Mechanisms of Change in a Cognitive Behavioral Couples Prevention Program: Does Being Naughty or Nice Matter?
- 239 Downloads
Although there is a body of evidence suggesting beneficial effects of premarital prevention, little research directly examines the mechanisms of effect. One study that examined changes in communication following training in the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) found that, although couples made the expected communication gains pre to post PREP, female gains in positive communication were paradoxically associated with worse, not better, outcomes (Schilling et al., J. Fam. Psychol. 17(1):41–53, 2003). Using two samples, the current investigation did not yield evidence of such an association. We discuss issues related to replication studies (e.g., failure to reject null hypotheses), challenges in analyzing and interpreting dyadic data, and implications for prevention.
KeywordsPrevention Marriage Communication Couples
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their excellent questions and comments. This research was supported by two grants from The National Institutes of Health: 1RO1HD48780-1A1 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and 5-RO1-MH35525-12 from The National Institute of Mental Health.
- Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N. B., Burnett, C. K., & Rankin, L. A. (1993). Conflict in marriage: A cognitive/behavioral formulation. In S. Worchel & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Conflict between people and groups: Causes, processes, and resolutions. (pp. 7–29). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
- Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premarital prevention programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 52(2), 105–118.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Draper, N., & Smith, H. (1981). Applied regression analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A. (1998). Couples, gender, and time: Comments on method. In T. N. Bradbury (Ed.), Developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 410–422). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Kline, G. H., Julien, D., Baucom, B., Hartman, S. G., Gilbert, K., Gonzales, T., et al. (2004). The interactional dimensions coding system: A global system for couple interactions. In P. K. Kerig & D. H. Baucom (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 113–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Markman, H. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Jamieson, K. (1984). A cognitive-behavioral program for the prevention of marital and family distress: Issues in program development and delivery. In K. Halweg & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital interaction. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Markman, H. J., Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., Jenkins, N., & Whiteley, C. (2004). Twelve hours to a great marriage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Mendenhall, W., & Sincich, T. (2003). A second course in statistics: Regression analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Montgomery, D., & Peck, E. (1982). Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Notarius, C. I., & Markman, H. J. (1993). We can work it out: Making sense of marital conflict. New York, NY: Putnam.Google Scholar
- Notarius, C. I., & Vanzetti, N. (1983). Marital agendas protocol. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 209–227). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Parke, M., & Ooms, T. (2002). More than a dating service? State activities designed to strengthen and promote marriage (No. 2, Clasp policy brief: Couples and marriage series). Washington D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy.Google Scholar
- Prado, L. M., & Markman, H. J. (1998). For better or worse the second time around: Analyzing the communication patterns of remarried couples. In M. Cox & J. Brookes-Gunn (Eds.), The formation, functioning and stability of families. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Reichardt, C., & Gollob, H. (1986). Satisfying the constraints of causal modeling. In W. K. Trochim (Ed.), Advances in quasi-experimental design and analysis. New directions for program evaluation (vol. 31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (1999). Helping couples fight for their marriages: The PREP approach. In R. Berger & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy (pp. 279–303). Philadelphia, PA, US: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar