andare appropriate for assisting individuals and couples to ameliorate theeffects of select patterns of negative and unhealthy interaction (e.g., Bray,

Williamson, & Malone, 1984; Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Hawkins et al.,

2004; Karney & Bradbury, 1995).



9/24

Each of the sessions from the BEST program was supplemented bystructured learning experiences and self=partner awareness assessmentsdesigned to enhance individual=couple=group discussion and facilitatereflection, experimentation, application, and generalization of the structured

learning experiences. Workshop participants especially were challenged toconsider areas in their personal life (e.g., worklife conflict, enrichingcommunication) they desired to improve in developing more positive andhealthier relationships.

Sample

The sample consisted of 167 married couples (334 individuals), of which 121married couples participated in the program and 46 married couples did notparticipate. As part of the assessment process, individual participants and

nonparticipants were asked to provide general demographic informationand background data. Presentation of individual demographics are dividedinto program participants and nonparticipants.

Concerning program participants, the average age of participant hus-bands was 40.96, whereas the average age of participant wives was 39.27.Regarding ethnicity, 96.7% of husbands were White, whereas 97.5% of wives

were White. Concerning marital status, 91.7% of husbands reported they werein their first marriage, whereas 87.6% of wives reported they were in their firstmarriage. The average length of the current marriage was 15.21 years. Male andfemale participants reported similar levels of education until the postgraduate

level, with 15.7% percent of females and 12.4% of males completing highschool, 28.9% of females and 21.5% of males obtaining a bachelors degree,and 10.7% of females and 30.6% of males completing a postgraduate degree.Regarding religious denomination, 91.5% of husbands and 97.5% of wivesreported being Protestant. Finally, regarding employment demographics,93.4% of husbands were employed full-time, working an average of 47.5 hoursper week in predominantly professional roles (77.7%). Alternatively, 45.5% of

wives were employed full-time, working an average of 32.75 hours per weekin predominantly professional (35.5%) and clerical (24.8%) roles.

Regarding nonparticipants, the average age of nonparticipant husbandswas 38.11, whereas the average age of nonparticipant wives was 37.09. Interms of ethnicity, 100% of husbands and wives were White. Concerningmarital status, 97.8%of husbands reported they were in their first marriage,

whereas 91.3% of wives reported they were in their first marriage. The aver-age length of the current marriage was 12.40 years. Male and female nonpar-ticipants were overall more educated than participants, with 6.5% of femalesand 6.5% of males completing high school, 41.3% of females and 50% ofmales obtaining a bachelors degree, and 34.8% of females and 32.6% ofmales completing a postgraduate degree. Regarding religious denomination,

95.7% of husbands and 96.6% of wives reported being Protestant. Finally,



10/24


11/24

scales was selected because of its previously demonstrated psychometricproperties (e.g., reliability, validity, practicality) as well as its relevance to thisstudys research questions. Specifically, the scales measure the individualslevel of self-esteem, the degree that an individual operates in a fused or indi-

viduated manner in their relationships, the degree of intimacy in the maritalrelationship, the quality of communication in the marriage, relational com-mitment, degree of conflict, perceived level of marital and family strength,dyadic consensus, expectations of spousal behavior, level of marital satisfac-tion, and level of religious influence on daily activities.

The 11 scales were as follows:

. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE): A 10-item scale of perceived self-concept that assesses the positive and negative attitudes one has towardhim- or herself. Higher aggregate scores on the RSE indicate a greater

feeling of positive self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965). Research with of theRSE scale indicates acceptable reliability with reported coefficient alphasranging from .72 to .88 (Gray-Little, Williams, & Hancock, 1997). In thisstudy, the Cronbachs alpha for RSE was .89.

. Spousal Fusion=Individuation Scale (SPFUS): A 19-item subscale of the Per-sonal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire (PAFS-Q) that assessesfamily processes based on intergenerational family theory (Bray et al.,1984). Higher aggregate scores on the SPFUS indicate an individuals tend-ency to act or make decisions independently from his or her spouse. TheSPFUS has demonstrated excellent internal consistency and adequate test

retest reliability, with coefficient alphas ranging from .74 to .96 for the SPFUS(Bray et al., 1984). In this study, the Cronbachs alpha for SPFUS was .65.

. Spousal Intimacy Scale (SPINT): A nine-item subscale of the PAFS-Q thatassesses an individuals perceived level of satisfaction and intimacy withhis or her partner (Bray et al., 1984). Higher aggregate scores on the SPINTindicate greater satisfaction and more intimacy with ones partner. In thisstudy, the Cronbachs alpha for SPINT was .88.

. Marital Communication Inventory (MCI): A 46-item scale that assesses anindividuals ability to listen, understand, and express ones self (Bienvenu,

1970). Higher aggregate scores reflect greater perceived levels of com-munication ability. The reported Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .93(Bienvenu, 1970). In this study, the Cronbachs alpha for MCI was .94.

. Commitment Scale: A five-item scale that assesses relational commitment(Sabatelli, 1984). Higher aggregate scores reflect an individuals greatercommitment to his or her relationship. Cronbachs alpha for this study

was .80 and is consistent with other studies (Sabatelli, 1984).. Kansas Marital Conflict Scale: A 37-item scale that assesses patterns of

conflict management (Eggeman, Moxley, & Schumm, 1985). Higher aggre-gate scores reflect a greater ability to constructively manage conflict. In this

study, the Cronbachs alpha for conflict was .95.



12/24

. Strong Marriage=Family Scale (SM=FS): A two-item scale that assesses anindividuals perceived marital and family strength (Roberts & Morris,1998). Higher aggregate scores reflect greater marital and family strength.In this study, the Cronbachs alpha for SM=FS was .89.

.

Dyadic Consensus Scale: A 13-item subscale of the Dyadic AdjustmentScale that assesses those facets of a relationship that deal with the indivi-duals perception of the couples agreement or disagreement on a varietyof basic relationship issues (e.g., finances, recreation, religion, friends)(Spanier, 1976). Higher aggregate scores indicate a greater perception ofconsensus in the relationship. Spanier (1976) reported a Cronbachs alphaof .90 for this subscale. In this study, the Cronbachs alpha was .88.

. Marital Comparison Level Index (MCLI): A 10-item scale that assessesan individuals perceptions of the ability of their marital relationship tomeet their personal expectations of what is acceptable marital behavior

(Sabatelli, 1984). The MCLI was designed to provide researchers with ameasure of marital complaints by focusing on the contrast betweencouples marital experiences and expectations. Higher aggregate scoresindicate an alignment between an individuals expectations and perceivedreality in the relationship (Sabatelli & Cecil-Pigo, 1985). Sabatelli (1984)reported a Cronbachs alpha of .93 for the MCLI. In this study, theCronbachs alpha for MCLI was .86.

. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS): A three-item scale that assessesan individuals level of marital satisfaction (Mitchell, Newell, & Schuum,1983). Higher aggregate scores reflect greater levels of marital satisfaction.

In this study, the Cronbachs alpha for KMS was .96.. Religiosity Scale: A two-item scale that assesses the importance of religious

beliefs in everyday activities. This scale was adapted from Blandings(1995) demographic questions regarding perceived religious importance.Higher aggregate scores indicate a greater level of perceived importanceof religion in daily activities. In this study, the Cronbachs alpha was .66.

Respondents also were asked to provide sociodemographic informationthat included age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, length of present marital

status, educational attainment, denominational affiliation, profession, employ-ment status, income, and financial situation.

Procedure

The BEST Families workshops were led by the same facilitator at eight differ-ent community settings in Tennessee. The facilitator possessed a doctorate

with professional qualifications in marriage and family therapy and hadconsiderable experience in facilitating marriage education workshops. Work-shops were conducted in an intensive weekend format involving 10 to 12

hours of information exchange, skill-building techniques, modeling, and



13/24

participant practice. The average workshop size consisted of 18 marriedcouples (36 individuals). The program was advertised through brochures,fliers, and referrals as an opportunity to enhance and develop a satisfyingmarriage through increased communication skills and relational intimacy.

Participants were self-selecting, voluntarily having a choice to attend or notto attend the seminars rather than recruited and offered reimbursement forattending. Before the workshops data were collected individually from thesecouples before discussing or participating in structured learning experiencesthat would enhance or enrich their marital relationships. Husbands and

wives were asked to complete the 11 instruments separately and indepen-dently of each other to protect their confidentiality.

Approximately 1 week after the seminar, a random group of other mar-ried couples from these settings was selected. Random selection of nonparti-cipant couples was accomplished through membership lists (e.g., Sunday

school roster) provided by the sponsoring hosts of the marriage enrichmentworkshops. Nonparticipant couples acknowledged they knew about the mar-riage education seminar via the marketing and promotional efforts, had con-sidered attending, but communicated they had elected not to attend for onereason or another (e.g., personal choice, transportation, scheduling conflicts).Nonparticipant married couples were mailed a questionnaire containing thesame 11 scales completed by the marriage education workshop participants.Similarly, husbands and wives from these married couples (i.e., nonpartici-pants) were requested to complete the same 11 instruments independentlyto protect their confidentiality and individual privacy. Multiple return envel-

opes were supplied in the original mailings to these couples for this purpose.The response rate for the couples participating in the marriage education

seminar was 100%, and the response rate for the couples not participating inthe seminar was 68%. Nonresponse bias was examined by comparing socio-demographic indicators of participants, nonparticipants, and area demo-graphic. No issues emerged in this examination, and nonresponse bias wasdetermined to not have occurred. The sample was divided into two groupsbased on participation versus nonparticipation in the marriage education

workshops. Because of the blend of measures used in this study involving per-

ceptions of self, marriage, and relationship characteristics, the unit of analysisin this study was mixed. For most demographic variables, combined data werecoded based on congruence in responses; for example, if partners indepen-dently indicated the same race, the resultant coding was 1, whereas if amixed-race couple was indicated, the coding was 2. Four deviances to thismethod were used to deal with length of marriage, job status, marital status,and age of couple partners. For length of marriage, the actual length of mar-riage was used. For job status, couples were coded as 1 if both partners wereemployed at least part-time, 2 if one of the partners was employed at leastpart-time and the other unemployed, 3 if both partners were unemployed,

and 4 for other statuses (generally retirement). For marital status, couples were



14/24

coded 1 if this was the first marriage for both partners, 2 if one partner hadbeen divorced and it was the first marriage for the other partner, 3 if both part-ners had been divorced, and 4 for other statuses (e.g., widowhood). For age,the absolute age difference in the couple was determined. Regarding scales,

similar to age, the absolute difference in scale scores was used for analysis.Because the two sets of responses for each couple were collapsed into a singleresponse, independent samplet-tests were still appropriate for analysis.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Before beginning the main analyses, a series oft-tests were run to determinehomogeneity between participant and nonparticipant couple groups. t-Tests

were conducted to test for statistically equivalent mean responses for eachdemographic indicator. Results showed that ME participant couples were sig-nificantly more likely to be in a mixed-race relationship and to have beenpreviously married (see Table 1). These variables served as control variablesin subsequent analyses of couple differences.

Assessing Couple and Individual Differences Between Participantsand Nonparticipants

A series of analysis of covariance procedures was conducted to determine

differences in intra- and interpersonal marriage characteristics based onparticipation in marriage education. As a reminder, marriage characteristicscores were calculated by taking the absolute difference in scores from eachpartner in the couple. Therefore, closer scores were indicative of a greatercongruence in perception of the marital characteristic in question. To isolatetrue differences based on participant status, the significantly different demo-graphic characteristics (i.e., ethnicity, marital status) identified above and inTable 1 were used as covariates, with the resulting estimated marginal couplemeans for each marriage characteristic compared by participation (Coleman

& Pulford, 2008). As shown in Table 2, couples participating in the marriageeducation workshops reported significantly closer scores in three areas ascompared with nonparticipant couples: (1) religiosity (EMMParticipants .90,EMMNonparticipants 1.78, F 6.661, p .01); (2) marital communication(EMMParticipants 11.16, EMMNonparticipants 18.06, F 5.68, p .05); and (3)marital consensus (EMMParticipants 6.16, EMMNonparticipants 9.62, F 3.806,

p .05). In this case the data indicated that couples who attended marriageeducation were more alike (e.g., congruent) in their perceptions of theirmarital condition (e.g., whether good or bad) than nonparticipants.

To further identify participant and nonparticipant individual differences

in intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics variables, a series oft-tests



15/24

were conducted. As seen in Table 3, 9 of 11 marriage characteristic variableswere significantly different, with nonparticipants reporting significantlyhigher levels of self-esteem, intimacy, marital communication, marital con-sensus, relational commitment, conflict resolution skills, marital satisfaction,marital expectations, and marital strength than their ME attendee counter-parts. The magnitude of those significant differences was greatest forcommunication and conflict. There were no significant differences between

TABLE 3 t-Test of Individual Participant Differences on Marriage Characteristic Variables

Nonparticipants(n 92 individuals)

Participants(n 242 individuals)

Instrumentation variable Means SD Means SD t-Statistic (df)

Religiositya 7.42 .90 7.41 .94 .079 (331)Self-esteem 33.87 4.40 31.69 5.00 3.669 (332)Fusion 53.11 6.70 53.54 7.19 .496 (332)

Intimacy 38.66 4.33 35.23 5.87 5.104 (332)Communication 109.01 16.49 94.92 19.10 6.247 (332)Commitment 23.15 2.30 22.08 3.11 3.008 (332)Conflict 140.80 23.08 127.84 25.79 4.222 (332)Marital strength 9.07 1.11 8.00 1.80 5.278 (332)Consensusb 49.60 5.26 47.33 5.71 3.283 (318)Expectations 39.64 5.76 36.65 6.50 3.873 (332)Satisfactionc 18.00 3.80 16.36 3.67 3.610 (331)

aParticipantn 241.bParticipantn 229, nonparticipant n 91.cNonparticipantn 91.

p< .01,

p< .001.

TABLE 2 Analysis of Covariance Results of Couples ME Participation on MarriageCharacteristic Variables

Nonparticipants(n 46 couples)

Participants(n 121 couples)

Instrumentation variable Meana

SE Meana

SE F-statistic

Religiosity 1.78 .28 .90 .17 6.66

Self-esteem 5.53 .82 5.55 .49 .00Fusion 8.80 1.25 7.09 .75 1.29Intimacy 5.06 .91 3.95 .54 1.03Communication 18.06 2.42 11.16 1.44 5.68

Commitment 3.28 .54 2.74 .32 .69Conflict 23.61 3.43 18.75 2.04 1.40Marital Strength 1.42 .24 1.23 .15 .42Consensus 9.62 1.48 6.16 .88 3.81

Expectations 7.00 .97 5.78 .58 1.10Satisfaction 3.52 .60 2.90 .36 .74

aEstimated mean controlling for ethnicity and marital status.p< .05, p< .01.



16/24

participant and nonparticipant individuals regarding religiosity or maritalfusion.

Predicting Couple Involvement in ME

Finally, similarly to Halford et al. (2006), a forward stepwise Wald logisticregression analysis was conducted to determine if a couples attendance atthe marital education program could be predicted using the 11 instrumen-tation variables. Additionally, for couple participation prediction, the demo-graphic variables of ethnicity and marital status were included, because they

were significantly different between participant and nonparticipant couples.Lower levels of marital communication were identified as the sole predictorof attendance in the marital education seminar. In contrast, higher levels ofmarital communication resulted in a lower likelihood to participate in mar-

riage education. The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit resulted in achi-square 13.17,df 8,p .11, indicating a good fit. Simonoff (2003) indi-cated that unlike traditionalp-value interpretations, a high p-value is desiredin the Hosmer and Lemeshow chi-square test because it examines thehypothesis that no other model fits better. Therefore, the higher thep-value,the better the fit of the model. The final prediction equation is as follows:

Participation 1:41:03marital communication

DISCUSSION

Our first research question asked how the intra- and interpersonal traits ofME participants versus nonparticipants compared with one another. Resultssuggested that participants attending ME programs possess different levelsof intra- and=or interpersonal qualities when compared with nonattendingindividuals. The findings of this study are consistent with a number of schol-arly predictions and findings about program attendees (e.g., DeMaria, 2005;Halford et al., 2006; Thomas, Schvaneveldt, & Young, 1993). An important

finding of the study program attendance or nonattendance occurred inde-pendently of demographic factors, such as age, ethnicity, and income. Incontrast to nonparticipants, ME participants scored significantly lower on 9of 11 variables (i.e., self-esteem, marital communication, relational commit-ment, marital conflict, marital strength, marital consensus, intimacy, maritalexpectations, and marital satisfaction). Thus, consistent with our theoreticalperspective, couples who attend ME may perceive greater intrapersonaland interpersonal needs in their marriage and intentionally seek out servicesthat can lead to enhanced relational benefits.

For example, previous research has shown that individuals with

lower self-esteem often experience a heightened need for affection, greater



17/24

sensitivity to criticism, and greater vulnerability to rejection (Hof & Miller,1981). In this study, individuals participating in the ME experience may havefelt the need to develop more self-esteem and become less sensitive to theirpartners behavior. In terms of marital communication, many researchers have

suggested that married individuals who do not effectively communicate facechallenges in developing close, intimate relationships (e.g., Gottman, 1994;Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994). Because communication is stronglyrelated to marital satisfaction, individuals who chose to attend the ME experi-ence in this study may have assessed their relational situation, especiallyregarding communication, and as a result wanted to improve the quality oftheir communication by learning and practicing new skills, as emphasizedin some of the content of the BEST program.

In terms of relational commitment, Stanley and Markman (1992) notedthat commitment reflects a personal dedication and intrinsic desire to

improve and invest in the relationship. Lower levels of relational commit-ment are evident in the continuing high level of divorce (Stanley, 2005). Inmaking the decision to attend the ME experience, individuals in this studymay have felt the need to develop greater commitment in their relationship.Concerning conflict, Gottman (1994) noted that elevated levels of negativeaffect produce emotional withdrawal and eruptions of negative affect recip-rocity in couples, leading to marital disruption and possible dissolution.

Although marital conflict is inevitable, individuals attending the ME experi-ence in this study may have been looking for more productive and construc-tive ways to manage their conflict. Previous research has shown marital

strengths serve as a reservoir or pool of resources that can be drawn fromduring times of difficulty or stress (Stanley et al., 1995). In this study indivi-duals electing to attend the ME experience may have performed a relationalaudit and determined that their reserves had become depleted by the

wear-and-tear of daily relational stresses. In terms of dyadic consensus, par-ticipating individuals in this study may have realized that some interactions

within their relationships were below the threshold of their own subjectivestandards they hold as meaningful to their marital satisfaction and were seek-ing ways to improve their levels of agreement on basic relationship issues.

Previous research on intimacy has suggested that it serves as a majorbonding force within the marriage relationship. Intimacy is the core of a lov-ing relationship (Heller & Wood, 1998) and depends on empathy for eachothers experiences. Individuals attending the ME experience in this studymight have been looking for opportunities to increase their own and othersawareness regarding the role of intimacy in their relationship (Hunt et al.,1998). Couples who experience less than they expect in marriage may feeldisappointment (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 2001) and may see ME asa way to narrow the gap between expectations and reality.

Finally, in terms of marital satisfaction, Fincham and Bradbury (1987)

have indicated that marital satisfaction is a significant characteristic of marital



18/24

quality. In this study, individuals participating in the ME experience mayhave desired to improve their overall feelings about their marriage relation-ship. Given that increasing marital satisfaction is a key goal in ME, this resultis not surprising.

Our second research question asked whether specific intra- and interper-sonal traits predicted attendance versus nonattendance in ME. Of the variablesmeasured in this study, results suggested that the probability of programattendance could be predicted only by marital communication. In fact, themargin between raw scores differentiating participating and nonparticipatinggroups were by far the widest on the communication variable, also supportiveof earlier research (Roberts & Morris, 1998). Findings in the current study sug-gest that odds are strongest for attending ME if individuals perceive lowerquality communication in their relationship, more than any other interperso-nal or intrapersonal variable. The identification of relationship problems,

including communication, was also a lead interpersonal factor predictinginvolvement in marriage preparation programs (Duncan et al., 2007). Parti-cipants may perceive ME involvement as a key to maximize marital benefits,such as enhanced relationship satisfaction, obtainable through improvedcommunication. Research shows that quality communication is inextricablylinked to relational health and marital satisfaction (e.g., Gottman, 1994).

Occasionally, marriage education is accused of only reaching audiencesof relatively low need (e.g., Halford et al., 2006). Although risk levels of anyof the intra- and interpersonal variables were not assessed in this study, it isclear that those who participated in this ME program scored significantly

lower in areas typically targeted for marriage education. Thus, the audienceattending the BEST program in this study could be said to be at greater needfor marriage education than nonparticipants. Those who did attend were, onaverage, less well off intrapersonally and interpersonally than nonpartici-pants and sought intervention in an area in which they had the lowest scoreand, perhaps, the greatest perceived need: communication.

Limitations

There are several limitations in this study that should be considered relevantfor future marketing research studies. First, this study explored a ME servicethat was designed and marketed, in part, to improve marital communication,

with the intent of recruiting participants who needed that skill. Thus, thefinding that the sole significant predictor for participation in BEST was lowercommunication may come as little surprise. The finding may be simply afunction a match between audience characteristics and products. Additionalstudy is needed among other ME programs to assess whether communicationis a major predictor of involvement among them, as well.

Another limitation was that this studys sample was fairly homogeneous

in terms of age, ethnicity, education level, and denominational affiliation.



19/24

Until recently (Duncan, Hawkins, & Goddard, 2011), lack of sample diversityin program participation and studies has been a consistent limitation in theME literature except in a few cases (e.g., Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham,2004; DeMaria, 2005; Ooms & Wilson, 2004). Therefore, these findings may

be only relevant to relatively well-functioning marital audiences. Generaliza-tions from this study to other populations should be made with caution.A further limitation of the study involved the sole use of individual

self-reports of intra- and interpersonal characteristics. Without other datafrom observer ratings, self-report measures may include, to some extent,levels of common method response bias (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &Podsakoff, 2003). However, as Conway and Lance (2010) have noted, beliefsabout common method bias in self-report measures, especially in regards toself-report studies that involve measuring constructs of perceptions of priv-ate events like those included in this study (e.g., personal attitudes or subjec-

tive feelings), may have been overstated. This study tested for commonmethod bias by examining the presence of correlations between inde-pendent variables. Spector (2006) notes that when common method biasexists, all the relationships among variables should be significant. Withoutfull relationship significance, common method bias is so small it can be con-sidered meaningless. Approximately 68% of the correlations were not signifi-cant, providing no indications of common method bias. However, futureresearch should attempt to incorporate other multilevel methods (e.g., obser-

vation, interviews) to reduce the potential for response biases in determininginfluences on ME attendance.

A final limitation inherent in this study was that the data do not revealhow many nonparticipants wanted to attend the ME workshops but wereunable to attend due to personal barriers (e.g., program costs, lack of childcare) that interfered with their participation. Based on the theoretical tenetsguiding this study involving reasoned action and planned behavior (Ajzen,1991; Fishbein, 1980), just because individuals and=or couples wanted orintended to attend the ME workshops does not mean they were sufficientlymotivated to actually attend the ME workshops. Future ME studies shouldexplore constructs examining attendance motivation.

Notwithstanding these limitations, a primary strength of this study wasthat it is one of the few to compare a unique sample of ME program parti-cipants and nonparticipants who were offered the same program. We alsouniquely examined multiple factors and predictors affecting the decision tobe involved in marriage education. Thus, we have helped to narrow a gapnoted earlier by ME scholars (Arcus et al., 1993; Roberts & Morris, 1998).

Programming Implications and Recommendations

It is clear from our findings that of the variety of intrapersonal and interperso-

nal factors that could distinguish participants from nonparticipants and predict



20/24

attendance, interpersonal factors are of far greater importance. Emphasizingintrapersonal positive consequences such as enhanced self-esteem wouldnot be as effective in its appeal as emphasizing interpersonal benefits suchas improved communication, better handling of conflict, and greater intimacy.

A second recommendation is that these findings should not be used todraft negative ME marketing messages that suggest individuals who attendME are always less satisfied or possess lower self-esteem than those whodid not attend. In no way should these findings imply that the individualschoosing not to participate would not have benefited from the educationalexperience. In fact, in working with married persons with low or poorself-esteem, marital satisfaction should also be assessed, because they arehighly related and that couple approaches to increasing self-esteem in pro-grams like the BEST Families program should be considered in addition toindividual approaches, like self-help books and psychotherapy. ME market-

ing messages to prospective audiences should positively embrace and cel-ebrate an individual or couples voluntary decision to invest theirresources, time, and energy toward proactively taking actions that areintended to enhance the quality of their personal and relational lives. Fortoo many years the common belief within prevention circles has been thatonly the healthy and well patients go to the doctor. Our results suggest thatless healthy patients also go to the doctor. In earlier research this audiencehas been depicted as less likely to attend ME. Less healthy individuals mayperceive ME as less threatening, costly, and lengthy than marital therapyand thus may select it as a first response to marital problems (Larson, 2004).

A third recommendation is that marketing research involving ME shouldbe extended to other community and corporate settings like those used inthis study. A majority of ME settings have included retreat centers, collegecampuses, hotels, and community agency settings that are affiliated withfaith-based communities (Hawkins et al., 2004). Researchers have recom-mended that ME settings that are supportive, positive, comfortable,adult-like, and free from distractions would be conducive for ME workshopsettings (e.g., Morris et al., 1999). With the rapidly expanding emphasis of

worklife policies and programs among many corporations, future ME work-

shops should be able to secure a place within corporate employee supportprograms for work and family (Apgar, Riley, Eaton, & Diskin, 1982).A final recommendation reflects on the marketing efforts used in this

study. Morris et al. (1999) and Duncan and Goddard (2011) have advocatedthat marriage educators should engage in responsible marketing efforts tomake sure that the educational product or service being promoted and deliv-ered is capable of reaching the correct target audiences. Responsible mar-keting and delivery of prevention services is an ethical endeavor, and familylife educators should make every effort to avoid misleading and=or manipu-lating prospective participants of their services (e.g., suggesting that ME is

only for healthy couples).



