Relational concerns and change in relationship satisfaction in a relationship education program

Abstract

Lower income couples tend to report more difficulty sustaining high-quality intimate relationships. As a result, policy initiatives have been enacted to fund relationship education (RE) programs that aim to increase lower income couples' relationship satisfaction. Generally, these programs demonstrate small, albeit statistically significant improvements in mean levels of relationship functioning. It is critical, however, to understand if RE programming influences the developmental course of intimate relationships, and if this influence depends on couples' initial levels of concerns about their relationships. Using dyadic group-based modeling and three waves of data from 6034 couples in the Supporting Healthy Marriages project, a randomized control trial of RE, we categorized couples into four relationship concern groups (No Relational Concerns, Both Relationally Concerned, Men's Relational Concerns, and Women's Relational Concerns) and explored how these groups moderated the longterm efficacy of RE programming. Results indicated that RE was associated with different developmental trajectories of satisfaction, but RE effects differed for men and women. Specifically, random assignment into RE was associated with men maintaining high levels of relationship satisfaction, whereas women's satisfaction decreased over time. These effects were not moderated by initial relationship concerns. The association between RE and relationship satisfaction trajectories was small in magnitude, suggesting that more comprehensive services are needed to strengthen lower income couples' intimate relationships.

Happy parents, happy kids: Marital happiness, parenting styles, and children's behavioral outcomes in Chinese societies

“…Our findings not only advance theoretical discussions regarding the contextual embeddedness of family processes but also have important implications for practitioners working with families in various cultural and subcultural groups. Empirical research has shown that family‐supportive programs can enhance romantic‐relationship satisfaction (Kanter et al, 2024), and evaluations of existing intervention programs based on diverse populations in the United States have consistently found that interventions targeting couples' relationships can benefit the development of couples' children (Pruett et al, 2017). In Chinese communities, intervention programs that aim to enhance child welfare perhaps should extend their efforts from parent–child dyads to interparental relations and should adopt emerging adapted or indigenized interventions for couples (Hsiao & Li, 2022).…”

The impact of specific program components on romantic relationship satisfaction

“…At study entrance and 30 months after couples enrolled in the SHM program, each partner responded to an item assessing their relationship satisfaction (“All things considered, how happy are you with your marriage”; 1 = completely unhappy to 7 = completely happy ). This item is sensitive in capturing changes in relationship functioning, associated with changes in individual functioning, and used in prior large‐scale evaluation studies (Kanter et al, 2023; Knopp et al, 2022; Lundquist et al, 2014).…”

Different trajectories of relationship satisfaction among rural Black couples following preventive relationship intervention.

“…Other recent studies have examined different trajectories of change among those receiving active CRE or a control condition. Using data from the Supporting Healthy Marriage trial of low-income couples, Kanter et al (2023) found that men in the intervention group relative to control group were more likely to belong to a group that maintained stable and high relationship satisfaction over time. Le et al (2023) examined low-income couples receiving one of two online relationship interventions compared to a waitlist control and found that men and women in the intervention condition were more likely to be in a group that achieved large improvement over time relative to the control group.…”