Adolescents' Perceptions of Marriage and Premarital Couples Education

Author(s): Benjamin Silliman and Walter R. Schumm

Source: Family Relations, Vol. 53, No. 5 (Oct., 2004), pp. 513-520
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20456768 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 16:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Adolescents' Perceptions of Marriage and Premarital
Couples Education
Benjamin Silliman* and Walter R. Schumm

Adolescents in rural and small city high schools in the western United States (N = 159) reported their perceptions of mar
riage and marriage education. They considered preparation for marriage important, but expressed lower familiarity with
and lower intentions to attend programs than college students assessed previously. Youth valued parents, peers, volunteer
couples, and personal experience as sources of information on marriage and were most interested in a brief, low-cost pro
gram led by a volunteer couple that focused on communication and conflict-resolution skills and issues. Youth attitudes
toward and expectations of marriage reflected some realistic but many unrealistic expectations, consistent with their devel
opmental stage. Implications for programming, research, and policy are discussed.

T he effectiveness of premaritaltrainingin reducingmarital adjustment are evident in adolescence. Developmental theory

distress and promoting marital adjustment has led advo
cates to recommend or mandate marriage and couples
skills classes for high school students (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services [U.S. DHHS], 2002). Over 75% of ado
lescents value and plan for marriage (Johnston, Bachman, &
O'Malley, 2001), butmost report(57.4%) feeling unpreparedfor
marriage (Martin,Specter,Martin, & Martin, 2003). The purpose
of our study was to replicate earlier research findings on young
adults' perceptions of marriage and couples education (Silliman,
Schumm, & Jurich, 1992) with a sample of high school youth. In
addition,adolescentswere surveyed about theirattitudes toward
and expectations of marriage relationships in order to better
understand their conceptualizationof marital relationshipsand
ultimatelydesign effective educationalprogramsfor them.
Review of Literature
Safe and stable marriages benefit adults, children, and com
munities (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Over the past 2 decades,
a good marriage has been an important goal for most adolescents
(Johnstonet al., 2001), includingunmarriedadolescent parents
(Dion et al., 2003). Adolescents are aware of the negative effects
of marital distress and divorce and of trends toward cohabitation
and temporary liaisons, concurrent with later age of marriage, and
thus, they are more ambivalent about marriage (Popenoe &
Whitehead, 2003). Because many newlyweds are surprised by the
stresses and declining satisfaction of the first 3 years of marriage
(Berscheid, 1999; Kurdek, 1999; Morris & Carter, 1999), it is
likely that adolescents generally are unaware of and unprepared
for such adjustment.Moreover, contemporaryexpectations for
a committed companionship type of marriage are difficult to ful
fill even for the best prepared couples (Bradbury, Fincham, &
Beach, 2000; Stanley, 2001).
Many of the enduringvulnerabilities (Kamey& Bradbury,
1995; Linford & Carroll, 2001) and behavioral competencies
(Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2001) predictive of early marriage
*Address correspondence to: Dr. Benjamin Silliman, Department of 4-H Youth Devel
opment, Box 7606, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695 (ben_silliman@
ncsu.edu).
Key Words: adolescence, education, marriage, perceptions, premarital counseling.
(Family Relations, 2004, 53, 513-520)
points to adolescence as a period of physical, cognitive, and
social maturation characterized by growth in personal identity
and formative experiences of intimacy (Steinberg & Morris,
2001). Both delayed marriage and earlier adolescent parenthood
are associated with discontinuity between developmental capaci
ties and social role expectations among adolescents and with
traits and behaviors associated with subsequent poor marital
adjustment (e.g., cohabitation, multiple sexual liaisons, low eco
nomic self-sufficiency;Linford& Carroll).Social learningtheory
(Bandura, 1977) predicts that adolescents who observe poor
parental models or whose relationship experiences reinforce
short-term, pragmatic and limited-commitment values and
behaviors will be poorly prepared for long-term companionship
in marriage. Social learning and family stress (McCubbin &
Patterson, 1983) theories predict that experiences of distress (e.g.,
conflict, violence, substance abuse), and poor coping and adjust
ment in one's family-of-origin, peer, or romantic relationships
limit the status resources (e.g., income, social support) and
behavioral skills that partners bring to marriage. An ecological
framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) applied to the transition to
adulthood suggests that problems in development may be exag
gerated or buffered by social and cultural values, resources, and
interactive networks in personal and relationship development.
The decline of traditional family and community socializa
tion-to-marriage processes and expectations and the lack of ade
quate contemporary alternatives leave many adolescents and
young adults poorly prepared for dating, marriage, and parenting
(Stanley, 2001). Formal marriage preparation efforts focus pri
marily on college-age young adults involved in long-term rela
tionships or preparing for marriage (Carroll & Doherty, 2003),
with the recent exception of efforts to promote healthy family for
mation for adolescent parents (Dion et al., 2003). Prevention and
early intervention with adolescents to reduce vulnerabilities asso
ciated with later marital distress and build competencies for
healthy marriage should positively impact couples' transition to
marriage.
Divorce prevention and relationship enhancement programs
with young adults show evidence of short-term gains in (a) knowl
edge of money, sexuality, and parenting, (b) realistic expectations,
(c) interactive skills such as conflict resolution and problem solv
ing, (d) comfipanionship practices such as shared recreation and
affection, and (e) better long-term stability and satisfaction relative
to nonparticipants (Carroll & Doherty, 2003; Stanley, 2001).
Although dating and marriage education for adolescents is widely
available (Mack, 2000), it is rarely evaluated. Only Gardner

2004, Vol. 53, No. 5 513

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(2001) has reported that a high school dating and marriage course
positively affected conflict-resolution skills and promarriage atti
tudes. Other targeted youth programs in related areas, such as sex
education (Kirby, 2001), dating violence prevention (Foshee
et al., 1998), drug and violence prevention (Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Association [SAMHSA], 2003), show
strong evidence of effectiveness for reducing risk behavior and
increasing positive behaviors broadly related to positive youth and
adult adjustment (Pergamint, Huang, & Lane, 2001).
A recent study (Martin et al., 2003) found that 70.9% of ado
lescents were favorable or neutral toward premarital counseling,
with 47.3% expressing a need for more education on marital
expectations. Previous studies with college students (Williams,
Riley, Risch, & VanDyke, 1999) indicate a general preference to
learn by experience, but they also found substantial interest in
formal marriage preparation if training duration was less than
6 hours, was relatively low cost, had a communication skills focus,
and was offered by a competent, nonthreatening provider to cou
ples who were dating seriously or engaged (Silliman et al., 1992).
Further, Duncan, Box, and Silliman (1996) found that college stu
dents preferred (a) a program that was brief, voluntary, held on
weekday evenings as a discussion or workshop group, included
parents, focused on interpersonal topics, and used a variety of
methods; (b) a price less than $50; (c) a setting within 15 miles of
home; and (d) promotion largely through trusted sources such as
parents, friends, or recent participants. In addition, youth input and
leadership in community and personal development activities also
increased participant recruitment and program effectiveness (Quon
Huber, Frommeyer, Weisenbach, & Sazama, 2003).
Adolescence is typically a time for increasing both the quan
tity and quality of relationship development, including romantic
attachments, within the context of increasing autonomy from
family (Collins, 2003; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Developmen
tal changes in social cognition and future orientation increase
adolescents' understanding of and interest in adult roles (Conger
et al., 2001; Feiring, 2002; Steinberg & Morris). However, even
into young adulthood, knowledge and expectations remain
incomplete because of unrealistic beliefs about mate selection
and marriage (Cobb, Larson, & Watson, 2003), limited or inaccu
rate knowledge of adult roles (Larson & Olson, 1989), under
developed social skills (Stanley, 2001), or unresolved emotions
from events such as parental divorce or dating violence (Foshee
et al., 1998; Riggio, 2004). We argue that awareness of adoles
cents' attitudes toward and expectations of marriage is critical for
educators and therapists to develop appropriate materials and
strategies for marriage education with youth. Early intervention
that helps youth gain a more accurate understanding of marriage
roles and issues, adopt realistic expectations, and improve social
skills holds potential to reduce risks of relationship distress and
promote committed, companionship-oriented marriages.
Purpose
Our primary purpose was to replicate earlier research on
young adults' preferences for premarital preparation designs
(Silliman et al., 1992) with an adolescent sample.We offer two
hypotheses.First, relative to college studentspreviously assessed,
high school studentswill place lower value on marriage and
couples education,express less intentionto attendamarriage and
couples education program, and report lower familiaritywith
marriage and couples education programs (Hypothesis 1).We
reasoned that in general, adolescents engage less in serious
514
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
single-partner dating relationships, have less relationship experi
ence, and are chronologically more distant from marriage than are
college students (Feiring, 2002; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). These
factors may make marriage education seem less necessary or
urgent and lead to lower value and intentions to attend a program
as compared with their older peers. Further, research (Martin
et al., 2003) found that adolescents expressed a much lower need
for marriage education (47.3%) than college students (65%) pre
viously surveyed on intentions to attend a premarital program
(Silliman et al.). Adolescents were not expected to be as familiar
with marriage preparation programs because most programs are
targeted to young adults (Stanley, 2001). We also expected that
adolescents who valued marriage and couples education would be
more likely to report familiarity with such programs and to plan
on attending such programs, and we expected that familiarity with
such programs would increase the likelihood of attending them.
Second, we posited that, among high school students, mar
riage and couples education will be more valued and more famil
iar, and intentions to attend such programs will be greater among
females, serious dating partners, children of divorce, and those
not at risk (e.g., those who report no abuse in their family, abuse
during dating, and drug problems at home; Hypothesis 2).
Our rationale was that in general, females tend to develop
social cognitive skills earlier and are more sensitive to relation
ship status than are males (Collins, 2003; Conger et al., 2001),
predisposing them to learning dating and marriage skills. Surveys
of college students found that females report higher interest in
topics and intentions to attend marriage preparation (Silliman et
al., 1992). Further, serious dating experiences may help partners
appreciate the complexity of relationships and value learning
experiences that promise to help them cope and enhance shared
time. In addition, youth who grow up with distressed or divorced
parents (Amato, 2000; Conger et al.) have poorer relationship and
marital outcomes themselves. Although many such adolescents
and young adults may express strong intentions to reverse child
hood family problems in their own marriages, no research indi
cates whether these youth seek or benefit from such programs;
our hunch is that they do. Lastly, youth at risk because of abuse
or drug problems may be less interested in mariage programs,
because they may be overwhelmed by their immediate emotional
and behavioral problems and less interested in programs designed
to improve their long-term well-being.
In addition, we explored adolescents' interests in premarital
program sources and conditions. We expected that adolescents,
like young adults, would value sources of information on marriage
that were personal, readily available, and emotionally low cost
(e.g., did not entail judgment or coercion). Thus, friends, parents,
mentor couples, and personal experience are likely more attractive
sources of marriage information than courses, videos, or Internet
sites, despite the privacy and limited self-disclosure advantage of
less personal sources. Most adolescents maintain positive relation
ships with parents and regard them as valuable sources of advice
and support (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Nevertheless, adoles
cence is a time of increasing autonomy from parents and increas
ing reference to peers and learning from experience (Collins,
2003; Steinberg& Morris). In addition, researchon help-seeking
suggests thatadolescents look beyond the family for information
and assistance on sensitive topics (Schonert-Reichi, 2002).
Although adolescentsare increasinglyusing the Internetand other
media sources in help-seeking (Skinner,Biscope, Poland, &
Goldberg, 2003), such sourcesmay seem relatively less personal
and credible thana trustedparent,friend,ormentor.
Family Relations
 A second purpose of our study was to examine adolescents'
attitudes and expectations of marriage. Because relatively little
researchhas addressed this, no hypotheses were proposed.We
were guided by two questions:What are adolescents' attitudes
and expectations of marriage? Do attitudes and expectations of
marriage vary by gender, dating status, and risk factors?
Methods
Participants
This study engaged 159 adolescents in grades 9 through 12
(66% female, 34% male; 56% provided no gender identifier),
ranging from 13 to 18 years old (M= 15.8, SD = 1.31) enrolled
in elective classes on home and family living. Respondents were
predominantlyCaucasian (84.3%), from two ruralhigh schools
and two high schools in a city (about 50,000) in the Intermoun
tainWest. Twenty percent identifiedthemselvesasCatholic, 28%
as Protestant, 4% as Mormon, and 4% as agnostic, whereas 44%
claimed "other" religious groups.Most (66.1%) did not report
involvement in a committed relationship,but 26.8% were in
a committed relationship, 3.9% were engaged, and 3.1% were
single parents. The majority (92%) were living with parents and
smaller percentages with others (3.7%), a partner (2.9%), or alone
(1.5%). Parents of the respondentswere married (54.5%) or
remarried (27.7%), divorced (8.2%), separated (2.2%), or of
some other status (7.5%). Twenty five percent of the students had
observed abuse of a parent (9.4% often or very often), whereas
35.8% were themselves abused by parents (8.1% often or very
often). About 10% reported inappropriate sexual behavior in their
family (1.4% often or very often), and problems with drugs either
often or very often were reported for their parents (13.2%) or
themselves (7.3%).
Instruments
Perceptions of marriage and couples education. Respon
dents completed a 91-item Relationship Education Program Pref
erences (REPP) questionnaire, adapted slightly from a survey of
young adults' perceptions of premarital education (Silliman et al.,
1992). The survey was grounded in the Theory of Reasoned
Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) that postulates that future
behaviors can be reliably predicted from current intentions to act.
Prior researchwith college students (Silliman, 1987) indicated
that familiarity with educational programs and belief in the
importanceof marriage preparationare positively related to both
intentionsfor program attendanceand interest in program con
tent. Respondents first ranked each of 13 sources of information
on marriage (see Table 1) in preferred order of use, then they
rated the perceived quality of each on a 5-point Likert-type scale
(poor = 1 to excellent = 5). Next, youth were asked, using a 7
point scale, to indicate intentions to attend a marriage preparation
program (extremely unlikely = 1 to extremely likely = 7), famil
iarity with such programs (not at all familiar = 1 to very famil
iar = 7), and their view of the importance of conscious
preparation for marriage (not at all important = 1 to extremely
important = 7). Respondents were then asked to indicate their
level of interest in attending a marriage and couples education
programunder eight conditions related to the program (length;
cost; attendance requirements;program provider(s); individual,
couple, or group formats; and awareness information), or skills
emphasis, specific topics, and program outcomes using a 7-point
scale (extremely opposed = 1 to extremely interested = 7).
Internalconsistency reliabilitycoefficient alphas (Cronbach,
1951) were calculated. They were .59 for preference ranking, .69
for quality, and between .66 and .95 for scales related to program
We estab
conditions (e.g., length,cost, attendancerequirements).
lishedcontentvalidity for theoriginal instrument(Silliman,1987),
and more recent reviews of marriage preparation topics and
methods (Mack, 2000; Stanley, 2001) further validated the rele
vance of conditions-such as program duration and provider-as
marriageeducationoptions and suggestedadditionalsources (e.g.,
married couples, Cooperative Extension publications, videos,
computerprograms).
Attitudes toward and expectations of marriage. Attitudes
about and expectations of marriage were assessed using the
Awareness of Attitudes andRelationshipExpectations (AWARE)
survey (Olson & Foumier, 1994). The AWARE included 19
demographic and personal experience items, 110 items on atti
tudes and expectations, and 20 items asking respondents about
cohesion and adaptability in their families of origin. Within the
110 attitudes and expectations items, AWARE authors identified
11 subscales (i.e., dating and marital satisfaction, communication,
relationshipproblems, relationship conflict, parenting,marital

Table 1
Ranking of and Quality Ratings of Marriage Information Sources Among Adolescents

Preference Percent in Perceivedquality Percent ratedas

Sources M SD Top 3 Bottom 5 M SD Good Poor

1.Talkwith friends 3.32 2.57 64.4 5.5 3.94 1.01 71.6 10.4
2. Talkwith parents 3.82 2.75 56.2 9.6 3.79 1.13 65.9 13.3
3. Experience 4.51 3.21 47.3 17.6 4.06 1.12 71.9 11.1
4. Talkwith couples 5.11 3.08 33.6 19.5 3.64 1.15 59.7 15.7
5.Magazines 5.38 3.32 34.2 15.8 3.02 1.08 37.1 26.9
6. TV-Radio 5.70 3.43 33.6 30.1 3.04 1.15 36.3 31.9
7. Newsletter 6.93 3.57 23.2 44.5 2.53 .99 15.1 48.1
8. School Classes 6.38 3.54 27.4 35.6 3.01 1.22 36.3 31.1
9. Talkwith clergy 6.79 4.05 26.7 41.8 3.19 1.32 42.5 26.1
10.MP workshops 7.12 3.80 23.3 47.3 2.98 1.18 36.8 33.8
11.Home video 7.50 3.85 24.9 57.2 2.45 1.04 14.4 3.8
12. Extensionpublications 7.88 3.80 21.9 64.4 2.35 .99 10.5 54.1
13.Computer 8.10 3.76 17.0 65.1 2.36 1.02 10.6 54.5

Note: Quality assessed on a 5-point scale with 5 = excellent.

2004, Vol. 53, No. 5 515

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
adjustment, love and marriage, sexuality, gender roles, realistic
expectations, and financial management). Five-point scales were
used to ask about attitudes and expectations (strongly dis
agree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). The AWARE instrument was
not used previously with the college student sample described in
Silliman et al. (1992).
As reported elsewhere (Silliman & Schumm, 2002), we
found unexpectedly low alpha reliability coefficients, ranging
from .10 to .66 for the AWARE attitudes and expectations sub
scales (e.g., communication, realistic expectations, gender roles)
with the present sample. Reanalyses, in which weaker items were
deleted from subscales with lower internal consistency, resulted
in higher alphas, ranging from .43 to .82.We subjected the items
for the high school sample only to maximum likelihood factor
analysis with varimax rotation in order to determine if the overall
instrument would yield factors corresponding to the 11 subscales
for attitudes and expectations identified by scale authors. The
factor patterns did not support the expected dimensionality
AWARE items. Instead, we did locate a cluster of 17 items
broadly related to realistic marital expectations, items that
together yielded an alpha of .80. We used the 17-item scale to
discuss adolescents' attitudes and expectations here. (Results can
be obtained from the second author.)
Gender, relationship status, and parental marital status were
assessed by standard demographic questions. At-risk status was
assessed by six questions that asked (a) how often the adolescent
had been physically abused by parents; (b) how often the adoles
cent had observed physical abuse between parents; (c) if the ado
lescent had his or her own problems with drugs; (d) if his or her
parents had problems with drugs; (e) if he or she had been physi
cally abused while dating; or (f) if he or she had been sexually
abused while dating. Responses ranged from never (1) to very
often (7), with high scores indicating elevated risk.
Procedure
Teachers in 9th_ to 12th-grade home and family living classes
who had been oriented to the purposes and procedures of the pro
ject explained these questions to students and distributed
informed consent materials and questionnaires, allowing students
time over two course periods to complete them at their own pace.
Advantages of allowing more time for completion included
reduced fatigue effects and fewer errors due to time pressure
(Gorden, 1975), but may have increased response variation asso
ciated with small changes over time, as occurs with test-retest
reliability (Schumm, 1990). Data were first examined for scale
reliability, then frequency distributions were created and within
and between-group comparisons were done. In addition, correla
tions were calculated.
Results
Importance of, Intentions toAttend, and Familiarity
with Marriage and Couples Education
Hypothesis 1 stated that high school students would be less
likely than college students to value marriage preparationand
plan to attendor be familiarwith amarriage educationprogram.
High school students completed three items on theREPP that
were exactly the same as those completedby college students in
previous surveys.Contrary to our prediction, results showed that
high school students(86%)were just as likely as college students
516
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(88%), x2 (1, N = 326) = .37, p n.s., to agree that conscious,
deliberate preparation for marriage was important. However, high
school students (71%) were less likely to be familiar with mar
riage education programs than were college students (9 1%), x2
(1, N = 335) = 22.0, p < .001. Further, fewer high school stu
dents (41%) reported that they intended to attend a premarital
marriage education program than did college students (65%), x2
(1, N = 305) = 19.5, p < .001. Thus, Hypothesis 1 received
mixed support with respect to differences between high school
and college students' perceptions of marriage education programs.
Perceptions of the importance of conscious preparation and
intentions to attend were weakly associated, r(141) = .20, p <
.05. Those who rated preparation as very important also expected
to attend. The relationship between familiarity with programs and
intentions was stronger, r(152) = .34, p < .001, such that greater
familiarity was associated with greater intention to attend. Even
though intentions to attend were stronger when marriage educa
of tion was valued and familiar, adolescents who valued it more
were not more likely to report greater familiarity, r(141) = -.01.
Hypothesis 2 predicted greater interest by females, partners in
committed relationships, and youth who had experienced divorce.
Results showed that gender, dating status, and at-risk status
groups were not associated with importance of preparation, famil
iarity with programs, or intentions to attend. Thus, no support was
found for these hypotheses. Religious affiliation was significantly
associated with intentions to attend, x2 (1, N = 121) = 14.69, p <
.001, with 71% of Roman Catholics expecting to attend as com
pared with 33% of others. Those who reported greater abuse
between their parents were less likely to describe premarital edu
cation as important rho (121) = .21, p < .05.
PreferencesforMarriage and Couples Education
Program Sources andConditions
Adolescents preferred friends, parents, and personal experi
ence as their favorite sources of information on marriage. Table 1
indicates that approximately 50% of youth listed these sources as
first or second choices, with less than 20% ranking each among
the lowest five choices. Several highly ranked sources also were
rated highest for quality, with learning from experience
(M = 4.06), talking with friends (M = 3.94), talking with parents
(M= 3.79), and talking with volunteer couples (M = 3.64) rated
as highest quality (e.g., higher mean scores).
Adolescents also indicated interest in marriage and couples
programs under a variety of conditions (e.g., duration, cost,
topics). Interest was strongest for programs of brief duration, with
49% at least slightly interested in attending a program of 1-3
hours, but fewer interested in programs of 4-6 hours (28%) or
more than 6 hours (10% or less). Comparisons within each of the
program conditions were made using repeated measures analysis
of variance. Respondents' opposition to attending increased as
program duration increased, F(4, 564) = 150.13, p < .001. With
respect to program requirements, nearly half (49%) reported
interest in voluntary programs, but interest declined significantly,
F(2, 286) 11.45, p < .001, to less than 38% for both recom
mended and requiredprograms.With respect to program cost,
interestwas strong (68%at least slightly interested)for freepro
grams, but declined significantly to less than30% interestedfor
more costly programs,F(2, 290) = 2lO.47, p K .001.
Regarding other program conditions, therewas relatively
little variation in interestas a functionof type of provider,with
differencesbeing not quite significant,F(6, 852) = 1.87, p K .09.
Family Relations
Interest for all providers was about 30%, but ranged from 36% expectations (seeTable 2). Items inwhich thepercentageof dis
not interested inmental health providers to 53% not interested in agreement or agreement exceeded 50% were not considered
private counselors.With respect to program arrangements,hav undecided.Over 50% of respondents reporteddisagreeing on
ing one couple working with a counselor was the most popular only two items that presented simplistic statements about mar
format(41% interested).Interestwas significantlylower for indi riage (e.g., "Long-termpartners generally know each other's
vidual counseling (32%) or combining individual and couple wants and feelings," and "Partners find it easy to be best
counseling (33%), F(4, 564) = 15.72, p < .0001. Even less inter friends"). On five other items, over 50% of youth agreed with
est was reported for small (25%) or large group work (21%). relatively simplistic statements,such as "Partnerswill fulfill all
With respect to program emphases, there were no significant wants and needs." Comparisons by demographic and risk factors
differences between types; awareness of self and partner (41% in on the Realistic Marital Expectations scale (see Table 2;
favor) attracted about the same interest as information, skill train M = 45.95, SD = 7.92, range = 19-68) were nonsignificant,
ing, or combined approaches (42%-47% in favor). Topics except for relationship status, F(3, 118) = 5.35, p < .003.
of greatest expressed interest included money management Engaged respondents scored lower (M = 38.2; SD = 15.06) on
(68%), communication(66%),personality (64%),conflict resolu average than noncommitted singles (M = 47.16; SD = 6.71),
tion (62%),marriage expectations(62%), influenceof family and those in committed relationships (M = 42.0; SD = 9.06), or those
friends (60%), and parenting (58%). Slightly less interest was ex single parents (see Table 2;M = 50.25; SD = 4.50).
pressedfor leisureactivities(55%),householdroles (52%),and sex
uality (49%). The least desired topic was religion and spiritual
values (32%).
Most youth identified an interest in marriage education dur
Discussion
ing the engagement period (66%), but interest was much lower
for other relationshipstatuses:dating seriously (41%),cohabiting Adolescents' Perceptions ofMarriage and
(39%),or dating casually (27%).Overall differenceswere signifi CouplesEducation
cant, F(3, 438) = 45.50, p < .0001, and all pairwise comparisons
Consistent with previous research (Martin et al., 2003), the
were significantexcept cohabitingversus dating seriously.With adolescents in this study placed a high value on preparation for
respect to desired outcomes, avoiding divorce (52%),enhancing marriage, almost equal to that of young adults (Silliman et al.,
marital commitment (47%), wedding planning (43%), and 1992). However, intentions to attend a program were much lower
improving communication skills (42%) were among the most
than those of college students and somewhat lower than those for
desired outcomes of marriage education. Increasing awareness of
other adolescents surveyed recently (Martin et al., 2003). Devel
community family service agencies (14%),meeting and sharing opmental factors, such as inexperience in serious relationships,
concerns with other couples (15%), relating to a church (16%),
egocentrism, and perceived distance from young adulthood
and getting to know a professional (counselor) for later marital
(Steinberg & Morris, 2001), may reduce the sense of urgency or
problems (18%)were among the leastdesiredoutcomes. relevanceregardingmarriage education.Higher levels of interest
for marriage preparation during engagement relative to unat
Attitudes Toward and Expectations ofMarriage tached dating status suggest that youth may view marriage educa
Finally, we were interested in attitudes toward and expecta tion as a good idea that is not yet important. The finding that
tions of marriage. Thirty percent or more of respondents an Roman Catholic youth scored highest in familiarity and inten
swered undecided to 10 of the 17 items about realistic tions may suggest that the church's intentional efforts to promote

