Heteronormative Relationship Education for Same‐Gender Couples

Abstract

In recent years, same‐gender group‐based relationship education has emerged as a viable intervention to prevent relationship distress among same‐gender couples. However, many of these programs are conducted in metropolitan areas and lack the ability to reach rural populations. The current study sought to investigate whether two wide‐reaching web‐based heteronormative relationship education programs could positively impact same‐gender relationships. In a sample of 49 same‐gender couples, heteronormative relationship education had small (Cohen's d = 0.16–0.39) but reliably positive effects on key areas of relationship functioning and perceived stress relative to a waitlist control group. Additionally, when same‐gender couples were matched with different‐gender individuals with similar baseline characteristics, no reliable differences between the two groups emerged even though the program effects were sometimes half as large for same‐gender couples. Finally, same‐gender participants were as satisfied with the program as the matched different‐gender individuals. Though the results of the present study indicate that heteronormative relationship education can be helpful for same‐gender couples, additional tailoring should be undertaken to ensure that same‐gender couples experience as much benefit as possible. Estimates from the current study could be used in future studies to detect what might be small‐sized differences.

How Effective is Online Couple Relationship Education? A Systematic Meta-Content Review

“… OR = OurRelationship. 1 = OR (Doss et al ( 2016 ; follow up 2019); 2 = OR-Brief (Roddy et al, 2017 ); 3 = OR (Roddy et al, 2018 ); 4 = OR (Rothman et al, 2019 ); 5 = ePREP (Braithwaite & Fincham, 2011 ); 6 = PREP (Loew et al, 2012 ); 7 = ePREP; (Braithwaite & Fincham, 2014 ); OurRelationship vs. ePREP (Doss et al, 2020 ; follow up: Roddy, Rhoades, et al, 2020 ; Roddy, Knopp, et al, 2020 ); Marriage Education = (Duncan et al, 2009 ); Relationship Excitement = (Coulter & Malouff, 2013 ); wl = wait list control; c = comparative treatments (no wait-list or attention-placebo group); ap = attention placebo control a Mean number of weeks b Coaching was compared with no coaching c Relational effect size = absolute value mean of the within-group Cohen’s d s across all relational outcome measures; individual effect size = absolute value mean of the within-group Cohen’s d s across all individual outcome measures d 63 in the no coaching condition, .54 in the coaching condition. nr = not reported e 52 in the low coaching condition, .61 in the high coaching condition f 72 in the OR group, .60 in the ePREP group.…”

“…OR = OurRelationship. 1 = OR (Doss et al ( 2016 ; follow up 2019); 2 = OR-Brief (Roddy et al, 2017 ); 3 = OR (Roddy et al, 2018 ); 4 = OR (Rothman et al, 2019 ); 5 = ePREP (Braithwaite & Fincham, 2011 ); 6 = PREP (Loew et al, 2012 ); 7 = ePREP; (Braithwaite & Fincham, 2014 ); OurRelationship vs. ePREP (Doss et al, 2020 ; follow up: Roddy, Rhoades, et al, 2020 ; Roddy, Knopp, et al, 2020 );…”

“…Studies with a single follow-up point re-assessed program participants’ outcomes at either 6 weeks (Braithwaite & Fincham, 2011 ), 3 months (Duncan et al, 2009 ; Roddy et al, 2017 ), 4 months (Coulter & Malouff, 2013 ), or 12 months (Braithwaite & Fincham, 2014 ). The randomized controlled trials of OR (Doss et al, 2016 ) and OR vs. ePREP (Doss et al, 2020 ) had multiple follow-up assessments ranging from 2 to 12 months (Doss et al, 2019 , 2020 ; Roddy, Knopp, et al, 2020 ; Roddy, Rhoades, et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Based on these criteria, we retained 16 articles that reported on 9 prospective investigations, 3 follow-up studies, and 4 secondary analyses of the efficacy and/or effectiveness of online CRE. The 4 programs whose effectiveness was reported in these articles were (1) OurRelationship (Doss et al, 2016 , 2019 , 2020 ; Georgia Salivar, 2018 , 2020 ; Roddy Nowlan, & Doss, 2017 ; Roddy Rothman, & Doss, 2018 ; Roddy et al, 2020 , Roddy et al 2020b ; Rothman et al, 2019 ), which was adapted from Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (Christensen et al, 2004 ); (2) ePREP (Braithwaite & Fincham, 2011 , 2014 ; Doss et al, 2020 ) and PREP (Loew et al, 2012 ), two adaptations of Prevention and Relationship Education Preparation workshops (Stanley et al, 2006 ), which are based on extensive, longitudinal marital research (e.g. Markham et al, 1993); (3) an unnamed marriage education program (Duncan et al, 2009 ) based on Gottman’s ( 1994 , 1999 ) couple interaction research, a self-help book (Markman et al, 2001 ) and a clinician handbook (Stuart, 2004 ); and (4) a relationship excitement program (Coulter & Malouff, 2013 ), which was suggested by studies on the influence of new and exciting activities on relationship quality (Aron et al, 2000 ).…”

Integrating the online OurRelationship program into a stepped‐care model of couple therapy

“…Gains in both relationship and individual functioning were maintained one year following the completion of the program (Doss et al ., 2019; Roddy, Knopp, et al ., 2020). These findings also hold in other subpopulations such as same‐sex couples (Hatch et al ., 2020) and military/veteran couples (Georgia Salivar, Knopp, et al ., 2020).…”