Table of Contents

Effectiveness of Marriage Education Programs

Marriage Education Programs teach relationship skills to unmarried couples with the goal of helping couples develop strong, healthy marriages. The programs also provide marriage-skills training to low-income married couples to help those couples improve their relationships and avoid marital breakup.

1. Studies on Marriage Education Programs

Critics of Marriage Education Programs claim that no evidence shows that the marriage education and enrichment programs envisioned in this initiative would work.

This charge is simply false. The evidence is overwhelming that programs providing marriage-skills training help couples increase happiness, improve their relationships, and avoid negative behaviors that can lead to marital breakup. For example:

This scientific research demonstrates that marriage programs–whether they are called marital preparation, enhancement, counseling, or skills training–are effective. These studies make the case that marriages are not merely enabled to survive, but can also thrive when couples learn the skills to make their relationships work. Moreover, the research shows that the programs are effective in a variety of socioeconomic classes. Polls indicate that the overwhelming majority of low-income couples at risk of out-of-wedlock childbearing or marital breakup would like to participate in programs that would help them improve their relationships.

2. Studies on Marriage-Centered Programs

Many other studies provide additional evidence that marriage-centered programs are effective. Whether they offer marital-skills training, counseling, or intervention for distressed marriages, such efforts have been found to increase the chances of marital success and happiness.

For example, in a study of a two-session marriage intervention program called Marriage Checkup, the use of a marital assessment questionnaire and “motivational interviewing” of couples recruited by a newspaper advertisement significantly improved marital satisfaction; gains were maintained at a one-month follow-up.8) In another study of 137 couples (62 percent of whom were maritally distressed) participating in a four-month workshop called Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills (PAIRS),9) couples reported significant increases in both intimacy and overall marital adjustment. PAIRS reports that more than 70% of participating couples indicate either “some improvement” or “much improvement” in aspects pertaining to their relationship after completing the course.10) While both men and women reported improvements, gains for women were more immediate and dramatic.11)

The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation, a yearlong marriage relationship education program for low-income couples with children, reported that participants experienced less physical and psychological abuse from their spouse after program completion.12)

Studies also document the effectiveness of more intensive forms of marital invention: counseling and therapy. An extensive review of the literature on the effectiveness of marital counseling in preventing marital separation and divorce found dozens of studies demonstrating that counseling was effective in reducing conflict and increasing marital satisfaction. This review combined two meta-analyses to find that 90 percent of distressed couples that took a full program of therapy were still together 18 to 24 months later, compared with 61 percent of those who took only a partial program.13)

Finally, studies provide evidence that marriage-skills programs can dramatically improve behavior even for couples in very troubled circumstances. For example:

Perhaps the most solid evidence comes from a meta-analysis of 20 different marriage programs conducted by Paul Giblin, Douglas H. Sprenkle, and Robert Sheehan. The 20 diverse programs in this meta-analysis covered a wide range of various types of programs, including pre-marital, marriage enrichment, and family interventions. Using a sophisticated statistical procedure that integrated 85 studies of programs involving 3,886 couples, the researchers translated the studies' diverse findings into common expressions of program or treatment effectiveness called “effect size.” The result: When measured against control groups that had not participated in the programs, the various marriage programs–involving couples that differed in age, income, and geographic location–yielded an average positive effect size of 0.44. This represents a substantial improvement in behavior, given that effect sizes typically range between -1 to +1.

An effect size of 0.44 means that the average couple participating in any one of the programs studied improved their behavior and relationship so that they were better off than more than two-thirds of the couples that did not participate in any program. Specifically, before the training began, the experimental and control groups were equally matched: The median couple that participated in the training scored better than half the couples in the control group and vice versa. After participating in the program, the average participant couple improved their relationship to the point where they out-performed 66 percent of the control couples who did not participate. This represents a substantial improvement in the couples' relationships. Some of the programs yielded effect sizes as high as 0.96, meaning that couples who took the program performed better than 83 percent of those who did not participate.21)

3. Opposition to Marriage Education Programs

While much of the opposition to marriage education programs is emotional and ideological, some criticism is couched in pragmatic terms. For example, critics assert that either marriages fail to form or fall apart in low-income communities primarily for economic reasons. This reasoning is faulty. Aside from the fact that marriage continued to erode as the government spent hundreds of billions of dollars on such programs in the past, the basic premise that low-income marriages fail primarily for economic reasons is inaccurate. A recent survey in Oklahoma asked divorced welfare recipients about the reasons their marriages had failed. The three most common reasons were lack of commitment, too much conflict and arguing, and infidelity.22) These problems are precisely what marriage-strengthening programs are designed to address. The social science evidence more than amply demonstrates that marriage programs can and do help couples develop enduring, healthy marriages.

1) , 21) Paul Giblin et al., “Enrichment Outcome Research: A Meta-Analysis of Premarital, Marital, and Family Interventions,” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 11, (1985): 257-271.
2) Jason S. Carroll, and William J. Doherty, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Premarital Prevention Programs: A Meta-Analytic Review of Outcome Research,” Family Relations 52, no. 2 (2003)
3) Mark H. Butler and Karen S. Wampler, “A Meta-Analytic Update of Research on the Couple Communication Program,” American Journal of Family Therapy 27, (1999): 223.
4) Luke Knutson and David H. Olson, “Effectiveness of the PREPARE Program with Premarital Couples,” Journal Review (2002).
5) , 14) William R. Shadish et al., “Effects of Family and Marital Psychotherapies: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61, (1993): 922ff.
6) , 13) James H. Bray and Ernest N. Jouriles, “Treatment of Marital Conflict and Prevention of Divorce,” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 21, (1995): 461ff.
7) Robyn Parker, “The Effectiveness Of Marriage And Relationship Education Programs,” Family Matters 77, (2007): 57-59
8) James V. Cordova et al., “Motivational Interviewing as an Intervention for At-Risk Couples,” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 27, (2001): 315ff.
10) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Relationship Education Impact Reports, Paul Peluso (PAIRS Foundation, September 2011).
11) Carlos Durana, “Enhancing Marital Intimacy Through Psychoeducation: The PAIRS Program,” Family Journal 5, (1997): 204ff.
12) J. Hsueh, D. Principe Alderson, E. Lundquist, C. Michalopoulos, D. Gubits, D. Fein, and V. Knox, MDRC, The Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Early Impacts on Low-Income Families New York, NY: OPRE, 2012.
15) Kurt Hahlweg et al., “Effectiveness of Behavioral Marital Therapy: Empirical Studies of Behavioral Techniques in Preventing and Alleviating Marital Distress,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56, (1988): 440-477.
16) Timothy J. O'Farrell et al., “Domestic Violence Before and After Alcoholism Treatment: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Studies of Alcohol 60, (1999): 317ff.
17) Timothy J. O'Farrell et al., “Verbal Aggression Among Male Alcoholic Patients and Their Wives in the Year Before and Two Years After Alcoholism Treatment,” Journal of Family Violence 15, (2000): 295ff.
18) Ruth Bouma, W. Kim Halford, and Ross McD Young, “Evaluation of the Controlling Alcohol and Relationship Enhancement (CARE) Program with Hazardous Drinkers,” Behaviour Change 21, no. 4 (2004): 229-50.
19) William Falst-Stewart et al., “Behavioral Couples Therapy for Male Substance-Abusing Patients: Effects on Relationship Adjustment and Drug-Using Behavior,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64, (1996): 959ff.
20) William Falst-Stewart et al., “Behavioral Couples Therapy for Male Methadone Maintenance Patients: Effects on Drug-Using Behavior and Relationship Adjustment,” Behavior Therapy 32, (2001): 391ff.
22) Oklahoma State University, Bureau for Social Research, Marriage in Oklahoma, Oklahoma: (July 2002) 34.

This entry draws heavily from Marriage and Welfare Reform: The Overwhelming Evidence that Marriage Education Works.