Table 2
Realistic Marital Expectations of Marriage Among Adolescents

Percentage

Item StronglyDisagree Disagree Undecided Agree StronglyAgree

Attitudes related to marital adjustment

In a long-term relationship, each person generally knows what the other person wants and feels. 13.1 53.1
19.4 11.3 2.5
It is easy tobe a best friendand companionto yourpartneraftermarriage. 13.1 41.3 30.6 11.9 1.9
Misconceptions andunrealisticexpectations
Partnersusuallyknowwhat theotherpersonwants or needs. 3.1 10.0 25.6 51.9 8.1
Most couples agreeon thenumberof childrentheywant andwhen to have them. 4.4 23.1 33.1 30.6 41.3
My partner will fulfill almost all of my needs for security, support, and companionship. 3.1 5.6 28.7 39.4 20.6
Most couples find it easy to talkabout theirrelationship. 2.5 13.8 29.4 44.1 8.8
Couples shouldbe awareof theirpartners'feelingswithout being told. 3.8 13.8 25.0 45.6 9.4
Undecided attitudesand expectations
My marriagemight be disappointingand frustratingat first. 6.3 17.5 41.3 28.8 3.8
It is relativelyeasy for couples todevelop amutually satisfyingsexual relationship. .6 10.6 6.3 34.4 18.1
When thereareproblems in a close relationship, most couples easily resolve them. 3.8 18.8 30.6 37.5 8.1
Most couples find it easy to discuss sex aftermarriage. 2.5 10.0 38.8 35.0 11.9
Each partner should know what the other would enjoy sexually without being told. 5.6 23.1 35.0 20.6 14.4
Most couples can discuss any issueor topicwithout difficulty. 1.9 25.0 28.8 35.6 6.3
When Imarry,we will understandeach other completely. 3.8 21.9 30.0 36.3 6.9
Most engagedcouplesknow theirpartnercompletelyby the time theygetmarried. 9.4 36.9 25.0 19.4 7.5
Couples usually agree on how much money to save each month. 8.1 33.1 30.0 23.8 4.4
When thereareproblems in a relationship,
most partnersareeager to talkabout it. 1.9 32.5 31.9 25.0 5.0