21/24

REFERENCES

Adler-Baeder, F., & Higginbotham, B. (2004). Implications of remarriage andstepfamily formation for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 448458.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 50, 179211.Apgar, K., Riley, D., Eaton, J., & Diskin, S. (1982).Life education in the workplace:

How to design, lead, and market employee seminars. New York, NY: FamilyService of America.

Arcus, M. E. (1993). Looking ahead in family life education. In M. E. Arcus, J. D.Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education: The foun-dations of family life education(Vol. 1, pp. 229249). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Arcus, M. E. (1995). Advances in family life education: Past, present, and future.Family Relations, 44, 336344.

Bienvenu, M. J. (1970). Measurement of marital communication. Family Coordi-

nator, 19, 2631.Blanding, L. G. (1995). Relational equity and household division of labor as predic-

tors of marital, parental, and work satisfaction for dual-earner mean andwomen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Bray, J. H., Williamson, D. S., & Malone, P. E. (1984). Personal authority in the familysystem: Development of a questionnaire to measure personal authority inintergenerational family process. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10,167178.

Brotherson, S. E., & Duncan, W. C. (2004). Rebinding the ties that bind: Governmentefforts to preserve and promote marriage. Family Relations, 53, 459468.

Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authorsregarding common method bias in organizational research.Journal of BusinessPsychology, 25, 325334.

Crane, F. G. (1993).Professional services marketing: Strategy and tactics. Binghamton,NY: Haworth.

DeMaria, R. M. (2005). Distressed couples and marriage education. Family Relations,54, 242253.

DeMaria, R. M. (1993). Integrating marriage enrichment and marital therapy: A casestudy of PAIRS, a contemporary psycho educational marital interventionprogram. Families, 6, 4259.

Duncan, S. F., & Goddard, H. W. (2011). Family life education: Principles and

practices for effective outreach(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Duncan, S. F., Holman, T. B., & Yang, C. (2007). Factors associated with involvement

in marriage preparation programs. Family Relations, 56, 270278.Eggeman, K., Moxley, V., & Schumm, W. R. (1985). Assessing spouses perceptions of

Gottmans temporal form in marital conflict.Psychological Reports,57, 171181.Elin, R. J. (1999). Marriage encounter: A positive preventive enrichment program.

In R. Berger & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy,(pp. 5571). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner=Mazel.

Fincham, F., & Bradbury, T. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: Towarda methodological and conceptual refinement. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 49, 3149.



22/24

Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implica-tions. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposia on motivation, 1979. Lincoln,NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Garland, D. S. (1983). Working with couples for marriage enrichment: A guidefor developing, conducting, and evaluating programs. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Giblin, P., Sprenkle, D. H., & Sheehan, R. (1985). Enrichment outcome research: Ameta-analysis of premarital, marital and family interventions. Journal of

Marriage and Family Therapy, 11, 257271.Gilley, J. W., Eggland, S. A., & Gilley, A. M. (2002). Principles of human resource

development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Goddard, H. W., & Olsen, C. S. (2004). Cooperative extension initiatives in marriage

and couples education. Family Relations, 53, 433439.Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital

processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interac-tion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 927947.

Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theoryanalysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 23, 443451.Guerney, B., & Maxson, P. (1990). Marital and family enrichment research: A decade

review and look ahead. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 11271135.Gurman, A. S., & Kniskern, D. P. (1977). Enriching research on marital enrichment

programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 3, 311.Halford, W. K. (2004). The future of couple relationships education: Suggestions on

how it can make a difference. Family Relations, 53, 559566.

Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., Kline, G. H., and Stanley, S. M. (2003). Best practicein couple relationship education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29,385406.

Halford, W. K., ODonnell, C., Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. L. (2006). Do couples at highrisk of relationship problems attend marriage education? Journal of Family

Psychology, 20, 160163.Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does

marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 723734.

Hawkins, A. J., Carroll, J. S., Doherty, W. J., & Willoughby, B. (2004). A comprehen-

sive framework for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 547558.Heller, P. E., & Wood, B. (1998). The process of intimacy: Similarity, understanding,and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 273288.

Hill, E. W. (1991). Marital enrichment and couple decision-making. AustralianJournal of Marriage and Family, 12, 7791.

Hof, L., & Miller, W. (1981). Marriage enrichment: Philosophy, process, & program.Bowie, MD: Prentice Hall.

Holton, E. F. (2000). Whats really wrong: Diagnosis for learning transfer systemchange. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 722.

Hunt, R., Hof, L., & DeMaria, R. (1998). Marriage enrichment: Preparation, mentor-ing, and outreach. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner=Mazel.



23/24

Jacobson, N. S., & Addis, M. E. (1993). Research on couples and couples therapy:What do we know? Where are we going? Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 61, 8593.

Johnson, C. A., Stanley, S. M., Glenn, N. D., Amato, P. A., Nock, S. L., Markman, H. J.,. . .(2002).Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 baseline statewide survey on marriageand divorce (S02096 OKDHS). Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department ofHuman Services.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital qualityand stability: A review of theory, method, and research.Psychological Bulletin,118, 334.

Katz, B. (1988).How to market professional services. New York, NY: Nichols Publishing.Krug, S. E., & Ahadi, S. A. (1986). Personality characteristics of wives and husbands

participating in marriage enrichment. Multivariate Experimental ClinicalResearch, 8, 149159.

Larson, J. H. (2004). Innovations in marriage education: Introduction and challenges.

Family Relations, 53, 421424.Malcom, K. D. (1992). Personal growth in marriage: An Adlerian unilateral marriage

enrichment program. Individual Psychology, 48, 488492.Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., & Blumberg, S. (1994). Fighting for your marriage:

Positive steps for preventing divorce and preserving lasting love. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, S. E., Newell, G. K., & Schumm, W. R. (1983). Test-retest reliability of theKansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports, 53, 545546.

Morris, M. L., Cooper, C., & Gross, K. H. (1999). Marketing factors influencing theoverall satisfaction of marriage education participants. Family Relations, 48,251261.

Morris, M. L., & Roberts, L. C. (1997). The BEST (Building and Enriching StrongerTennessee) Families program. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

Education, 15, 117.Ooms, T., & Wilson, P. (2004). The challenges of offering relationship and marriage

education of low-income populations. Family Relations, 53, 440447.Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases

in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.

Powell, G. S., & Wampler, K. S. (1982). Marriage enrichment participants: Levels ofmarital satisfaction. Family Relations, 31, 389393.

Powell, L. H., & Cassidy, D. (2001). Family life education: An introduction.Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Roberts, L. C., & Morris, M. L. (1998). An evaluation of marketing factors in marriage

enrichment program promotion.Family Relations, 47, 3744.Rosenberg, M. (1965).Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University.Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations. A systematic

approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA:Perseus Publishing.

Sabatelli, R. M. (1984). The marital comparison level index: A measure for assessing out-comes relative to expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family,10, 651662.



24/24

Sabatelli, R. M., & Cecil-Pigo, E. F. (1985). Relational interdependence and commit-ment in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 12, 931937.

Simonoff, J. S. (2003). Analyzing categorical data. New York, NY: Springer.Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the

quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family,38, 1528.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urbanlegend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221232.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Hockaday, C., & Shin, C. (1996). Barriers to participationin family skills preventive intervention their evaluations: A replication andextension. Family Relations, 45, 247254.

Stahman, R. F., & Salts, C. (1993). Educating for marriage and intimate relationships.In M. E. Arcus, J. D. Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family lifeeducation: Foundations of family life education (Vol. 2, pp. 3361). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Stanley, S. M. (2005). The power of commitment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relation-

ships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 595608.Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., St. Peters, M., & Leber, B. D. (1995). Strengthening

marriages and preventing divorce: New directions in prevention research. Fam-ily Relations, 44, 392401.

Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. (2002). Communication, conflict, andcommitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a nationalsurvey.Family Process, 41, 659675.

Thomas, J., Schvaneveldt, J. D., & Young, M. H. (1993). Programs in family lifeeducation: Development, implementation, and evaluation. In M. E. Arcus, J. D.

Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education:Foundations of family life education (Vol. 1, pp. 106130). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.


Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

Documents

Transcript of Who Will Attend? Characteristics of