Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Puerto Rico, Sistema de Bibliotecas
UPRRP]
On: 09 November 2014, At: 05:34
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Marriage & Family Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20
Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

Couples and Individuals in Marriage
Education
a
Michael Lane Morris , Heather S. McMillan , Stephen F. Duncan &

Jeffry H. Larson
Department of Management , The University of Tennessee ,

Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
b
Department of Management and Marketing , Southeast Missouri

State University , Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA
c
School 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 to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [Universidad de Puerto Rico, Sistema de Bibliotecas UPRRP] at 05:34 09 November 2014
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Marriage & Family Review, 47:122, 2011

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0149-4929 print=1540-9635 online
DOI: 10.1080/01494929.2011.558463
Who Will Attend? Characteristics

of Couples and Individuals
in Marriage Education
MICHAEL LANE MORRIS
Department of Management, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
HEATHER S. MCMILLAN
Department of Management and Marketing, Southeast Missouri State University,
Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA
STEPHEN F. DUNCAN and JEFFRY H. LARSON

School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
There are two purposes of this marriage education marketing

study: (1) to compare the self-reported intra- and interpersonal
qualities of 121 married couples (n 242 individuals) attending
a marriage education program with 46 married couples (n 92
individuals) who were contacted through marketing promotional
materials to attend the program but did not participate and (2)
to determine if intra- and=or interpersonal qualities would predict
the likelihood of marriage education attendance versus nonattendance. Results showed that compared with program nonparticipants, 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 for
participants and nonparticipants. Wald logistic regression analysis
indicated communication was the only significant predictor of
marriage education participation. Implications for marriage
education programming and practitioners are outlined.
Address correspondence to Michael Lane Morris, Department of Management, The

University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration, 410 Stokely Management Center,
Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. E-mail: mmorris1@utk.edu
1
M. L. Morris et al.
KEYWORDS family life education, marketing, marriage education,

training
INTRODUCTION
The marriage education (ME) movement has emerged in response to the
many challenges facing marriage and families today (Hunt, Hof, & DeMaria,
1998; Larson, 2004). Although a growing percentage of couples report interest in attending workshops designed to strengthen their marriage and family
(Brotherson & Duncan, 2004; Johnson et al., 2002), the best reported rate is
still well below the majority of eligible couples. This is so despite research
showing 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% better
off than those who do not participate. Most ME programs available today are
primary prevention in focus, designed to assist reasonably well-functioning
individuals and couples at a modest level of risk for relational breakdown
experience greater individual and relational growth (Garland, 1983; Hof &
Miller, 1981; Stanley, Markman, St. Peters, & Leber, 1995). Although technically 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 schedules to teach couples intra- and interpersonal skills like increasing awareness
and 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, greater
attention is needed on better understanding the characteristics of the target
audience (DeMaria, 2005; Duncan, Holman, & Yang, 2007). Marketing
research emphasizes the understanding of target audiences as a prelude to
or 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 marketing
research in ME was almost nonexistent, calling on the field to identify ways
ME might be better marketed. Two decades later, marketing research in ME
continues to face several challenges as numerous empirical questions remain
unaddressed 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,
Marketing Marriage Education
product, place, people, and promotion) rather than on specific elements of

the marketing mix (i.e., in-depth examination of one factor like people).
The current study extends earlier research by focusing only on the intraand interpersonal characteristics of ME participants.
Arcus (1995) has challenged family life educators to answer important
questions, such as what programs and learning conditions best serve prospective family life educator audiences. Marketing research in ME needs to
help answer questions about the suitability of various programs for people
with varying degrees and types of relational challenges, intra- and interpersonal 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 better
meet 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 not
to attend a ME experience, this study sought answers to the following two
questions: (1) how do the intra- and interpersonal traits of ME participants
versus nonparticipants compare? (2) How do specific intra- and interpersonal
traits 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 developing
social marketing messages and research for family life educators, more
specifically ME, are nonexistent; however, theories used in the field of health
and social behavior can provide an ample basis. Our research questions were
guided by Ajzens (1991) theory of planned behavior, which asserts that
intention is the strongest predictor of behavior. Behavioral intention is a
function of three major factors: ones attitude toward the behavior, subjective
norms about the behavior, and perceived behavioral control. A persons
attitudes toward a behavior reflect the individuals beliefs about the likely
positive and negative consequences for performing a behavior. Subjective
norms involve an individuals beliefs about what significant others think
about the behavior and how motivated they are to live up to their expectations. 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 experience
improved relational consequences, such as improved communication and
intimacy, that outweigh potentially negative ones, such as feelings of
discomfort 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
M. L. Morris et al.
consequences they are not already currently experiencing. If close friends

have participated and reported their marriage is better as a result or if important significant others, such as trusted clergy, recommend it, they will be
more likely to attend. Based on the theory of planned behavior, the concepts
of volition and intention seem particularly relevant to the question of
whether or not an individual will participate or not participate in ME programming. Specifically, if given the opportunity to attend, what dispositional
and relational factors of prospective ME participants might influence an
attendance decision?
COMPARING PARTICIPANTS AND NONPARTICIPANTS IN