2004, Vol. 53, No. 5 517

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
marriage preparation (McCord, 1998) has influence beyond
engaged couples. That only 40% of those familiar with such pro
grams intended to attend a program is best explained by personal
factors, such as a desire to learn from experience or friends,
developmental factors (e.g., perceived lack of immediate need),
or contextual factors like a lack of available programs.
Relative to young adults, adolescents' higher ratings of
friends and experience as sources of marriage information may
reflect developmental drives for autonomy and peer approval, but
parents remain a valued source of information (Steinberg &
Morris, 2001). Professionals may be unfamiliar, stigmatized, or
intimidating to adolescents, whereas volunteer couples may be
more familiar (e.g., neighbors, older siblings, youth leaders),
credible (e.g., practical experience valued over training), and less
threatening and, thus, more preferred information sources.
Although the Internet and other media are popular with youth
(Skinner et al., 2003), our results suggest that youth value more
personal sources, or they may be less familiar or skilled in using
media as an educational tool.
Parallels between adolescents' and young adults' interests in
programs under varying conditions suggest that the latter see mar
riage and couples education as a prewedding experience rather
than as something relevant at any dating status. Because youth
are most easily engaged in topics and activities relevant to them
(Eccles & Gootman, 2002), promotion and programming that
targets more immediate concerns (e.g., relations with peers,
dating partner, or parents) may attract greater interest and pro
vide a gateway to marriage preparation. Positive experiences
with brief, personalized, easily accessed programs may be prefer
able to institutional mandates in motivating youth to participate
in extended and intensive training. The valuing of diverse goals
(e.g., avoiding divorce, strengthening commitment) and realms
(e.g., marital and parenting roles) reflects adolescents' emergent
cognitive capacities to attend to multiple priorities in the present
and anticipate the future (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). The low
value that these youth placed on relating to a church, agency, or
professionals is consistent with lower interest in help from pro
fessional experts as noted above, and perhaps reflects the limited
availability and quality of youth programs, especially in rural
areas (Eccles & Gootman). Low value on spiritual issues and
clergy providers also may reflect a gap in faith development and
faith-based social support, both of which are assets to adolescent
and marital development (Stanley, 2001) and which faith-based
organizations might more effectively address with youth.
Adolescents' Attitudes Toward and
Expectations ofMarriage
Respondents' attitudes toward and expectations of marriage
reflect a mix of insight, inaccurate perceptions, and romantic opti
mism typical for their life stage (Feiring, 2002) and are consistent
with the optimism and ambivalence reported in adolescent views
of marriage (Popenoe & Whitehead, 2003). The high number of
undecided responses on the Realistic Expectations scale may be
due to ambiguouswording of items such as, "Most partnersare
eager to talkaboutproblems."Terms like "most," "eager," and
"problems"have a broad rangeof interpretation,and youthmay
have had difficultydecidingwhat was being asked. Inexperience
with topics such asmarried couples' discussions of sex or sexual
behaviormay have promptedmany undecided responses.Finally,
undecided responsesalsomay reflectrespondents'efforts to bal
ance evidence for agreement and disagreement. For instance,
518
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
couples may have compelling reasons to be eager to talk about
problems or to avoid talk.
Consistent with research on adolescents' emerging personal
and interpersonal capacities (Collins, 2003; Feiring, 2002;
Steinberg & Morris, 2001), in a few cases, amajority of respond
ents recognized the complexity of marital life (e.g., becoming
friends is not easy). Agreement with statements based on mis
conceptions or unrealistic expectations appears to be related to
inexperience (e.g., couple agreement on number and timing of
children) or romanticism (e.g., partner will fulfill all wants and
needs). Two of the constraining beliefs on mate selection related
to potential marriage problems (Cobb et al., 2003) are evident in
their responses, such as, "My partner will fulfill all my needs for
safety, support, and companionship" (constraining belief in a per
fect partner), and "When Imarry, we will understand each other
completely" (constraining belief in a perfect relationship). Agree
ment on many (but not all) items suggesting that "marriage
should be easy" may reflect an extension of the constraining be
lief that "mate selection should be easy" (Cobb et al.). Because
romantic idealism is normative for adolescents (Feiring) and can
balance stressful and unexpected adjustments in early marriage
(Fowers, Veingrad, & Dominicis, 2002), marriage education or
mentoring during adolescence might provide youth with opportu
nities to reflect on and balance these beliefs with information
about marital challenges, while retaining the optimism to work
through those challenges.
The expectation that youth exposed to developmental risk
would be more (as in the case of divorce) or less likely (as in the
case of violence or drug abuse) to attend was not sustained, per
haps because intentions and interest were low across the entire
sample or perhaps because respondents did not experience many
risks (38% of the adolescents reported no risks at all, and only
8.1% reported a score > 8 on a scale ranging from 0 to 20). Nev
ertheless, research indicates that parental divorce and other devel
opmental risks influence relationship experiences of young adults
(Conger et al., 2001) and the well-being of adolescents (Amato,
2000). A larger, more heterogeneous group might provide a bet
ter test of differences among lower risk adolescents.
Implications for Practice, Research, and Policy
Implications for Practice
Adolescents' preferred topics-such as money management,
communication, personalities, and family and peer pressure-are
relevant to peer relationships, dating, and marriage education,
and thus could be addressed in a wide range of youth programs.
Adolescent preferences for personalized approaches should be
reflected in training that includes parents, adult, or peer volun
teers as mentors and workshop facilitators. The effectiveness of
parents (Steinberg & Morris, 2001), mentors (Jekielek, Moore,
Hair, & Scarupa, 2002), and peer educators (Bearman, Bruckner,
Brown, Theobald, & Philliber, 1999) results from their availabil
ity, rapport, and credibility and is enhanced by ongoing training
and support.Stanley et al. (2001) found that trainedvolunteers
were as effective as professionals in teaching Prevention and
RelationshipEnhancementProgram (PREP) skills in community
settings.Further,marriage enrichmentexperiences for parentsor
volunteer couplesmay help them learnandmodel active listen
ing, open and respectfuldialogue, andmutual support to youth.
Parent education focused on communication,stressmanagement,
problem solving, and behaviormonitoring may provide parents
Family Relations
with the skills to facilitate day-to-day discussion of relationship Applied research and program evaluation professionals
experiences, family events, and educational or entertainment should seek to learnmore about thedevelopmental (e.g., person
media. A workshop format combining separate and shared parent ality, gender, developmental capacity) and social (e.g., norms,
and youth learning (Aktan, Kumpfer, & Turner, 1996) also might formal and leadershipresources)contexts that influenceadoles
work well here. Importantly, media were not preferred by youth cents' views of marriage and marriage education. Questions
in this sample, but peer-to-peer social marketing and mass-media addressing basic research issues such as how and why youth learn
campaigns have been effective in reducing youth risks to value marriage, form expectations, and anticipatechallenges,
(SAMHSA, 2003) and may help increase familiarity with healthy investments,and supports for a long-termcommitted relation
marriage skills and programs. ship might contribute to more accurate interpretationof re
More intensive, in-depth classes traditionally offered by sponses, resultinginmore effective programdesign or evaluation
teachers and clergy can serve more participants with greater effect strategies.
than can brief workshops (Stanley et al., 2001). Training tradi
tional providers to use up-to-date, interaction-based curricula
such as PREP (Stanley, 2001) and Connections (Gardner,
Implicationsfor Public andOrganizationalPolicies
2001), reflective activities like The Marriage Quiz (Larson, Policy mandates and recommendationsfor extendingmar
1988), and student-led activities such as drama and creative riage and couples education to adolescents often identify high
expression (Mack, 2000), may alter stereotypes of professionals school classes in relationshipskills as primarydelivery strategies
as lecturers, thus increasing adolescents' interest in these pro (U.S. DHHS, 2002). Youth in this study preferred personal and
viders. Similarly, in Roman Catholic marriage preparation informal strategies like those used in effective prevention and
(McCord, 1998), clergy were viewed more positively when serv youth development programs (Eccles & Gootman, 2002;
ing as coteachers with volunteer couples rather than as lecturers SAMHSA, 2003). In fact, nonformal youth development pro
by themselves. grams rather than formal marriage education classes may be a bet
ter investmentinbuilding strongmarriages,because they address
immediateneeds of youth andpromoteoutcomes associatedwith
subsequentmarital adjustment.However, formalmandated clas
ImplicationsforResearch ses in marriage education may be more attractive and effective
The limitations of this study also constitute principal recom through increasedprovider trainingand use of developmentally
mendations for improving future research. Improvements are appropriatematerials. Finally, policies and practices promoting
needed in measurement, particularly regarding youth knowledge, safe and stable marriages must extend beyond couple skill train
beliefs, and expectations. For example, the language, length, and ing to strengthenadolescents' family andmentor relationships,
complexity of AWARE may be developmentally inappropriate build community capacity to support youth and young families,
for use with younger adolescents. Items addressed attitudes and and promote social justice and economic opportunity (Silliman,
expectations related tomarital stability and satisfaction, but these 2003).
items may not be of equal importance in understanding or chang
ing adolescents' views of marriage. For instance, the belief that
"Love is enough"(Cobb et al., 2003) may have to be challenged References
and changed before youth become motivated to acquire knowl
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
edge about consumer credit, role conflicts, or family influence. behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
More precise research is needed regarding the emergence of atti Aktan, G. B., Kumpfer, K. L., & Turner, C. W. (1996). Effectiveness of a family
tudes toward and expectations of peer relations and dating and skills training program for substance use prevention with inner city African
American families. Substance Use and Misuse, 31,157-175.
their influence on attitudes toward and expectations about mar
Amato, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
riage. Focus groups with adolescents of diverse ages and back and the Family, 62, 1269-1287.
Marriage
grounds could help in the development of a better instrument to Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
measure such attitudes and expectations. The REPP scales pro Bearman, P., Bruckner, H., Brown, B. B., Theobald, W., & Philliber, S. (1999).
duced a reliable description of adolescents' interests, but focus Peer potential: Making the most of how teens influence each other. Washington,
DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
groups and interviews would help to determine why sources are
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psycholo
valued or how program familiarity or conditions influence plans
gist, 54, 260-266.
and decisions to participate inmentoring or training. Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the
Using improved instruments and methods, replication of the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 964-980.
study is needed with a broader, more heterogeneous sample that
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
includes youth from urban and suburban areas and that reflects Harvard University Press.
greater cultural, religious, family structure, and income diversity Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital
and a wider range of dating experiences. Sampling a broader pop prevention programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family
ulation might clarify and refine our understanding about adoles Relations, 52, 105-118.
Cobb, N. P., Larson, J. H., & Watson, W. L. (2003). Development of attitudes
cent perceptions of marriage. Focused studies on marriage
about romance and mate selection scale. Family Relations, 52, 227-231.
perceptions and learning preferences of subgroups, including Collins, A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental of romantic
significance
youth growing up in settings that supportmarriage education relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13,
(e.g., highly engaged parents, religious organizations),youth at 1-24.

