The Role of Relational Instability on Individual and Partner Outcomes Following Couple Relationship Education Participation

• Author: Jennifer Kerpelman,Donna Sollie,Julianne McGill,Scott A. Ketring,Angela B. Bradford,Francesca Adler‐Baeder
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12201
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Date: 01 July 2016

J MG  F A-B Auburn University

A B. B Brigham Young University

J K, S A. K,  D S Auburn University

The Role of Relational Instability on Individual and

Partner Outcomes Following Couple Relationship

Education Participation

Some scholars have suggested that distressed

populations may benet more from couple

and relationship education (CRE) than do

their nondistressed counterparts. We examined

this hypothesis using actor–partner interde-

pendence models to explore the relationship

between baseline relational instability and

change for individuals and their partners (379

couples; 758 individuals) who participated in

a CRE program for 6 to 8 weeks. Findings

indicated that a higher level of relational insta-

bility on the part of women was associated with

greater positive change in depressive symptoms.

Furthermore, respondents’ and partners’ base-

line relational instability moderated the change

in women’s couple quality, such that women

reported greater positive change in relationship

quality when reporting higher instability and

higher relationship quality before CRE par-

ticipation, and when their partners reported

higher instability and lower quality before CRE

participation. Men appear to benet from CRE

Department of Human Development and Family Studies,

Auburn University, 203 Spidle Hall, Auburn, AL 36849

(mclanjm@auburn.edu).

Key Words: Actor–partner interdependence model, couple

and relationship education, couple quality,depressive symp-

toms, evaluation methods, family harmony.

participation regardless of baseline relational

instability. Suggestions for researchers and

facilitators are discussed.

B

Some scholars have suggested that relation-

ally unstable couples (i.e., couples considering

divorce or separation) are better served by ther-

apy than by educational forums (e.g., Doherty,

1995). However, a recent model for family life

education and family therapy suggests that these

types of services overlap and that individuals’

needs are best met when the two services work

in conjunction rather than in competition with

each other (Myers-Walls, Ballard, Darling, &

Myers-Bowman, 2011). Regardless, evidence

suggests that couples reporting some level of

instability are attending couple relationship edu-

cation (CRE) programs (Blanchard, Hawkins,

Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2009; DeMaria, 2005; Hal-

ford, O’Donnell, Lizzio, & Wilson, 2006), which

indicates a need to assess outcomes based on

varying levels of relational instability.

Some initial research has emerged nding

benets for CRE participants in less stable rela-

tionships (Bradford et al., 2014; Lucier-Greer,

Adler-Baeder, Harcourt, & Gregson, 2014;

Quirk, Strokoff, Owen, France, & Bergen,

2014). An important next step is to investigate

Family Relations 65 (July 2016): 407–423 407

DOI:10.1111/fare.12201

408 Family Relations

the comparative benets of CRE according to

varying levels of relational instability. In addi-

tion, CRE program evaluation research benets

from exploring changes following CRE partic-

ipation in multiple domains (e.g., individual,

family) using an ecological systems approach.

Further, a dearth of CRE evaluation studies has

assessed dyadic inuences. Thus, our study

contributes to the CRE program evaluation

research by examining dyadic inuences (i.e.,

effects of each partner the other) on multiple

program outcomes for a large, diverse group of

CRE participant couples experiencing different

levels of relational instability.

Theoretical Framework

Most studies of CRE have been atheoreti-

cal, with a few exceptions (e.g., Bradford

et al., 2014; Rauer et al., 2014). To advance

the use of theory in CRE, we utilized a

combination of assumptions from comple-

mentary theories. Our study is framed by the

process-person-context-time assumptions devel-

oped from an ecological systems perspective of

human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,

1998; Tudge, Mokrova, Hateld, & Karnik,

2009). We expect that the current and historical

environment is an inuence on individual devel-

opment and assume interactions and linkages

among elements of the individual’s environ-

ment. Along with the contextual inuences

emphasized in the ecological systems perspec-

tive is the expectation for the role individuals

play in their own development by responding to

and interacting with their environment through

processes stimulated by elements of the context

over time (Tudge et al., 2009). In line with this

evolved bioecological approach are assumptions

from the calamity theory of growth (Anthis,

2002; Farson, 1974), which more specically

theorizes that processes during stressful life

experiences—including family-related stressors

(e.g., frequent family conict, indelity, separa-

tion from spouse)—can lead to positive growth

over time.

The calamity theory of growth has been

utilized predominantly in studies of identity

development (e.g., Dalla, Bailey, Cunningham,

Green, & Vyhlidal, 2013; Kunnen, 2006); how-

ever, its use is more recently evident in family

studies as well (e.g., Soulsby & Bennett, 2015).

The theory posits that during stressful life

experiences, such as feeling unsure about the

stability of a committed relationship, a person

becomes focused on the distressful situation

cognitively and emotionally. This attention

may facilitate more help-seeking behaviors and

receptivity to learning and implementing new

skills, thus resulting in positive growth. In other

words, individuals may be more receptive to

initiating positive changes during trying times.

For example, Anthis (2002) found that stressful

life experiences (e.g., death of a loved one, fam-

ily nancial concerns) lead to more exploration

and change over time. A recent study (Soulsby

& Bennett, 2015) more specically focused

on stress in relationships (e.g., transition to

marriage, cohabitation, and divorce) and found

that these transitional periods, whether viewed

as positive or negative, positively affected each

individual’s personal growth and self-concept.

This phenomenon has been documented over

a 5-month time frame without intervention

(Anthis, 2002). Thus, we expect that experi-

encing a brief intervention in the context of

a stressful event such as recent or historical

relational instability will result in incremental

but measurable positive changes. Further, these

changes may be comparatively greater than

those experienced by less relationally distressed

participants in CRE.

Also relevant to our study, a bioecological

systems framework assumes that couple func-

tioning is linked to individual functioning, as

well as overall family functioning. In addition,

it is assumed that microsystems or subsystems

(e.g., the family as a whole, the couple rela-

tionship) create a shared context within which

an individual’s, as well as his or her partner’s,

outcomes are inuenced over time (Halford &

Wilson, 2009; Whitchurch & Constantine,

1993), thereby prescribing the empirical con-

sideration and assessment of cross-dyad effects.

This theoretical framework guides the present

study of changes following CRE participation.

Couple and Relationship Education

Extensive research has been conducted over

several decades on the impact of couple

and relationship education programs that

target the promotion of healthy relation-

ship skills (Administration for Children

and Families, 2007; Blanchard et al., 2009;

Carroll & Doherty, 2003; Hawkins, Blan-

chard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008). Several