Evidence Required to Know Whether Marriage Promotion Increases Other Social Benefits

Feld, Scott L.; Meyer, Jordan

doi:10.1111/jftr.12297

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even when statistically significant improvements in certain family outcomes were found, they were small in magnitude and did not apply to the most impoverished couples (Arnold & Beelmann, 2019 ). Last, state spending on Healthy Marriage Initiatives have overall had no reliable impact on marriage and divorce rates, child poverty levels, or long‐term economic prosperity for lower‐income couples (Feld & Meyer, 2018 ; Manning et al, 2014 ). Overall, using the most rigorous methodology to evaluate HMI effectiveness (i.e., RCT's), it appears difficult for traditional relationship education programs to consistently achieve its short‐term (e.g., improving couples' relationship functioning) and long‐term (e.g., increasing family stability and economic security) goals.…”

Section: Policy Responses To Assist Families During Pre‐covid Timesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening lower‐income families: Lessons learned from policy responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Families are navigating an unstable economy due to COVID‐19. Financial stressors have the potential to strain intimate relationships and exacerbate prior inequities across lower‐income families. Notably, the economic impact of COVID‐19 disproportionately influenced Black and Latinx families. As a response to families' economic adversity during the pandemic, the federal government initiated the CARES Act. This type of federal response to lower‐income families, however, is not new. The purpose of this paper is to contextualize and historicize previous and current efforts to mitigate the consequences of financial hardship on families by comparing the assumptions and efficacy of the Healthy Marriages Initiative and the CARES act. We conclude with four recommendations to promote well‐being in lower‐income families: (1) acknowledging and reducing inequities that disproportionally impact families racialized as Black or Latinx; (2) intervening to mitigate stressors surrounding families; (3) using innovative methods to deliver relationship education; and (4) considering prevention versus intervention strategies.

show abstract

Section: Policy Responses To Assist Families During Pre‐covid Timesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening lower‐income families: Lessons learned from policy responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The United States has spent nearly $1 billion since 2005 to promulgate and evaluate prevention programs for low-income couples and parents (Feld & Meyer, 2018). The logic behind prevention programs held that if healthy, stable relationships are due to a partner or parent's behavior, then prevention programs at key developmental milestones that teach and bolster relationship skills could reduce the emotional and financial cost of child and adult problems, as well as improve public health and, more broadly, the commonwealth (Halford et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Uncontrolled Trial of Flexibly Delivered Relationship Education With Low‐Income, Unmarried Perinatal Couples

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To examine couple and parenting outcomes from an American version of Couple CARE for Parents (CCP) in low‐income, unmarried couples. Background We adapted an evidence‐based, flexibly delivered program for use with low‐income, unmarried couples, for whom the outcome literature is scarce. Method Couples (N = 443) were recruited from maternity units and began CCP. They completed measures before, during, and immediately after the intervention and again 6 months later. Results Experience of moderate psychological intimate partner violence (IPV) declined and perceived parenting efficacy increased over time; there was no change in severe psychological or physical IPV. Individuals with lower levels of relationship commitment than their partners showed improvement in relationship satisfaction, whereas those with similar or higher levels of commitment maintained their baseline levels despite being in a period of expected satisfaction decline. Conclusion CCP showed some signs of helping low‐income couples during a stressful period, and its flexible service delivery model allowed these couples to participate by reducing the impediments of transportation challenges, conflicting work schedules, and overall time poverty. Implications The results of this study suggest practitioners interested in using CCP with low‐income couples would likely maximize the impact by (a) focusing on pregnant, first‐time parents; (b) integrating CCP within postnatal health care; and (c) assuming that a considerable minority of couples will avail themselves of only up to two sessions, and thus practitioners should frontload content, making other content optional or just‐in‐time. In addition, nonpsychoeducational elements (e.g., gamification, easy computerized tasks to reduce angry responses, watching couple‐themed movies) could enliven preventative offerings for perinatal couples.

show abstract

“…What's next? Overall, focusing on within-person differences across relationship status can provide valuable insights into how people's lives change as they enter and leave singlehood, and provides one of the best avenues for detecting whether relationship status changes confer individual or other social benefits, which may be a crucial policy question (Feld & Meyer, 2018). However, the biggest obstacle to adopting this approach may be the resources it requires.…”

Section: Within-person Status Comparison: Differences Between Single ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three methodological approaches to studying singlehood

Park,

Girme,

MacDonald

2023

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the number of single (unpartnered) individuals continues to rise, researchers across various disciplines have started to pay more attention to single individuals' lives. Yet, compared to the accumulated knowledge about experiences within romantic relationships, there is far less known about various experiences within singlehood. For singlehood research to grow in both quantity and quality, it is essential that research findings are critically evaluated both in terms of robustness of the evidence and validity of the inferences. In this paper, we review three broad approaches researchers have taken to understand singlehood that centered on (a) between‐group status (i.e., single vs. in a relationship) differences, (b) within‐person status differences, and (c) within‐group variability among singles. With a focus on well‐being as an outcome, we illustrate how each approach provides unique insights into singlehood and what caveats there are in interpreting results derived from each approach. Finally, we identify questions or methods that have not been extensively explored within each approach and offer suggestions for future research directions.

show abstract

Evidence Required to Know Whether Marriage Promotion Increases Other Social Benefits

Cited by 4 publications

References 36 publications

Strengthening lower‐income families: Lessons learned from policy responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic

Strengthening lower‐income families: Lessons learned from policy responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic

An Uncontrolled Trial of Flexibly Delivered Relationship Education With Low‐Income, Unmarried Perinatal Couples

Three methodological approaches to studying singlehood

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About