Treatment of Marital Conflict and Prevention of Divorce

Bray, James H.; Jouriles, Ernest N.

doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00175.x

Cited by 96 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…BMT has been reviewed in detail in a number of previous articles, and findings from specific investigations (e.g., Alexander, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Jameson, 1994;Baucom & Epstein, 1990;Baucom & Hoffman, 1986;Bray & Jouriles, 1995;Jacobson & Addis, 1993;Lebow & Gurman, 1995) as well as metaanalyses of marital therapy (Dunn & Schwebel, 1995;Hahlweg & Markman, 1988;Shadish et al, 1993) have been included. These various reviews have used different criteria for evaluating efficacy, but they have all reached the same conclu- Azrin et al (1980) Baucom ( Note.…”

Section: Efficacy Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems.

Baucom¹,

Shoham²,

Mueser³

et al. 1998

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

497

411

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article evaluates the efficacy, effectiveness, and clinical significance of empirically supported couple and family interventions for treating marital distress and individual adult disorders, including anxiety disorders, depression, sexual dysfunctions, alcoholism and problem drinking, and schizophrenia. In addition to consideration of different theoretical approaches to treating these disorders, different ways of including a partner or family in treatment are highlighted: (a) partner-family-assisted interventions, (b) disorder-specific partner-family interventions, and (c)more general couple-family therapy. Findings across diagnostic groups and issues involved in applying efficacy criteria to these populations are discussed.Since the 1970s, there has been a major shift in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of couple-based and family-based interventions for treating adult mental health problems. During this period, various theoretical perspectives have been articulated, specific manual-based intervention strategies have been developed, and controlled treatment outcome investigations have explored a number of specific issues of importance. The current article examines the empirical status of these couple-and family-based interventions for treating (a) marital distress and (b) adult individual diagnosable disorders. More explicitly, the primary goal of this article is to use the criteria put forth by Chambless and Hollon (1998) to evaluate the efficacy, clinical significance, and effectiveness of various interventions that involve a couple or family format.The criteria provide a unifying framework for evaluating the wide variety of psychological interventions. As we reviewed the literature on couple-and family-based interventions, we became aware that there were a number of decisions that had to be made with regard to the application of these criteria. Given that other reviewers may have interpreted and applied the Chambless and Hollon (1998) guidelines in a different manner, we begin this We thank Emily Sartor for her assistance in the preparation of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donald H. Baucom, Davie Hall CB 3270, Psychology Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3270. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to don_baucom@unc.edu.review by articulating how we have applied them so that the reader can better understand the bases of our conclusions.One of the major decisions that affects the empirical status of an intervention involves what investigations to include in reviewing the literature. In determining the efficacy status of a treatment, we restricted our consideration to published investigations. Attempts to obtain a comprehensive set of findings from conference presentations, unpublished dissertations, and so forth necessarily result in an incomplete and potentially skewed set of data. At times, unpublished findings are cited if mey help to make a certain point or clarify issues, but they are not considered in dete...

show abstract

Section: Efficacy Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems.

Baucom¹,

Shoham²,

Mueser³

et al. 1998

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

497

411

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a review of the literature on marital therapies, Bray and Jouriles (1995) noted that most marital programs promote active listening and validation of each spouses' position, which is believed to encourage less defensive discussions. However, despite its wide use and general acceptance as a technique, studies have rarely examined communication skills training in isolation, and some, notably Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson (1998), contend that this technique in particular may be contributing to the limited effectiveness of marital interventions.…”

Section: Abstract: Marital Communication; Communication Skills Trainimentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Communication Skills Training With Married Couples: Does the Issue Discussed Matter?

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study experimentally examines the speaker-listener technique on marital satisfaction and communication behaviors when couples (N = 30) were instructed to either discuss an issue within or outside the marriage on marital satisfaction and communication behaviors. This study was based the Gottman et al. hypothesis that the speaker-listener technique would lead to improved marital satisfaction when the couple is discussing a third-party issue, but discussing an issue about each other would weaken the marital relationship. A series of analyses of covariance were conducted on these data, and no differences were found between the two groups on their self-reported marital satisfaction or communication skills behaviors, which were not support the Gottman et al. hypothesis. Possible interpretations of these data and areas for further investigation are suggested.

show abstract

“…Limitations were encountered in understanding the interactions between husbands and wives and in reporting the study results that the adjustment period for international marriages is profoundly affected by environmental variable caused by cultural differences. However, previous limitations were addressed in this study through the use of paired data and various multiple factors that affect the marital adjustments of international marriages (Bray & Jouriles, 1995;Choi et al, 2009;Fu & Kendall, 2001;Qian & Daniel, 2007;Zhang, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most preceding studies focused exclusively on cultural differences by social-demographic variables (race, age, marriage duration, family income, and religion) and the language barrier between international marriages to predict their marital adjustment and can represent a limitation to explain the many different types of marital adjustment (Bray & Jouriles, 1995;Fu & Kendall, 2001). This may lead to a misunderstanding of international marriages if only the simple aspects of marital adjustment are analyzed as well as exclude personal and relational characteristics the spouses in the marital adjustment period.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In existing international marriage studies (Bray & Jouriles, 1995;Choi et al, 2009;Fu & Kendall, 2001;Qian & Daniel, 2007;Zhang, 2009), husbands or wives only were used as the study subjects due to the cultural difficulties in selecting the subjects to be surveyed. Limitations were encountered in understanding the interactions between husbands and wives and in reporting the study results that the adjustment period for international marriages is profoundly affected by environmental variable caused by cultural differences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation