Relationship Beliefs Patterns Among Relationship Education Participants at Different Venues

• Published date: 01 October 2019
• Author: J. Scott Crapo,Jacqueline A. Miller,Brian J. Higginbotham,Kay Bradford
• Date: 01 October 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12382

J A. M , J. S C, K B,  B J. H

Utah State University

Relationship Beliefs Patterns Among Relationship

Education Participants at Different Venues

Objective: To identify different patterns of rela-

tionship beliefs, and examine how those pat-

terns vary across participants attending classes

through different venues: community, reemploy-

ment services, and jails.

Background: Although there have been

increased efforts to provide relationship edu-

cation to underprivileged and underserved

populations in diverse venues, there is little

research on how the relationship education

needs at different venues may vary.

Method: From the perspective of relationship

lay theory, the present study used latent class

analysis to identify patterns, or classes, of rela-

tionship beliefs among participants in commu-

nity settings (n=1,144), reemployment services

settings (n=423), and jails (n=242).

Results: Five classes of relationship beliefs

emerged: Low Risk, Blind Love, Sliders, Blind

Love Sliders, and Control Tolerates. Differences

in class membership were observed across the

three venues. Being single, having a history of

divorce, and no prior relationship education

were associated with membership in more risky

classes.

Conclusion: Distinct patterns of risky relation-

ship beliefs exist among participants in different

venues of relationship education. The high

Department of Human Development and Family Stud-

ies, Utah State University, 2705 Old Main, Logan, UT

84322-2705 (j.scott.crapo@gmail.com).

Key Words: community-based intervention, incarcerated

participants, low-income participants, relationship educa-

tion, relationship formation.

prevalence of the Slider class and associated

beliefs indicate those beliefs may be particularly

prevalent across venues.

Implications: The ndings point to educational

needs of particular groups. For example, infor-

mation on the issue of sliding is needed when

teaching in any setting, but information on con-

trol tolerance and blind love sliding is partic-

ularly needed when teaching in jails, and to a

lesser but still elevated degree in reemployment

services.

Relationship beliefs have long been associated

with outcomes such as relationship quality and

stability (e.g., Eidelson & Epstein, 1982). For

example, relationship beliefs have been found

to moderate outcomes associated with negative

couple relationship interactions (Knee & Canev-

ello, 2006), as well as predict violence (Fincham,

Cui, Braithwaite, & Pasley, 2008) and conict

management (Vennum & Fincham, 2011).

Beliefs regarding relationship formation have

emerged as key to people’s decision-making

regarding pair bonding, cohabitation, and mar-

riage (Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006).

Relationship educators have had some success

in inuencing relationship beliefs (Sharp &

Ganong, 2000; Van Epp, Futris, Van Epp, &

Campbell, 2008), which have been identied

as important targets for intervention (Hawkins,

Carroll, Doherty, & Willoughby, 2004). How-

ever, research is needed that goes beyond

assessment of main effects by considering

nuances within the structures examined by fam-

ily scholars (Coontz, 2015), including a need to

390 Family Relations 68 (October 2019): 390–404

DOI:10.1111/fare.12382