How Does Couple and Relationship Education Affect Relationship Hope? An Intervention‐Process Study with Lower Income Couples

Abstract

Objective To explore whether changes in positive interaction skills as a result of participation in couple and relationship education (CRE) are associated with changes in relationship hope. Background Recent CRE work has focused more on its effectiveness for disadvantaged couples, with the early evidence mixed. Increasing the effectiveness of CRE for disadvantaged couples will require more evidence of how it works, not just whether it works. Method In this study, 182 lower income couples participated in a 30‐hour psychoeducational intervention, Family Expectations (FE), in Oklahoma City. Participants completed measures of positive interaction skills and relationship hope, a seldom‐studied construct in CRE research, before and shortly after the program. Results At pretest, there was significant variation in relationship hope among FE participants. Latent growth curve models revealed changes in positive interaction skills were associated with higher levels of partners' relationship hope at the end of the program, although the effect of men's skills changes on their partners' hope was 3 to 4 times stronger than for women's skills changes on their partners' hope. Additional latent growth curve models found that nearly 70% of participants reported positive changes in skills and that participants entering the program with the lowest levels of hope experienced the greatest changes in positive interaction skills. Conclusion We conclude that relationship hope is a legitimate target outcome in CRE and is influenced by improvement in positive interaction skills, consistent with social learning theory. Also, those entering CRE with low levels of hope improve interaction skills most, and men's growth produces larger gains for the couple relationship than women's growth. Implications Distressed individuals and couples should be particularly encouraged to attend CRE programs, and program developers should make sure that their curricula and pedagogic processes are well aligned with men's interests and learning styles.

The Role of the Facilitator in Couple Relationship Education

“…If facilitators do so and build a strong alliance, participants may feel more confident in what the course has to offer their relationship. Relatedly, it is possible that a strong facilitation alliance enables the facilitator to promote hope, fueled by skills and the confidence the skills will work, for a successful relationship (Hawkins, Erickson, & Yank, ). Or, perhaps more time spent in programs results in participants becoming more motivated to demonstrate to their facilitators that they have acquired the knowledge and skills they have been taught.…”

Best Practices in Family Life Education Program Evaluation

“…Creating a sound new measure should be done in collaboration with an experienced psychometrician. As an example of constructing a new measure for program evaluation, Hawkins, Allen, and Yang () wanted to study the effect of a relationship education program on lower income couples with young children; in particular, they wanted to test program developers' and administrators' theory that strengthening relationship hope would be an important program outcome. However, with no adequate measure available, they first developed and tested a new measure of relationship hope on a national sample before employing it in the evaluation study.…”

“…Examples of other potential moderators include mental health, family structure, and adverse childhood experiences. Program evaluation studies often find that participants who enter programs with the greatest risks for problems benefit the most from the intervention (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, ; Hawkins et al, ). Evaluators should also consider key program moderators, such as the number of sessions attended or hours spent participating in the intervention, curriculum fidelity, and the participant–facilitator alliance (Barton et al, ; Futris, Sutton, & Duncan, ; Quirk, Owen, Inch, France, & Bergen, ).…”

Proposing Prosperity? Marriage Education Policy and Inequality in America

“…These kinds of participant reactions have been documented in other evaluation studies (Hawkins & Ooms, 2012), as well. Learning skills creates hope that can strengthen and sustain all relationships (Hawkins et al, 2017), not just those above a certain economic threshold.…”

“…I have visited a half dozen or so sites where federally funded practitioners were delivering relationship education to disadvantaged individuals and couples. I have also contributed a number of empirical studies, critiques, and policy papers to the large and growing body of scholarship in the field (e.g., Hawkins, Allen, & Yang, 2017;Hawkins, Amato, & Kinghorn, 2013a;Hawkins & Erickson, 2015;Hawkins & Ooms, 2012;Hawkins & VanDenBerghe, 2014;Hawkins et al, 2013).…”