MARRIAGE EDUCATION
Research suggests that an important challenge to consider in evaluating the
potential effectiveness of ME programs to reach targeted populations is determining if there are intra- and=or interpersonal differences between ME program participants (attendees) and nonparticipants (DeMaria, 2005; Hof &
Miller, 1981; Hunt et al., 1998; Powell & Cassidy, 2001). From our theoretical
perspective, various intra- and interpersonal factors likely lead audiences to
foresee consequences of involvement in ME differently, resulting in differing
levels of intention. Unfortunately, few studies have explored this unique and
complex 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-large
through various sampling procedures (e.g., control group, waiting-list control, or no-treatment control) rather than comparing individuals who were
first informed and then made personal decisions about participating or not
participating in a ME experience. It is possible that participants randomly
assigned to a control group hold similar interests in ME as do participant
groups and would elect that intervention if research protocol allowed them
to do so. Intentionality to attend among these audiences has not been
assessed.
In addition, few studies have compared program participants with those
who made personal a priori informed choices not to participate in a ME program. As a notable example, Roberts and Morris (1998) found no differences
between ME participant and nonparticipant groups on measures of satisfaction, marriage and family strength, and commitment to change. Nonparticipants were significantly more satisfied than participants with their abilities
to communicate, and the nonattending wifes self-esteem was also higher.
However, a limitation of this and other earlier research involves the
breadth of comparisons that have been made between participants and
nonparticipants. To date, most studies (e.g., Malcom, 1992; Spoth, Redman,
Hockaday, & Shin, 1996) have compared individual differences on a narrow
range of intra- and interpersonal characteristics (i.e., 2 or 3) rather than on a

broader set of characteristics (i.e., 8 to 10). As examples, in a meta-analysis of
85 studies of premarital, marital, and family enrichment, Giblin, Sprenkle,
and Sheehan (1985) reported that individuals and couples with different personality types may be more likely than others to volunteer for ME. Similarly,
compiling information from a diverse number of studies, Powell and
Wampler (1982) found ME participants were less satisfied in their marriages
than nonparticipants. However, ME couple participants are more satisfied
than couples pursuing marriage counseling or therapy. However, these studies only compared participant differences on a few select variables (e.g.,
marital satisfaction). Thus, there is a greater need for marriage education
research that systematically and simultaneously compares program participants on a broader array of different types of intrapersonal (e.g., emotional
health) and interpersonal (e.g., communication skills) qualities (Hunt et al.,
1998) that represent a fuller consideration of the most important contexts
for marriage.
An additional research question in this study was to determine if the
intra- and=or interpersonal characteristics of prospective participants predicts
participants decisions to attend versus not attend marriage education. Among
marriage preparation audiences, Duncan, Holman, and Yang (2007) sought to
identify the individual, couple, family, and social context characteristics that
distinguished 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 relationship problems predicted involvement, whereas none of the family or social
context characteristics did. Similarly, a significant marketing issue worthy of
research attention among married couple audiences is the important need
to determine the attendance characteristics and motivations of individuals
as expressed through their perceived personal and relational qualities. Larson
(2004) noted a vast array of motivational factors and processes (e.g., program
cost, time involvement, awareness of program availability, fear, stigmatization, willingness of other spouse, personal=interpersonal characteristics)
influencing the decision of participants to attend ME. Hunt et al. (1998) suggested that most attendance decisions are voluntarily made by individuals
based on their self-assessment of their relationship situation, an understanding or interest in the topic(s) being covered, and with a belief that the content
is relevant or capable of meeting their individual or relational needs or
distresses. Taken together, these studies identify factors that may translate into
felt needs (Arcus, 1993; Powell & Cassidy, 2001) of a ME audience, leading
to increased intentionality of ME involvement.
In consideration of this prior research and in determining what
broad and more comprehensive set of variables should be considered in
attempting to predict involvement or noninvolvement in ME programs, a
review of intended ME program antecedents and outcomes seemed relevant
M. L. Morris et al.
(e.g., Goddard & Olsen, 2004; Gurman & Kniskern, 1977; Hawkins, Carroll,
Doherty, & Willoughby, 2004; Stahman & Salts, 1993). This review identified
a blend of marital adjustment and dynamics variables like intimacy and
fusion, individual personality variables like self-esteem and religiosity, perceptions of spouse, and relationship skills variables like communication
and conflict resolution that all contribute to positive and healthy marital
outcomes (DeMaria, 2005; Elin, 1999; Stahman & Salts, 1993). Specifically,
our intent in this study was to compare two groups, ME participants versus
nonparticipants, on several individual and relational characteristics (marital
fusion=individuation, self-esteem, marital and family strength, dyadic consensus, intimacy, marital satisfaction, communication skills, marital conflict,
marital expectations, religiosity, and relational commitment) to determine if
self-reported dispositions and relational characteristics would predict their
program attendance.
METHODS
ME Program Description
Survey data were collected from couples invited to participate in the Building
and Enriching Stronger Tennessee (BEST) Families program in eight
community workshops over a 9-month period. The BEST program is a training series of prevention-based family life education seminars focused on
marriage, parenting, and the family (for an expanded description of the
program, see Morris & Roberts, 1997) and conducted in a wide variety of
community settings (e.g., workplace, church, community centers) with a cost
of $30 dollars per couple to cover the expenses associated with workshop
program materials, refreshments, lunch, and so on. The BEST program series
is 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 study
involved seven highly interactive lecture sessions on topical content like
enriching communication, juggling work and family life, and enhancing
relational intimacy. The BEST Families marriage education program is similar to many other ME programs emphasizing the need to promote positive
communication, worklife balance, and interpersonal intimacy in improving
the quality and satisfaction of the marriage relationship (e.g., Markman,
Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). Decades
of research show these topics are desired by prospective participants and
are appropriate for assisting individuals and couples to ameliorate the
effects of select patterns of negative and unhealthy interaction (e.g., Bray,
Williamson, & Malone, 1984; Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Hawkins et al.,
2004; Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
Each of the sessions from the BEST program was supplemented by

structured learning experiences and self=partner awareness assessments
designed to enhance individual=couple=group discussion and facilitate
reflection, experimentation, application, and generalization of the structured
learning experiences. Workshop participants especially were challenged to
consider areas in their personal life (e.g., worklife conflict, enriching
communication) they desired to improve in developing more positive and
healthier relationships.
Sample
The sample consisted of 167 married couples (334 individuals), of which 121
married couples participated in the program and 46 married couples did not
participate. As part of the assessment process, individual participants and
nonparticipants were asked to provide general demographic information
and background data. Presentation of individual demographics are divided
into program participants and nonparticipants.
Concerning program participants, the average age of participant husbands 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 were
in their first marriage, whereas 87.6% of wives reported they were in their first
marriage. The average length of the current marriage was 15.21 years. Male and
female participants reported similar levels of education until the postgraduate
level, with 15.7% percent of females and 12.4% of males completing high
school, 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 wives
reported being Protestant. Finally, regarding employment demographics,
93.4% of husbands were employed full-time, working an average of 47.5 hours
per week in predominantly professional roles (77.7%). Alternatively, 45.5% of
wives were employed full-time, working an average of 32.75 hours per week
in predominantly professional (35.5%) and clerical (24.8%) roles.
Regarding nonparticipants, the average age of nonparticipant husbands
was 38.11, whereas the average age of nonparticipant wives was 37.09. In
terms of ethnicity, 100% of husbands and wives were White. Concerning
marital 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 average length of the current marriage was 12.40 years. Male and female nonparticipants were overall more educated than participants, with 6.5% of females
and 6.5% of males completing high school, 41.3% of females and 50% of
males obtaining a bachelors degree, and 34.8% of females and 32.6% of
males completing a postgraduate degree. Regarding religious denomination,
95.7% of husbands and 96.6% of wives reported being Protestant. Finally,
M. L. Morris et al.
regarding employment demographics, 93.5% of husbands were employed

full-time, working an average of 45.8 hours per week in predominantly
professional roles (76.1%). Alternatively, 60.9% of wives were employed
full-time, working an average of 37.03 hours per week in predominantly
professional roles (71.8%).
Concerning couple dyads, sociodemographic information provided by
program participant and nonparticipant couples was compared and found
to be similar in all but two demographic categories. As shown in Table 1,
mixed-race couples were only present in the program participant group.
Second, first-time marriages for married partners were more prevalent in nonparticipant couples than in participant couples. Analyses examining potential
significant differences among these demographic variables are discussed later.
Instruments
Each couple partner in this study separately and independently completed 11
scales that measured intra- and interpersonal characteristics. Each of the 11
TABLE 1 Couple Demographic Indicators by Participation
Nonparticipants
(n 46 couples)
Participants
(n 121 couples)
Demographic indicator
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Homogeneity
t-statistic
Age Differencea
Ethnicityb
Marital statusc
Length of current marriage
Religious denominationb
Employment statusd
Satisfaction w=life insuranceb
Satisfaction w=health insuranceb
Satisfaction w=savingsb
Satisfaction w=retirementb
Financial comparison with
parentsb
Financial comparison with others
in churchb
Financial comparison with others
in professionb
3.07
1.00
1.07
12.40
1.07
1.33
1.22
1.04
1.30
1.26
1.52
5.83
.00
.25
10.92
.25
.79
.42
.21
.47
.44
.51
3.22
1.04
1.24
15.48
1.06
1.50
1.16
1.08
1.17
1.26
1.59
3.58
.20
.65
10.54
.24
.93
.37
.28
.38
.44
.49
.21
2.27
2.52
1.66
.20
1.09
.92
.87
1.70
.05
.82
1.39
.49
1.40
.49
.16
1.50
.51
1.52
.50
.24
SD, standard deviation.

a
Absolute difference in couple partners ages.
b
Categorical variable (1 same response for couple partners, 2 different response for couple partners).
c
Categorical variable (1 first marriage for both partners; 2 one divorcee, one first marriage; 3 both
partners divorced; 4 other).
d
Categorical variable (1 both employed, 2 one partner unemployed, 3 both partners unemployed,
4 other).

p .05, p .01.
scales was selected because of its previously demonstrated psychometric

properties (e.g., reliability, validity, practicality) as well as its relevance to this
studys research questions. Specifically, the scales measure the individuals
level of self-esteem, the degree that an individual operates in a fused or individuated manner in their relationships, the degree of intimacy in the marital
relationship, the quality of communication in the marriage, relational commitment, degree of conflict, perceived level of marital and family strength,
dyadic consensus, expectations of spousal behavior, level of marital satisfaction, 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 selfconcept that assesses the positive and negative attitudes one has toward
him- or herself. Higher aggregate scores on the RSE indicate a greater
feeling of positive self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965). Research with of the
RSE scale indicates acceptable reliability with reported coefficient alphas
ranging from .72 to .88 (Gray-Little, Williams, & Hancock, 1997). In this
study, the Cronbachs alpha for RSE was .89.
Spousal Fusion=Individuation Scale (SPFUS): A 19-item subscale of the Personal Authority in the Family System Questionnaire (PAFS-Q) that assesses
family processes based on intergenerational family theory (Bray et al.,
1984). Higher aggregate scores on the SPFUS indicate an individuals tendency to act or make decisions independently from his or her spouse. The
SPFUS 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 that
assesses an individuals perceived level of satisfaction and intimacy with
his or her partner (Bray et al., 1984). Higher aggregate scores on the SPINT
indicate greater satisfaction and more intimacy with ones partner. In this
study, the Cronbachs alpha for SPINT was .88.
Marital Communication Inventory (MCI): A 46-item scale that assesses an
individuals ability to listen, understand, and express ones self (Bienvenu,
1970). Higher aggregate scores reflect greater perceived levels of communication 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 greater
commitment 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 aggregate scores reflect a greater ability to constructively manage conflict. In this
study, the Cronbachs alpha for conflict was .95.
10
.
M. L. Morris et al.
Strong Marriage=Family Scale (SM=FS): A two-item scale that assesses an

individuals 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 Adjustment
Scale that assesses those facets of a relationship that deal with the individuals perception of the couples agreement or disagreement on a variety
of basic relationship issues (e.g., finances, recreation, religion, friends)
(Spanier, 1976). Higher aggregate scores indicate a greater perception of
consensus in the relationship. Spanier (1976) reported a Cronbachs alpha
of .90 for this subscale. In this study, the Cronbachs alpha was .88.
Marital Comparison Level Index (MCLI): A 10-item scale that assesses
an individuals perceptions of the ability of their marital relationship to
meet their personal expectations of what is acceptable marital behavior
(Sabatelli, 1984). The MCLI was designed to provide researchers with a
measure of marital complaints by focusing on the contrast between
couples marital experiences and expectations. Higher aggregate scores
indicate an alignment between an individuals expectations and perceived
reality in the relationship (Sabatelli & Cecil-Pigo, 1985). Sabatelli (1984)
reported a Cronbachs alpha of .93 for the MCLI. In this study, the
Cronbachs alpha for MCLI was .86.
Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMS): A three-item scale that assesses
an 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 importance
of religion in daily activities. In this study, the Cronbachs alpha was .66.
Respondents also were asked to provide sociodemographic information

that included age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, length of present marital
status, educational attainment, denominational affiliation, profession, employment status, income, and financial situation.
Procedure
The BEST Families workshops were led by the same facilitator at eight different community settings in Tennessee. The facilitator possessed a doctorate
with professional qualifications in marriage and family therapy and had
considerable experience in facilitating marriage education workshops. Workshops were conducted in an intensive weekend format involving 10 to 12
hours of information exchange, skill-building techniques, modeling, and
11
participant practice. The average workshop size consisted of 18 married

couples (36 individuals). The program was advertised through brochures,
fliers, and referrals as an opportunity to enhance and develop a satisfying
marriage through increased communication skills and relational intimacy.
Participants were self-selecting, voluntarily having a choice to attend or not
to attend the seminars rather than recruited and offered reimbursement for
attending. Before the workshops data were collected individually from these
couples before discussing or participating in structured learning experiences
that would enhance or enrich their marital relationships. Husbands and
wives were asked to complete the 11 instruments separately and independently of each other to protect their confidentiality.
Approximately 1 week after the seminar, a random group of other married couples from these settings was selected. Random selection of nonparticipant couples was accomplished through membership lists (e.g., Sunday
school roster) provided by the sponsoring hosts of the marriage enrichment
workshops. Nonparticipant couples acknowledged they knew about the marriage education seminar via the marketing and promotional efforts, had considered attending, but communicated they had elected not to attend for one
reason or another (e.g., personal choice, transportation, scheduling conflicts).
Nonparticipant married couples were mailed a questionnaire containing the
same 11 scales completed by the marriage education workshop participants.
Similarly, husbands and wives from these married couples (i.e., nonparticipants) were requested to complete the same 11 instruments independently
to protect their confidentiality and individual privacy. Multiple return envelopes 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 in
the seminar was 68%. Nonresponse bias was examined by comparing sociodemographic indicators of participants, nonparticipants, and area demographic. No issues emerged in this examination, and nonresponse bias was
determined to not have occurred. The sample was divided into two groups
based on participation versus nonparticipation in the marriage education
workshops. Because of the blend of measures used in this study involving perceptions of self, marriage, and relationship characteristics, the unit of analysis
in this study was mixed. For most demographic variables, combined data were
coded based on congruence in responses; for example, if partners independently indicated the same race, the resultant coding was 1, whereas if a
mixed-race couple was indicated, the coding was 2. Four deviances to this
method 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 marriage was used. For job status, couples were coded as 1 if both partners were
employed at least part-time, 2 if one of the partners was employed at least
part-time and the other unemployed, 3 if both partners were unemployed,
and 4 for other statuses (generally retirement). For marital status, couples were
12
M. L. Morris et al.
coded 1 if this was the first marriage for both partners, 2 if one partner had
been divorced and it was the first marriage for the other partner, 3 if both partners 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 single
response, independent sample t-tests were still appropriate for analysis.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Before beginning the main analyses, a series of t-tests were run to determine
homogeneity between participant and nonparticipant couple groups. t-Tests
were conducted to test for statistically equivalent mean responses for each
demographic indicator. Results showed that ME participant couples were significantly more likely to be in a mixed-race relationship and to have been
previously married (see Table 1). These variables served as control variables
in subsequent analyses of couple differences.
Assessing Couple and Individual Differences Between Participants

and Nonparticipants
A series of analysis of covariance procedures was conducted to determine
differences in intra- and interpersonal marriage characteristics based on
participation in marriage education. As a reminder, marriage characteristic
scores were calculated by taking the absolute difference in scores from each
partner in the couple. Therefore, closer scores were indicative of a greater
congruence in perception of the marital characteristic in question. To isolate
true differences based on participant status, the significantly different demographic characteristics (i.e., ethnicity, marital status) identified above and in
Table 1 were used as covariates, with the resulting estimated marginal couple
means for each marriage characteristic compared by participation (Coleman
& Pulford, 2008). As shown in Table 2, couples participating in the marriage
education workshops reported significantly closer scores in three areas as
compared 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 marriage
education were more alike (e.g., congruent) in their perceptions of their
marital 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 of t-tests
13
TABLE 2 Analysis of Covariance Results of Couples ME Participation on Marriage

Characteristic Variables
Nonparticipants
(n 46 couples)
Participants
(n 121 couples)
Instrumentation variable
Meana
SE
Meana
SE
F-statistic
Religiosity
Self-esteem
Fusion
Intimacy
Communication
Commitment
Conflict
Marital Strength
Consensus
Expectations
Satisfaction
1.78
5.53
8.80
5.06
18.06
3.28
23.61
1.42
9.62
7.00
3.52
.28
.82
1.25
.91
2.42
.54
3.43
.24
1.48
.97
.60
.90
5.55
7.09
3.95
11.16
2.74
18.75
1.23
6.16
5.78
2.90
.17
.49
.75
.54
1.44
.32
2.04
.15
.88
.58
.36
6.66
.00
1.29
1.03
5.68
.69
1.40
.42
3.81
1.10
.74
Estimated mean controlling for ethnicity and marital status.

p < .05, p < .01.
were conducted. As seen in Table 3, 9 of 11 marriage characteristic variables

were significantly different, with nonparticipants reporting significantly
higher levels of self-esteem, intimacy, marital communication, marital consensus, relational commitment, conflict resolution skills, marital satisfaction,
marital expectations, and marital strength than their ME attendee counterparts. The magnitude of those significant differences was greatest for
communication 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
Religiositya
Self-esteem
Fusion
Intimacy
Communication
Commitment
Conflict
Marital strength
Consensusb
Expectations
Satisfactionc
7.42
33.87
53.11
38.66
109.01
23.15
140.80
9.07
49.60
39.64
18.00
.90
4.40
6.70
4.33
16.49
2.30
23.08
1.11
5.26
5.76
3.80
7.41
31.69
53.54
35.23
94.92
22.08
127.84
8.00
47.33
36.65
16.36
.94
5.00
7.19
5.87
19.10
3.11
25.79
1.80
5.71
6.50
3.67
Participant n 241.
Participant n 229, nonparticipant n 91.
c
Nonparticipant n 91.

p < .01, p < .001.
b
t-Statistic (df)
.079
3.669
.496
5.104
6.247
3.008
4.222
5.278
3.283
3.873
3.610
(331)
(332)
(332)
(332)
(332)
(332)
(332)
(332)
(318)
(332)
(331)
14
M. L. Morris et al.
participant and nonparticipant individuals regarding religiosity or marital

fusion.
Predicting Couple Involvement in ME

Finally, similarly to Halford et al. (2006), a forward stepwise Wald logistic
regression analysis was conducted to determine if a couples attendance at
the marital education program could be predicted using the 11 instrumentation variables. Additionally, for couple participation prediction, the demographic 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 predictor
of attendance in the marital education seminar. In contrast, higher levels of
marital communication resulted in a lower likelihood to participate in marriage education. The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit resulted in a
chi-square 13.17, df 8, p .11, indicating a good fit. Simonoff (2003) indicated that unlike traditional p-value interpretations, a high p-value is desired
in the Hosmer and Lemeshow chi-square test because it examines the
hypothesis that no other model fits better. Therefore, the higher the p-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 of
ME participants versus nonparticipants compared with one another. Results
suggested that participants attending ME programs possess different levels
of intra- and=or interpersonal qualities when compared with nonattending
individuals. The findings of this study are consistent with a number of scholarly 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 independently of demographic factors, such as age, ethnicity, and income. In
contrast to nonparticipants, ME participants scored significantly lower on 9
of 11 variables (i.e., self-esteem, marital communication, relational commitment, marital conflict, marital strength, marital consensus, intimacy, marital
expectations, and marital satisfaction). Thus, consistent with our theoretical
perspective, couples who attend ME may perceive greater intrapersonal
and interpersonal needs in their marriage and intentionally seek out services
that 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
15
sensitivity to criticism, and greater vulnerability to rejection (Hof & Miller,

1981). In this study, individuals participating in the ME experience may have
felt the need to develop more self-esteem and become less sensitive to their
partners behavior. In terms of marital communication, many researchers have
suggested that married individuals who do not effectively communicate face
challenges in developing close, intimate relationships (e.g., Gottman, 1994;
Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994). Because communication is strongly
related to marital satisfaction, individuals who chose to attend the ME experience in this study may have assessed their relational situation, especially
regarding communication, and as a result wanted to improve the quality of
their communication by learning and practicing new skills, as emphasized
in some of the content of the BEST program.
In terms of relational commitment, Stanley and Markman (1992) noted
that commitment reflects a personal dedication and intrinsic desire to
improve and invest in the relationship. Lower levels of relational commitment are evident in the continuing high level of divorce (Stanley, 2005). In
making the decision to attend the ME experience, individuals in this study
may have felt the need to develop greater commitment in their relationship.
Concerning conflict, Gottman (1994) noted that elevated levels of negative
affect produce emotional withdrawal and eruptions of negative affect reciprocity in couples, leading to marital disruption and possible dissolution.
Although marital conflict is inevitable, individuals attending the ME experience in this study may have been looking for more productive and constructive ways to manage their conflict. Previous research has shown marital
strengths serve as a reservoir or pool of resources that can be drawn from
during times of difficulty or stress (Stanley et al., 1995). In this study individuals electing to attend the ME experience may have performed a relational
audit and determined that their reserves had become depleted by the
wear-and-tear of daily relational stresses. In terms of dyadic consensus, participating individuals in this study may have realized that some interactions
within their relationships were below the threshold of their own subjective
standards they hold as meaningful to their marital satisfaction and were seeking ways to improve their levels of agreement on basic relationship issues.
Previous research on intimacy has suggested that it serves as a major
bonding force within the marriage relationship. Intimacy is the core of a loving relationship (Heller & Wood, 1998) and depends on empathy for each
others experiences. Individuals attending the ME experience in this study
might have been looking for opportunities to increase their own and others
awareness regarding the role of intimacy in their relationship (Hunt et al.,
1998). Couples who experience less than they expect in marriage may feel
disappointment (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 2001) and may see ME as
a 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
16
M. L. Morris et al.
quality. In this study, individuals participating in the ME experience may

have desired to improve their overall feelings about their marriage relationship. Given that increasing marital satisfaction is a key goal in ME, this result
is not surprising.
Our second research question asked whether specific intra- and interpersonal traits predicted attendance versus nonattendance in ME. Of the variables
measured in this study, results suggested that the probability of program
attendance could be predicted only by marital communication. In fact, the
margin between raw scores differentiating participating and nonparticipating
groups were by far the widest on the communication variable, also supportive
of earlier research (Roberts & Morris, 1998). Findings in the current study suggest that odds are strongest for attending ME if individuals perceive lower
quality communication in their relationship, more than any other interpersonal or intrapersonal variable. The identification of relationship problems,
including communication, was also a lead interpersonal factor predicting
involvement in marriage preparation programs (Duncan et al., 2007). Participants may perceive ME involvement as a key to maximize marital benefits,
such as enhanced relationship satisfaction, obtainable through improved
communication. Research shows that quality communication is inextricably
linked to relational health and marital satisfaction (e.g., Gottman, 1994).
Occasionally, marriage education is accused of only reaching audiences
of relatively low need (e.g., Halford et al., 2006). Although risk levels of any
of the intra- and interpersonal variables were not assessed in this study, it is
clear that those who participated in this ME program scored significantly
lower in areas typically targeted for marriage education. Thus, the audience
attending the BEST program in this study could be said to be at greater need
for marriage education than nonparticipants. Those who did attend were, on
average, less well off intrapersonally and interpersonally than nonparticipants and sought intervention in an area in which they had the lowest score
and, perhaps, the greatest perceived need: communication.
Limitations
There are several limitations in this study that should be considered relevant
for future marketing research studies. First, this study explored a ME service
that was designed and marketed, in part, to improve marital communication,
with the intent of recruiting participants who needed that skill. Thus, the
finding that the sole significant predictor for participation in BEST was lower
communication may come as little surprise. The finding may be simply a
function a match between audience characteristics and products. Additional
study is needed among other ME programs to assess whether communication
is 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.
17
Until recently (Duncan, Hawkins, & Goddard, 2011), lack of sample diversity
in program participation and studies has been a consistent limitation in the
ME 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. Generalizations 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 data
from 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, beliefs
about common method bias in self-report measures, especially in regards to
self-report studies that involve measuring constructs of perceptions of private events like those included in this study (e.g., personal attitudes or subjective feelings), may have been overstated. This study tested for common
method bias by examining the presence of correlations between independent variables. Spector (2006) notes that when common method bias
exists, all the relationships among variables should be significant. Without
full relationship significance, common method bias is so small it can be considered meaningless. Approximately 68% of the correlations were not significant, providing no indications of common method bias. However, future
research should attempt to incorporate other multilevel methods (e.g., observation, interviews) to reduce the potential for response biases in determining
influences on ME attendance.
A final limitation inherent in this study was that the data do not reveal
how many nonparticipants wanted to attend the ME workshops but were
unable to attend due to personal barriers (e.g., program costs, lack of child
care) that interfered with their participation. Based on the theoretical tenets
guiding this study involving reasoned action and planned behavior (Ajzen,
1991; Fishbein, 1980), just because individuals and=or couples wanted or
intended to attend the ME workshops does not mean they were sufficiently
motivated to actually attend the ME workshops. Future ME studies should
explore constructs examining attendance motivation.
Notwithstanding these limitations, a primary strength of this study was
that it is one of the few to compare a unique sample of ME program participants and nonparticipants who were offered the same program. We also
uniquely examined multiple factors and predictors affecting the decision to
be involved in marriage education. Thus, we have helped to narrow a gap
noted 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 interpersonal factors that could distinguish participants from nonparticipants and predict
18
M. L. Morris et al.
attendance, interpersonal factors are of far greater importance. Emphasizing

intrapersonal positive consequences such as enhanced self-esteem would
not be as effective in its appeal as emphasizing interpersonal benefits such
as improved communication, better handling of conflict, and greater intimacy.
A second recommendation is that these findings should not be used to
draft negative ME marketing messages that suggest individuals who attend
ME are always less satisfied or possess lower self-esteem than those who
did not attend. In no way should these findings imply that the individuals
choosing not to participate would not have benefited from the educational
experience. In fact, in working with married persons with low or poor
self-esteem, marital satisfaction should also be assessed, because they are
highly related and that couple approaches to increasing self-esteem in programs like the BEST Families program should be considered in addition to
individual approaches, like self-help books and psychotherapy. ME marketing messages to prospective audiences should positively embrace and celebrate an individual or couples voluntary decision to invest their
resources, time, and energy toward proactively taking actions that are
intended to enhance the quality of their personal and relational lives. For
too many years the common belief within prevention circles has been that
only the healthy and well patients go to the doctor. Our results suggest that
less healthy patients also go to the doctor. In earlier research this audience
has been depicted as less likely to attend ME. Less healthy individuals may
perceive ME as less threatening, costly, and lengthy than marital therapy
and thus may select it as a first response to marital problems (Larson, 2004).
A third recommendation is that marketing research involving ME should
be extended to other community and corporate settings like those used in
this study. A majority of ME settings have included retreat centers, college
campuses, hotels, and community agency settings that are affiliated with
faith-based communities (Hawkins et al., 2004). Researchers have recommended that ME settings that are supportive, positive, comfortable,
adult-like, and free from distractions would be conducive for ME workshop
settings (e.g., Morris et al., 1999). With the rapidly expanding emphasis of
worklife policies and programs among many corporations, future ME workshops should be able to secure a place within corporate employee support
programs 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 advocated
that marriage educators should engage in responsible marketing efforts to
make sure that the educational product or service being promoted and delivered is capable of reaching the correct target audiences. Responsible marketing and delivery of prevention services is an ethical endeavor, and family
life educators should make every effort to avoid misleading and=or manipulating prospective participants of their services (e.g., suggesting that ME is
only for healthy couples).
19
REFERENCES
Adler-Baeder, F., & Higginbotham, B. (2004). Implications of remarriage and
stepfamily formation for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 448458.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human 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: Family
Service 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 foundations 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 Coordinator, 19, 2631.
Blanding, L. G. (1995). Relational equity and household division of labor as predictors of marital, parental, and work satisfaction for dual-earner mean and
women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Bray, J. H., Williamson, D. S., & Malone, P. E. (1984). Personal authority in the family
system: Development of a questionnaire to measure personal authority in
intergenerational family process. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10,
167178.
Brotherson, S. E., & Duncan, W. C. (2004). Rebinding the ties that bind: Government
efforts to preserve and promote marriage. Family Relations, 53, 459468.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business
Psychology, 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 case
study of PAIRS, a contemporary psycho educational marital intervention
program. 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: Toward
a methodological and conceptual refinement. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 49, 3149.
20
M. L. Morris et al.
Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. 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 guide
for developing, conducting, and evaluating programs. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Giblin, P., Sprenkle, D. H., & Sheehan, R. (1985). Enrichment outcome research: A
meta-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 interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 927947.
Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An item response theory
analysis 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 practice
in 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 high
risk of relationship problems attend marriage education? Journal of Family
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 comprehensive 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. Australian
Journal 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 system
change. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8, 722.
Hunt, R., Hof, L., & DeMaria, R. (1998). Marriage enrichment: Preparation, mentoring, and outreach. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner=Mazel.
21
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 Clinical
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 marriage
and divorce (S02096 OKDHS). Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of
Human Services.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality
and 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 Clinical
Research, 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 the
Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Reports, 53, 545546.
Morris, M. L., Cooper, C., & Gross, K. H. (1999). Marketing factors influencing the
overall satisfaction of marriage education participants. Family Relations, 48,
251261.
Morris, M. L., & Roberts, L. C. (1997). The BEST (Building and Enriching Stronger
Tennessee) 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 recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Powell, G. S., & Wampler, K. S. (1982). Marriage enrichment participants: Levels of
marital 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 outcomes relative to expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 10, 651662.
22
M. L. Morris et al.
Sabatelli, R. M., & Cecil-Pigo, E. F. (1985). Relational interdependence and commitment 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 urban
legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221232.
Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Hockaday, C., & Shin, C. (1996). Barriers to participation
in family skills preventive intervention their evaluations: A replication and
extension. 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 life
education: Foundations of family life education (Vol. 2, pp. 3361). Newbury
Park, 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 relationships. 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. Family Relations, 44, 392401.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. (2002). Communication, conflict, and
commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national
survey. Family Process, 41, 659675.
Thomas, J., Schvaneveldt, J. D., & Young, M. H. (1993). Programs in family life
education: 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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Puerto Rico, Sistema de Bibliotecas

Marriage & Family Review

Who Will Attend? Characteristics of

Michael Lane Morris , Heather S. McMillan , Stephen F. Duncan &

Department of Management , The University of Tennessee ,

Department of Management and Marketing , Southeast Missouri

School of Family Life , Brigham Young University , Provo, Utah, USA

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Marriage & Family Review, 47:122, 2011

Who Will Attend? Characteristics

STEPHEN F. DUNCAN and JEFFRY H. LARSON

There are two purposes of this marriage education marketing

Address correspondence to Michael Lane Morris, Department of Management, The

KEYWORDS family life education, marketing, marriage education,

Marketing Marriage Education

product, place, people, and promotion) rather than on specific elements of

consequences they are not already currently experiencing. If close friends

COMPARING PARTICIPANTS AND NONPARTICIPANTS IN

Marketing Marriage Education

range of intra- and interpersonal characteristics (i.e., 2 or 3) rather than on a

Marketing Marriage Education

Each of the sessions from the BEST program was supplemented by

regarding employment demographics, 93.5% of husbands were employed

SD, standard deviation.

Marketing Marriage Education

scales was selected because of its previously demonstrated psychometric

Strong Marriage=Family Scale (SM=FS): A two-item scale that assesses an

Respondents also were asked to provide sociodemographic information

Marketing Marriage Education

participant practice. The average workshop size consisted of 18 married

Assessing Couple and Individual Differences Between Participants

Marketing Marriage Education

TABLE 2 Analysis of Covariance Results of Couples ME Participation on Marriage

Estimated mean controlling for ethnicity and marital status.

were conducted. As seen in Table 3, 9 of 11 marriage characteristic variables

participant and nonparticipant individuals regarding religiosity or marital

Predicting Couple Involvement in ME

Marketing Marriage Education

sensitivity to criticism, and greater vulnerability to rejection (Hof & Miller,

quality. In this study, individuals participating in the ME experience may

Marketing Marriage Education

Programming Implications and Recommendations

attendance, interpersonal factors are of far greater importance. Emphasizing

Marketing Marriage Education

Marketing Marriage Education

You might also like