risk for divorce and distress, victims of dating and family vio Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2001). Competence in

lence, youth in low-resource neighborhoods, or children of early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influ
ences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.
divorce,will help clarify the influenceof diverse experiences and Cronbach, L. J., Jr. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
needs on help-seekingpatternsand learningexperiences. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

2004, Vol. 53, No. 5 519

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dion, M. R., Devaney, B., McConnell, S., Ford, M., Hill, H., & Winston, P. developments in family stress theory and research (pp. 7-37). New York:
(2003). Helping unwed parents build strong and healthy marriages: A concep Haworth.
tual framework for interventions. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Morris, M. L., & Carter, S. A. (1999). Transition to marriage: A literature review.
Duncan, S., Box, G., & Silliman, B. (1996). Racial and gender effects on percep Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 17, 1-24.
tions of marriage preparation programs among college-educated young adults. Olson, D. H., & Fournier, D. G. (1994). AWARE: Awareness of Attitudes and
Family Relations, 45, 80-90. Relationship Expectations. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote Pergamint, M. R., Huang, L., & Lane, J. (2001). The long term impact of adoles
youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. cent risky behaviors and family environment. Retrieved August 29, 2003, from
Feiring, C. (2002). Learning the ways of romance. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Readings the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant
on adolescence and emerging adulthood (pp. 173-182). Upper Saddle River, Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Web site: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
NJ: Prentice-Hall. riskybehavOl
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Popenoe, D., & Whitehead, B. D. (2003). The state of our unions, 2003. New
Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating vio Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project, Rutgers University.
lence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88,45-50. Quon Huber, M. S., Frommeyer, J.,Weisenbach, A., & Sazama, J. (2003). Giving
Fowers, B., Veingrad, M. R., & Dominicis, C. (2002). The unbearable lightness of youth a voice in their own community and personal development. In F. A.
positive illusions: Engaged individuals' explanations of unrealistically positive Villaruel, D. F. Perkins, L. M. Borden, & J. G. Keith (Eds.), Community youth
relationship perceptions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,450-460. development: Programs, policies, and practices (pp. 297-323). Thousand
Gardner, S. P. (2001). Evaluation of the "Connections: Relationships and Marriage" Oaks, CA: Sage.
curriculum. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 19, 1-14. Riggio, H. R. (2004). Parental marital conflict and divorce, parent-child relation
Gorden, R. L. (1975). Interviewing: Strategies, techniques, and tactics (Rev. ed.). ships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Relationships, 11, 99-114.
Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C,
& Scarupa, H. J. (2002). Mentoring: A Schonert-Reichi, K. A. (2002). Adolescent help-seeking behaviors. Prevention
promising strategy for youth development. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Researcher, 10(1), 3-5.
Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P. M. (2001). Monitoring the Schumm, W. R. (1990). Evolution of the family field: Measurement principles
future: Questionnaire responses from the nation's high school seniors, 1999. and techniques. In J. Touliatos, B. F. Perlmutter, & M. A. Strauss (Eds.), Hand
Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. book of family measurement techniques (pp. 26-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital Silliman, B. (1987). Influences on young adults' intentions to attend a premari
quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological tal preparation program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State
Bulletin, 118, 3-34. University.
Kirby, D. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce Silliman, B. (2003). Building strong marriages through early and extended
teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen outreach to youth. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 270-282.
Pregnancy. Silliman, B., & Schumm, W. R. (2002). Evaluating the AWARE instrument as
Kreider, R. M., & Fields, J. M. (2001). Number, timing, and duration of mar a measure of relationship factors among a sample of high school students.
riages and divorces: 1996 (Current Population Reports, P 70-80). Washington, Psychological Reports, 91, 480-484.
DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Silliman, B., Schumm, W. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1992). Young adults' preferences
Kurdek, L. A. (1999). The nature and predictors of the trajectory of change in for premarital preparation program designs. Contemporary Family Therapy, 14,
marital quality for husbands and wives over the first ten years of marriage. 89-100.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 1283-1296. Skinner, H., Biscope, S., Poland, B., & Goldberg, E. (2003). How adolescents use
Larson, A. S., & Olson, D. H. (1989). Predicting marital satisfaction using technology for health information: Implications for health professionals from
PREPARE: A replication study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, focus groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5, e32.
311-322. Stanley, S. (2001). Making the case for premarital education. Family Relations,
Larson, J. H. (1988). The marriage quiz: College students' beliefs in selected 50, 272-280.
myths about marriage. Family Relations, 37,3-11. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Prado, L. M., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., Tonelli, L.,
Linford, S. T., & Carroll, J. S. (2001). A century-end comprehensive review St. Peters, M., Leber, B. D., Bobulinski, M., Cordova, A., & Whitton, S. W.
of premarital predictors of marital quality and stability. In T. B. Holman & (2001). Community-based premarital preparation: Clergy and lay leaders on the
Associates (Eds.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or break-up (pp. front lines. Family Relations, 50, 67-76.
281-318). New York: Plenum. Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of
Mack, D. (2000). Hungry hearts: Evaluating the new curricula for teens on Psychology, 52, 83-110.
marriage and relationships. New York: Institute for American Values. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
Martin, P. D., Specter, H. G., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (2003). Expressed atti (2003). Centers for Substance Abuse Prevention Model Programs. Retrieved
tudes of adolescents toward marriage and family life. Adolescence, Summer. April 12, 2003, from http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/template.cfm?CFID=
Retrieved April 9, 2003, from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2248/150_38/ 608437&CFTOKEN=18143427
109027886/pl/article.jhtml U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2002). Strengthening
McCord, R. (1998). Strategies to strengthen marriage: Perspective of the Catholic healthy marriages: A compendium of approaches. Washington, DC: Depart
Church in the U.S. In T. Ooms (Ed.), Strategies to strengthen marriage: What ment of Health and Human Services.
do we know? What do we need to know? (pp. 73-81). Washington, DC: Family Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New York:
Impact Seminar. Doubleday.
McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. (1983). The family stress process: The Double Williams, L. M., Riley, L. A., Risch, G. S., & VanDyke, D. T. (1999). An empiri
ABCX Model of Adjustment and Adaptation. In H. I.McCubbin, M. B. Suss cal approach to designing marriage preparation programs. The American
man, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and the family: Advances and Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 271-283.

520 FamilyRelations

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:40:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions