A National Survey of Marriage Preparation Provided by Clergy

Page 1

This article was downloaded by: [College Of the Holy Cross]On: 08 January 2013, At: 11:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Couple & RelationshipTherapy: Innovations in Clinical andEducational InterventionsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcrt20

A National Survey of MarriagePreparation Provided by ClergyJoe D. Wilmoth a & Samantha Smyser aa Human Development and Family Studies, School of HumanSciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi,USAVersion of record first published: 20 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Joe D. Wilmoth & Samantha Smyser (2012): A National Survey of MarriagePreparation Provided by Clergy, Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical andEducational Interventions, 11:1, 69-85

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2012.639705

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Page 2

Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 11:69–85, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1533-2691 print / 1533-2683 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15332691.2012.639705

A National Survey of MarriagePreparation Provided by Clergy

JOE D. WILMOTH and SAMANTHA SMYSERHuman Development and Family Studies, School of Human Sciences, Mississippi State

University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA

Clergy provide the vast majority of marriage preparation, but lit-tle is known about the nature of premarital education they pro-vide. To provide baseline data, a national survey (N = 793) fromthe 15 largest mainline Protestant, evangelical Protestant, andCatholic denominations investigated the requirements and contentaddressed in clergy-provided marriage preparation. A significantnumber of clergy include recommended components in premaritaleducation, but several practices with demonstrated efficaciousnessare generally left out, including follow-up meetings after the wed-ding, utilization of mentor couples, and dealing with family-of-origin issues. The article discusses implications for clergy providingpremarital programs and policy recommendations for denomina-tions, seminaries, and community agencies.

KEYWORDS clergy, premarital education, marriage preparation,requirements, content

INTRODUCTION

Clergy provide the vast majority of marriage preparation (i.e., premaritalcounseling or premarital education) in the United States (Glenn, 2005), andpremarital education is associated with improved marital satisfaction andcommitment (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006). In light of thesignificant social costs of divorce and marital discord (Wilcox et al., 2005),religious leaders are uniquely positioned to impact the economic, social, andemotional well-being of individuals and families by providing this service.However, there is little empirical information describing educational pro-grams provided by clergy to couples anticipating marriage. This study uses

Address correspondence to Joe D. Wilmoth, PhD, 220-B Lloyd-Ricks-Watson, Mail Stop9745, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 3

70 J. D. Wilmoth and S. Smyser

a national random sample to determine the behaviors of clergy related tomarriage preparation.

CLERGY INVOLVEMENT IN MARRIAGE PREPARATION

Currently, more than 90% of couples who receive marriage preparation doso from a church or religious institution (Glenn, 2005). Even though clergyalready provide the majority of premarital education, scholars and marriageadvocates have called for an increased emphasis on effective premarital ed-ucation by churches and clergy (Stanley, 2001). In response to this belief inthe salience of clergy premarital interventions, clergy and other wedding of-ficiants in at least 220 communities in 43 states have established CommunityMarriage Policies (CMPs), setting minimum standards for marriage prepara-tion for any couple whose weddings they perform (Marriage Savers, 2009;McManus, 1995).

Though the findings must be interpreted cautiously, well-constructedpremarital programs show evidence of having a significant short-term effecton behaviors related to marital satisfaction (Carroll & Doherty, 2003). Re-cent reviews and meta-analyses note that long-term effects have not beenestablished (Halford, Markman, & Stanley, 2008). Also, since many studiesshowing efficacy of premarital education have been conducted with mainlywhite, highly educated couples (see Halford et al., 2008; Hawkins, Blanchard,Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008), it is possible that these programs might not havethe same effect among groups with social disadvantages that are highly cor-related with the risk of divorce (Ooms & Wilson, 2004).

Schumm et al. (2010) found that the quality of premarital counseling,specifically within a religious setting, predicts both the short- and long-termhelpfulness of premarital counseling in a couple’s relationship. Althoughclergy have the opportunity and capability to provide quality marriage prepa-ration, questions remain about the current effectiveness of clergy-providedprograms (Wilmoth & Smyser, 2007). Currently, little is known about the con-tent and requirements of marriage preparation provided by clergy (Wilmoth& Fournier, 2009). Wilmoth (2005) conducted a study of Oklahoma clergy todetermine the content and requirements of premarital education; however,no recent data from a national sample have been published.

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF MARRIAGE PREPARATION

In addition to the curriculum and related content aspects of marriage prepa-ration, dosage, format, approach (Murray, 2005), intensity, and methodology(Hawkins, Carroll, Doherty, & Willoughby, 2004) are important process-related aspects to consider when implementing interventions. Requirements

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 4

Marriage Preparation 71

set by clergy for couples whose weddings they perform often reflect one ormore of these processes (Hawkins et al., 2004).

Timing and Dosage

For long-term behavioral change to occur, the length and intensity of mar-riage preparation are key structural components. One study revealed thatcouples who had attended four or more education sessions rated their mar-riage preparation significantly higher than those who attended no sessions orone session of premarital education. Additionally, the study suggested that10 or more education sessions may even be counterproductive (Williams,Riley, Risch, & Van Dyke, 1999). Hawkins and associates’ (2008) meta-analysis revealed that programs with a moderate dosage of instructionaltime produce significantly stronger effects.

Sullivan (2001) found that clergy most frequently provided four to sixeducation sessions with a range of 30 to 90 minutes per session. Wilmoth(2005) found that Oklahoma clergy provided an average of three premaritaleducation sessions. However, Stahmann and Hiebert (1997) recommendedthat for counseling to be more beneficial, clergy should provide at leastfive to seven 2-hour sessions beginning several months before the wedding.Silliman and Schumm (1999) recommend that preparation should begin atleast 6 to 12 months before marriage to facilitate openness to discussion andto promote behavioral change.

Another component of marriage preparation recommended by scholarsis follow-up sessions after the wedding (Stahmann & Hiebert, 1997). Bucknerand Salts (1985) suggested that post-wedding check-ups could allow couplesto review what they learn in premarital sessions and to pinpoint problemsand joys of their married life. Murray (2005) noted that some providers haveexpressed an interest in providing booster sessions to refresh the couple’sskills. Silliman and Schumm (1999) noted that the timing of post-weddingsessions has varied and that it may be difficult to determine the best timefor individual couples. Despite recommendations in the literature, Wilmoth(2005) found that very few clergy provide such follow-up services.

Format

Murray (2005) noted that marriage preparation employs diverse formats suchas one-on-one sessions, classrooms, and support groups. Williams (1992)found that engaged couples prefer the following formats: counseling ses-sions with a minister, weekend retreats, small group discussions, and privatesessions with a mentor couple. Wilmoth (2005) found that for Oklahomaclergy, mentor couples and group premarital classes were among the leastrequired components.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 5

72 J. D. Wilmoth and S. Smyser

The format of marriage preparation also is distinguished by whetherthe approach is information or skills based. Information-based premaritaleducation promotes understanding of a concept through lectures, demon-strations, and/or audiovisual presentations. Skills-based marriage preparationnot only promotes understanding and knowledge but also provides oppor-tunities to practice relationship skills and receive feedback on these skills(Halford, Markman, Kline, & Stanley, 2003). Examples of skills-based rela-tionship education are Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program(PREP; Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Storaasli, 1988), Relationship Enhance-ment program (RE; Guerney, 1977), and Couple Commitment and Relation-ship Enhancement program (Couple Care; Halford, Moore, Wilson, Farrugia,& Dyer, 2004). Research has shown that this type of premarital educationis effective because crucial relationship skills can be taught (Halford et al.,2004). Hahlweg, Markman, Thurmaier, Engl, and Eckert (1998) found thatskills-based premarital education is associated with higher levels of relation-ship satisfaction and functioning even after 5 years of marriage.

Premarital Assessment Questionnaires

Premarital assessment questionnaires (PAQs) are considered a meaningfulcomponent of many premarital education programs (Larson, Newell,Topham, & Nichols, 2002; Wilmoth & Smyser, 2010), including thoseprograms provided by clergy. Sullivan (2000) and Wilmoth and Smyser(2010) found that clergy use a variety of assessment instruments in marriagepreparation, some of which may not be appropriate for use with engagedcouples. Larson et al. (1995) suggested that adequate premarital inventoriesmust 1) be designed primarily for assessing the premarital relationship, 2)collect comprehensive data that are relevant to marriage preparation, 3)be easy to administer and interpret, 4) have a wide application, and 5) bereliable and valid.

After analyzing various premarital instruments, Larson et al. (1995) con-cluded that the following instruments were the most psychometrically sound:PREmarital Personal and Relationship Evaluation (PREPARE; Olson, Fournier,& Druckman, 1986), the PREParation for Marriage (PREP-M), and FacilitatingOpen Couple Communication, Understanding, and Study (FOCCUS; Markey& Micheletto, 1997). They specifically excluded the Taylor-Johnson Temper-ament Analysis (T-JTA; Taylor & Morrison, 1984) and the Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator (MBTI; Hammer, 1987) “because they assess only personality andcouple personality matches and do not focus on the broader dimensions ofpremarital relationships” (Larson et al., 1995, p. 247). Subsequent analysisdetermined that PREPARE, FOCCUS, and RELATE (previously known as thePREP-M) “may be confidently used in premarital assessment and counseling”(Larson et al., 2002, p. 238).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 6

Marriage Preparation 73

Although evaluation of PAQs has been limited to short-term outcomes,some studies have shown at least moderate effectiveness. For example,Knutson and Olson (2003) found that PREPARE increased couple satisfactionand relationship skills. RELATE has been found to improve couple communi-cation skills, preparedness for marriage, and relationship satisfaction (Larson,Vatter, Galbraith, Holman, & Stahmann, 2007).

Marriage Mentors

Sandstrom defined marriage mentoring as “the actions of a more experi-enced married couple (mentor) who empower and support a premaritalcouple (mentee) and who act as a guide and role model, sharing resourcesand relational experiences” (2004, p. 7). Anecdotal evidence and limitedempirical data suggest that marriage mentors can provide support, skills,and inspiration that clergy and other professionals cannot (McManus, 1995;Wages, 2003). Wages (2003) found that mentor couples provide a morerealistic view of marriage and help resolve relationship issues for engagedcouples. Sandstrom (2004) found that mentor couples were beneficial in pro-viding support for the engaged couple, giving them confidence in startingtheir marriage as well as how to deal with in-law relationships and family-of-origin issues. In addition, Williams et al. (1999) found that engaged coupleshighly regarded private sessions with a mentor couple.

Homework

Homework assignments seem to be a common method that clergy and ther-apists use to reinforce concepts addressed in marriage preparation. For ex-ample, Buckner and Salts (1985) developed a premarital training programthat includes homework assignments for each of six sessions. Wilmoth (2005)found that 80% of Oklahoma clergy indicated they assigned some homeworkto engaged couples. Variations in content and application of assignmentsmake it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of homework as a componentof marriage preparation.

Prohibition of Premarital Sex and Cohabitation

Wilmoth (2005) found that almost 70% of Oklahoma clergy require premar-ital sexual abstinence as a part of the marriage preparation they provide,and some CMPs include prohibition of premarital sex. Policies such asthese can be problematic considering the high percentage of couples whohave been sexually active and cohabitate before marriage (Kennedy &Bumpass, 2008). Hawkins et al. (2004) suggested a more proactive approachwhere clergy involve cohabiting couples and deemphasize sexuality issuesin these types of services, especially since cohabiting couples are more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 7

74 J. D. Wilmoth and S. Smyser

likely to experience divorce and thus may need these services more thannoncohabiting, engaged couples.

TOPICAL CONTENT OF MARRIAGE PREPARATION

Research has identified appropriate content for effective marriage prepara-tion that helps promote marital satisfaction and stability. Bradbury, Fincham,and Beach (2000) determined that the following topics should be included inmarriage preparation since research has associated them with marital satis-faction: communication, conflict resolution, social support, careers, children,life stressors and transitions, and family background. Larson and Holman(1994) extended this list by including the following significant factors formarital quality and stability: family-of-origin effects; socioeconomic factorssuch as age, education, income, and occupation; personality traits; similarityof attitudes, values, and beliefs; interactional history such as length and na-ture of acquaintance, cohabitation, premarital sex, and premarital pregnancy;and interactional processes such as communication, conflict, and consensusbuilding. Participants report that some of the most helpful topics are commu-nication (Williams et al., 1999), family-of-origin, finances, conflict resolution,and sexuality (Russell & Lyster, 1992).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

There is little empirical information about if and how clergy implement thestructural and content components of premarital education that have beenidentified in the literature. This study seeks to provide descriptive baselinedata about practices of clergy related to marriage preparation by answeringtwo questions: 1) What structural components do clergy require in the mar-riage preparation they provide? 2) What content areas do clergy cover in thepremarital programs they provide? This is the first study to use a nationalrandom sample to describe the marriage preparation practices of clergy.The researchers anticipate this study’s findings to provide helpful insightsfor clergy and important policy recommendations for denominations, semi-naries, and community agencies to promote effective marriage preparationamong clergy. Although space limitations preclude more sophisticated anal-yses of the data, differences in denominational groups are available uponrequest.

METHOD

Participants

The sampling frame was based on the 2000 Religious Congregations andMembership Survey in the Association of Religious Data Archives (2002),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 8

Marriage Preparation 75

which provided information on 149 religious groups, including the numberof congregations and adherents for each. The categories of congregationsincluded evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, orthodox, and othergroups. A limitation of the 2000 Religious Congregations and MembershipSurvey data is that no historically African American denominations partici-pated (e.g., African Methodist Episcopal Church, National Baptist ConventionUSA Incorporated, or Church of God in Christ).

For the current study, the population of interest was limited to clergyfrom the three largest religious groups in the United States, based on thenumber of adherents in each: Roman Catholic, evangelical Protestant, andmainline Protestant. In order to make statistically meaningful comparisonsamong denominations, the sampling frame was further limited to clergy fromthe 15 Christian denominations with the largest number of congregations.The study used stratified random sampling to select 2000 congregationswhose clergy were contacted to participate in the survey. Therefore, 46.5%of this study’s sample was composed of clergy from evangelical Protestantcongregations (n = 930), 42% mainline Protestants (n = 840), and 11.5%Roman Catholic (n = 230).

Of the 820 returned responses (41% response rate), 793 were usablefor data analysis. Clergy who responded tended to be male (91.2%), married(84.0%), Caucasian (90.3%), and a senior pastor (93.0%). The mean age was53.1 years (SD = 10.9), the mean years in ministry was 23.1 (SD = 13.0), andthe mean tenure in the clergy’s current position was 8.32 years (SD = 8.10).Clergy who responded typically had a master’s degree (53.0%) with 2.01(SD = 2.38) college or seminary courses and 2.48 (SD = 3.53) continuingeducation opportunities related to marriage preparation. Although the meanof active congregational members was 429.1, the median was only 150. Onaverage, a clergyperson performed 4.91 weddings annually (SD = 6.19). Inaddition, 49.7% of clergy who responded were evangelical Protestant, 38.3%were mainline Protestant, and 9.3% were Roman Catholic.

Instrument

The four-page, 126-item, self-report questionnaire was modified from the“Oklahoma Clergy Involvement in Marriage Preparation” questionnaire(Wilmoth, 2005). The instrument included seven sections: demographics,marriage preparation requirements, content, resources, value and effective-ness, hindrances, and community marriage initiatives.

To discover what structural requirements clergy set for marriage prepa-ration, participants were asked to indicate on a Likert-type scale, rangingfrom 0 (Never Require) to 4 (Always Require), how often they require eachof the following structural components: waiting period before the wed-ding, premarital couple inventory, sessions with pastor, group premaritalclass, mentor couples, homework, church membership, premarital sexualabstinence, and sessions after the wedding.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 9

76 J. D. Wilmoth and S. Smyser

In addition, if clergy required a waiting period before the wedding, theywere asked the length of the waiting period in months. If clergy requiredcompletion of a premarital couple inventory, the participants were askedto identify which one they required. If clergy required sessions with thepastor, respondents were asked the number of sessions required as well asthe length of time in minutes per session. If clergy required homework, theparticipants were asked to indicate the number of assignments given. Finally,if sessions after the wedding were required, the clergy were asked to list thenumber of sessions required and how many months after the wedding thesessions took place.

To discover how effectively clergy covered 18 selected content areas,participants were asked to indicate how effectively they deal with eachtopic using a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Not at All Effectively) to 5(Very Effectively). If participants did not cover a content area, they wereinstructed to respond with 0 (Not Covered). The content areas evaluated,which were based on the literature review and Wilmoth’s (2005) Oklahomastudy, included the wedding ceremony, realistic expectations, roles, chil-dren/parenting, career, personality/temperament, relationship to God, com-munication, conflict resolution, problem solving, family-of-origin, finances/budgeting, in-law relationships, friends, sexual relations, family planning,spiritual dimensions of marriage, and legal issues.

To determine the format clergy use in marriage preparation, participantswere asked to check which of the following best describes their approachto marriage preparation: 1) information-based, which focused on helpingsomeone understand a concept, or 2) skills-based, which not only promotesunderstanding but also provides the opportunity to practice learned skills.

RESULTS

To determine which components of marriage preparation clergy require,frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated. The most fre-quently required component was sessions with the pastor (M = 3.60, SD =0.82), and the least required component was mentor couples (M = 0.56,SD = 1.10). Table 1 indicates the likelihood of requiring each component,with items ranked based on size of means. The table shows that sessionswith the pastor, homework, premarital couple inventory, and waiting periodbefore the wedding are the most frequently required components of premar-ital education. Sessions after the wedding and mentor couples are the leastrequired.

When a waiting period before the wedding was required, the averagelength of time was 3.21 months (SD = 1.01). When clergy required a premar-ital inventory, the most frequently required instrument was PREPARE (n =111, 13.6%) followed by FOCCUS (n = 57, 7.0%). When sessions with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 10

Marriage Preparation 77

TABLE 1 Central Tendencies and Frequencies of Marriage Preparation Requirements

(0) (4)Never Always

Requirement∗ M SD Require % (1) % (2) % (3) % Require %

Meetings/sessions withpastor†

3.60 0.82 1.7 1.3 5.4 15.1 69.6

Homework 2.33 1.62 23.3 7.1 11.9 16.8 34.0Premarital couple inventory 2.17 1.77 30.8 4.5 6.7 11.7 35.0Preparation/waiting period

before the wedding2.13 1.64 28.3 8.2 10.3 18.9 29.1

Premarital sexual abstinence 1.96 1.75 36.3 5.9 9.7 10.7 32.0Church membership 1.35 1.58 49.1 6.5 12.4 10.8 16.0Group premarital class/

education/enrichment0.78 1.33 62.7 7.5 7.4 5.2 8.3

Meetings/sessions after thewedding

0.64 1.20 67.9 6.9 8.5 4.4 5.8

Mentor/sponsor couples 0.56 1.10 69.2 9.7 7.0 3.6 4.7

∗N = 793.†Listed in order of most frequently required to least required based on means among all denominationalgroups.

pastor were required, the average number of sessions required was 3.98 ses-sions (SD = 2.12). The average time per session required was 68.5 minutes(SD = 27.16). When clergy required homework, the average number of as-signments required was 3.29 (SD = 2.44). When sessions after the weddingwere required, the average was 1.65 sessions (SD = 1.00). These sessionstook place an average of 5.47 months after the wedding (SD = 3.35).

To determine which content areas were covered in clergy-provided mar-riage preparation and to determine how satisfied clergy were with how thor-oughly they dealt with each content area, frequencies, means, and standarddeviations were calculated. Overall, clergy believe they adequately addressmost of the topics associated with premarital education. For 14 of the 18topics measured, the mean was at least 3 on a scale of 1 (Not at All Effec-tively) to 5 (Very Effectively). The content area that clergy believed they hadcovered most effectively was the wedding ceremony (M = 4.34, SD = 1.10),and the topic covered least effectively was legal issues (M = 1.91, SD =1.59). Legal issues was also the content area that was least likely to be ad-dressed at all (n = 247, 30.3%). All content areas are listed in Table 2, in theorder of the size of means to indicate how effectively participants believethey are covered. The table shows that clergy believe the three content areasthey cover most effectively are the wedding ceremony, communication, andrelationship to God. The table also shows family planning, career, and legalissues to be the content areas that clergy believe are least effectively coveredin the premarital services they provide.

To determine whether clergy use an information- or skills-basedapproach to marriage preparation, frequencies were calculated. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 11

TA

BLE

2Cen

tral

Ten

den

cies

and

Freq

uen

cies

ofM

arriag

ePre

par

atio

nConte

nt

(0)

Not

(1)

Notat

all

(5)

Ver

yConte

ntA

reas

∗M

SDCove

red

%Effec

tivel

y%

(2)

%(3

)%

(4)

%Effec

tivel

y%

The

wed

din

gce

rem

ony†

4.34

1.10

3.80

...

1.20

7.90

27.2

059

.90

Rel

atio

nsh

ipto

God

4.17

1.18

4.20

0.20

3.20

9.90

32.1

050

.30

Com

munic

atio

n4.

171.

174.

500.

402.

008.

0036

.60

48.6

0Sp

iritu

aldim

ensi

ons

ofm

arriag

e4.

101.

214.

400.

503.

2011

.80

33.3

046

.90

Rea

listic

expec

tatio

ns

3.94

1.21

5.30

0.10

2.80

14.1

042

.60

35.1

0Conflic

tre

solu

tion

3.81

1.30

6.30

0.50

4.50

17.1

038

.30

33.4

0Role

s3.

781.

306.

600.

504.

0016

.40

42.3

030

.10

Per

sonal

ity/t

emper

amen

t3.

601.

418.

001.

306.

5019

.00

36.8

028

.30

Pro

ble

m-s

olv

ing

3.58

1.37

8.00

0.70

5.80

22.1

037

.30

26.1

0Fi

nan

ces/

budge

ting

3.48

1.43

8.20

1.70

9.30

21.1

033

.50

26.1

0Child

ren/p

aren

ting

3.30

1.46

9.90

2.70

8.30

24.7

034

.70

19.6

0In

-law

rela

tionsh

ips

3.27

1.45

9.80

2.70

9.30

24.9

035

.20

18.0

0Se

xual

rela

tions

3.24

1.48

9.90

3.40

10.4

025

.00

30.8

020

.40

Frie

nds

3.04

1.46

11.5

03.

6011

.40

28.6

032

.40

12.5

0Fa

mily

oforigi

n2.

941.

6215

.30

4.50

12.1

023

.80

27.5

016

.70

Car

eer

2.84

1.49

13.9

03.

8014

.10

32.6

023

.70

11.9

0Fa

mily

pla

nnin

g2.

801.

5714

.80

5.80

15.6

025

.00

25.9

012

.90

Lega

lis

sues

1.91

2.00

30.3

010

.90

20.0

020

.50

12.6

05.

60

∗ N=

793.

†Lis

ted

inord

erofm

ost

effe

ctiv

ely

cove

red

tole

astef

fect

ivel

yco

vere

dfo

ral

lden

om

inat

ional

groups.

78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 12

Marriage Preparation 79

information-based format to premarital education was the more frequent ap-proach cited by clergy (n = 382, 46.9%) compared to the skills-based format(n = 216, 26.5%). Almost 27% of clergy did not respond to this question.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with previous research (i.e., Sullivan, 2001; Wilmoth, 2005), thisstudy found that clergy provide on average approximately four 1-hour ses-sions of marriage preparation. Although Williams et al. (1999) found thatfour or more sessions lead to couple’s greater satisfaction with the premar-ital education they received, Stahmann and Hiebert (1997) recommendedthat, for counseling to be more beneficial, clergy should provide at leastfive to seven 1-hour sessions. In addition, the literature recommends meet-ings with the pastor after the wedding to provide booster sessions (Murray,2005) and help pinpoint the problems and joys of married life (Buckner &Salts, 1985); however, this study found that sessions after the wedding wereone of the least required components of premarital education. These find-ings indicate that clergy need to be made more aware through educationand training about what structural components should be included to makemarriage preparation more effective and beneficial.

According to L’Abate (1999), homework is an essential component ofthe therapeutic process. This study found that homework is the second mostrequired structural component of clergy-provided premarital education withclergy generally requiring three assignments. This finding suggests that clergyare aware of the therapeutic value of including homework in the marriagepreparation services they provide. However, the study did not determine theappropriateness or efficacy of specific homework assignments.

This study found that the majority of clergy required some kind of as-sessment as a component of marriage preparation. PREPARE and FOCCUS,which were two out of the three assessments that Larson et al. (2002) statedcould be confidently used in marriage preparation, were the instrumentsmost frequently used by clergy. This finding is reassuring since research hasfound PAQs to be a meaningful component of premarital education (Larsonet al., 2002). This finding suggests that many clergy not only know theimportance of using appropriate assessment instruments but also are incor-porating this component into the premarital services they provide. However,a significant number of clergy continue to use inventories that may not beappropriate for marriage preparation (see Larson et al., 1995, and Wilmoth& Smyser, 2010). It is possible that recent online adaptations of instrumentssuch as RELATE and PREPARE might facilitate the use of appropriate assess-ments.

Although recent research has suggested the effectiveness of using men-tor couples in premarital education (e.g., Sandstrom, 2004) and Williams et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 13

80 J. D. Wilmoth and S. Smyser

(1999) found that sessions with a sponsor couple are highly regarded by en-gaged couples, using marriage mentors was the least required component ofclergy-provided marriage preparation. Although mentors could offer insightand support, clergy do not seem to perceive the potential effectiveness ofmentor couples or do not know how to implement such a program. Clergycould be educated about the usefulness of including marriage mentors inpremarital education and provided with tools to establish mentoring pro-grams. However, previous large-scale attempts to train church leaders howto establish such programs have been disappointing. For example, the Okla-homa Marriage Initiative (OMI) attempted to encourage training for mentorcouples, but activities were limited by budgetary constraints (K. Cox, per-sonal communication, May 16, 2005) and by the perception that clergy werenot interested (S. Crawley, personal communication, May 16, 2005).

This study found that 42.7% of clergy say they require engaged couplesto remain sexually abstinent. However, this is one of the hardest componentsof marriage preparation to enforce, particularly since such a high number ofengaged couples already have engaged in premarital sex and are cohabit-ing (Kennedy and Bumpass, 2008). Hawkins and associates (2004) recom-mended that individuals providing marriage preparation should deempha-size the premarital abstinence requirement among engaged and cohabitatingcouples while still requiring premarital education to take place.

Although research has found skills-based premarital education to beuseful in influencing marital outcomes (see Halford et al., 2003), only 25%of clergy reported using a skills-based format for the marriage preparationthey provide. Assuming that those more dedicated to premarital educationare more likely to respond to the survey, this proportion is likely even lower.Given that the skills-based approach is the only method of marriage prepara-tion that has reliably demonstrated its effectiveness (see Hawkins et al., 2004),this finding suggests that the majority of clergy are still using approaches thathave not been proved effective. Therefore, clergy need to be made awarethat they can increase the effectiveness of marital preparation through theuse of skills-based curricula. Alternatively, clergy might not be using theseskills-based programs because they have not been properly trained to ad-minister and implement programs such as PREP and Couple CARE. Barriersto using skills-based curricula could include the cost of the materials andtraining (Halford, 2004) as well as the belief that such programs are secularin nature. Therefore, awareness of and training for such programs shouldbe made more readily available through denominational agencies, statewidemarriage initiatives, local seminars, and other avenues that are readily ac-cessible to clergy. Clergy should receive encouragement and the necessarytraining to include this component in their premarital education.

In regard to content, the topic clergy believe they address most effec-tively is the wedding ceremony. No doubt the wedding is the primary con-cern of many couples when they meet with clergy that would help account

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 14

Marriage Preparation 81

for its prominence, and the public nature of the event would encourageattention to detail. In addition, church tradition, clergy experience, and cou-ples’ preferences would facilitate clarification of the ceremony. The topicclergy believe they address second most effectively is relationship to God.While this topic certainly is more abstract than the wedding ceremony, it is asubject in which clergy are more likely to be considered by themselves andothers to be a source of authority.

Communication is the topic clergy believe they cover most effectivelyafter the wedding ceremony and relationship to God. Williams et al. (1999)found that couples considered communication to be among the most help-ful topics covered in premarital education programs, and research has con-firmed the importance of communication for healthy couple relationships(Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, & Clements, 1993). Clergy also reportedthat they somewhat less effectively covered other important areas, such asconflict resolution and problem solving, that scholars suggest should be in-cluded in premarital education (see Bradbury et al., 2000).

Clergy recognize that they do not cover family-of-origin influences ef-fectively. Clergy may perceive that family-of-origin issues are beyond theirexpertise and would be better addressed by a trained therapist. This find-ing suggests that clergy need to be made more aware of the importanceof addressing family-of-origin topics, especially since research has identi-fied family-of-origin issues as a significant factor in determining success andcompetence in adult romantic relationships (Busby, Gardner, & Taniguchi,2005), marital quality, and marital stability (Larson & Holman, 1994). Col-lege or seminary courses dealing with marriage preparation should educateclergy about how family backgrounds influence future relationships, partic-ularly marriages. In addition, training related to family-of-origin issues couldbe provided through local workshops or seminars dealing with marriagepreparation to help clergy deal with these issues more confidently.

Although clergy seem to be providing preparation that helps couplesform more stable and satisfying marriages, this study finds room for im-provement. Seminary and college courses should emphasize the importanceof premarital education and provide information and skills that will equipclergy to prepare couples for marriage. In addition, denominational andcommunity agencies should continually encourage clergy to emphasize pre-marital education and also should offer continuing education opportunitiesthat teach clergy how to provide training to couples in skills such as com-munication and conflict resolution. These efforts to increase effectiveness ofclergy in preparing couples for marriage can help religious communities havean even greater impact on the economic, social, and emotional well-beingof individuals and families.

Although the response rate for this study was reasonably high, the resultsare subject to all the limitations of self-report questionnaires. Generalizabilityis reduced further by restricting the sample to evangelical Protestant, mainline

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 15

82 J. D. Wilmoth and S. Smyser

Protestant, and Roman Catholic clergy and by using a database that didnot include traditionally African American denominations. Future researchshould investigate whether these findings would be replicated among clergyin additional religious traditions, particularly traditionally African Americandenominations.

Unfortunately, this study was only able to measure clergy’s perceptionof their effectiveness in preparing couples for marriage. Future researchusing experimental and longitudinal designs should investigate the actualeffectiveness of clergy-provided premarital education and should determinewhether short-term outcomes continue over many years.

This study provides baseline data that describe the practices of clergywho provide the vast majority of premarital education in the United States.However, many questions remain: What are attitudes of clergy toward mar-riage preparation? What are the most effective methods of training clergy toprovide effective premarital education? What barriers prevent clergy fromproviding effective marriage preparation services? Which components ofclergy-provided premarital education actually make a positive impact onmarital stability and satisfaction, and what activities are ineffective or evencounterproductive? What are appropriate and efficacious roles for localchurches, denominations, community agencies, and governments? Answer-ing such questions will require multidimensional research approaches thatinclude both longitudinal and cross-sectional perspectives, incorporate ex-perimental designs, use both qualitative and quantitative data, and study notonly clergy but also the couples they serve.

REFERENCES

Association of Religious Data Archives. (2002). Religious congregations and mem-bership in the United States, 2000. Retrieved from the Association of Statisticiansof American Religious Bodies and the Association of Religion Data Archiveswebsite: http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US 2000.asp

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature anddeterminants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 62, 964–980. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

Buckner, L. P., & Salts, C. J. (1985). A premarital assessment program. Family Rela-tions, 34, 513–520. doi: 10.2307/584012

Busby, D. M., Gardner, B. C., & Taniguchi, N. (2005). The family of origin parachutemodel: Landing safely in adult romantic relationships. Family Relations, 54,254–264. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2005.00020.x

Carroll, J. S., & Doherty, W. J. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of premaritalprevention programs: A meta-analytic review of outcome research. Family Re-lations, 52, 105–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00105.x

Glenn, N. D. (2005). With this ring: A national survey on marriage in America.Washington, DC: National Fatherhood Initiative.

Guerney, B. G. (1977). Relationship enhancement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 16

Marriage Preparation 83

Hahlweg, K., Markman, H. J., Thurmaier, F., Engl, J., & Eckert, V. (1998). Preventionof marital distress: Results of a German prospective longitudinal study. Journalof Family Psychology, 12, 543–556. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.543

Halford, W. K. (2004). The future of couple relationship education: Sugges-tions on how it can make a difference. Family Relations, 53, 559–566. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00065.x

Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., Kline, G. H., & Stanley, S. M. (2003). Best practicein couple relationship education. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29,385–406. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01214.x

Halford, W. K., Markman, H. J., & Stanley, S. (2008). Strengthening couples’ rela-tionships with education: Social policy and public health perspectives. Journalof Family Psychology, 22, 497–505. doi: 10.1037/a0012789

Halford, W. K., Moore, E., Wilson, K. L., Farrugia, C., & Dyer, C. (2004). Bene-fits of flexible delivery relationship education: An evaluation of the CoupleCARE program. Family Relations, 53, 469–476. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00055.x

Hammer, A. L. (1987). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator relationship report. Palo Alto,CA: Counseling Psychologists Press.

Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Doesmarriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 723–734. doi: 10.1037/a0012584

Hawkins, A. J., Carroll, J. S., Doherty, W. J., & Willoughby, B. (2004). A compre-hensive framework for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 547–558. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00064.x

Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements:New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19(47). Retrievedfrom http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol19/47/

Knutson, L., & Olson, D. H. (2003). Effectiveness of PREPARE Program with premar-ital couples in community settings. Marriage and Family: A Christian Journal,6, 529–546.

L’Abate, L. (1999). Structured enrichment and distance writing for couples. InR. Berger & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy(pp. 106–124). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (1994). Premarital predictors of marital quality andstability. Family Relations, 43, 228–237. doi: 10.2307/585327

Larson, J. H., Holman, T. B., Klein, D. M., Busby, D. M., Stahmann, R. F., & Peter-son, D. (1995). A review of comprehensive questionnaires used in premaritaleducation and counseling. Family Relations, 44, 245–252. doi: 10.2307/585522

Larson, J. H., Newell, K., Topham, G., & Nichols, S. (2002). A review of threecomprehensive premarital assessment questionnaires. Journal of Marital andFamily Therapy, 28, 233–239. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2002.tb00360.x

Larson, J. H., Vatter, R. S., Galbraith, R. C., Holman, T. B., & Stahmann, R. F.(2007). The relationship evaluation (RELATE) with therapist-assisted interpre-tation: Short-term effects on premarital relationships. Journal of Marital andFamily Therapy, 33, 364–374. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00036.x

Markey, B., & Micheletto, M. (1997). Instructor manual for FOCCUS. Omaha, NE:Archdiocese of Omaha.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 17

84 J. D. Wilmoth and S. Smyser

Markman, H. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Storaasli, R. D. (1988). Prevention ofmarital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 56, 210–217. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.56.2.210

Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Clements, M. (1993).Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict managementtraining: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy, 61, 70–77. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.70

Marriage Savers. (2009). CMPs: Where are they? Retrieved from the Com-munity Marriage Policy, Marriage Savers website: http://wwww.communitymarriagepolicy.org/sitecmp/Locations/locationlist.htm

McManus, M. J. (1995). Marriage savers: Helping your family and friends avoiddivorce. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Murray, C. E. (2005). Prevention work: A professional responsibility for marriageand family counselors. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couplesand Families, 13, 27–34. doi: 10.1177/1066480704269179

Olson, D. H., Fournier, D. G., & Druckman, J. M. (1986). Counselor’s manual forPREPARE-ENRICH. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations.

Ooms, T., & Wilson, P. (2004). The challenges of offering relationship and mar-riage education to low-income populations. Family Relations, 53, 440–447. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00052.x

Russell, M. N., & Lyster, R. F. (1992). Marriage preparation: Factors associatedwith consumer satisfaction. Family Relations, 41, 446–451. doi: 10.2307/585589

Sandstrom, G. D. (2004). The effect of marriage mentoring when utilized in apremarital program (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Available fromProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3129597).

Schumm, W. R., Walker, A. B., Nazarinia, R. R., West, D. A., Atwell, C., Bartko, A.,& Kriley, A. (2010). Predicting the short- and long-term helpfulness of premar-ital counseling: The critical role of counseling quality. Journal of Couple andRelationship Therapy, 9, 1–15.

Silliman, B., & Schumm, W. R. (1999). Improving practice in marriage preparation.Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 25, 23–43.

Stahmann, R. F., & Hiebert, W. J. (1997). Premarital and remarital counseling: Theprofessional’s handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stanley, S. M. (2001). Making a case for premarital education. Family Relations, 50,272–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00272.x

Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premar-ital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large,random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 117–126. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.117

Sullivan, P. O. (2001). Clergy’s training in and the use of premarital counseling.Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering,61, 3863.

Taylor, R. M., & Morrison, L. P. (1984). Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis man-ual. Los Angeles: Psychological Publications.

Wages, S. A. (2003). A formative and summative education of a marriage preparationprogram using mentor couples (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13

Page 18

Marriage Preparation 85

Jacksonville, FL). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.(AAT 3076209).

Wilcox, W. B., Doherty, W. J., Fisher, H., Galston, W. A., Glenn, N. D., Gottman, J.,. . . Wallerstein, J. (2005). Why marriage matters: Twenty-six conclusions for thesocial sciences (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Institute for American Values.

Williams, L. M. (1992). Premarital counseling: A needs assessment among engaged in-dividuals. Contemporary Family Therapy, 14, 505–518. doi: 10.1007/BF00892197

Williams, L. M., Riley, L. A., Risch, G. S., & Van Dyke, D. T. (1999). An empiricalapproach to designing marriage preparation programs. The American Journalof Family Therapy, 27, 271–283. doi: 10.1080/019261899261970

Wilmoth, J. D. (2005). Involvement of Oklahoma clergy in providing marriage prepa-ration (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK). Avail-able from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3203076).

Wilmoth, J. D., & Fournier, D. G. (2009). Barriers to providing marriage preparation.The Journal of Family and Community Ministries, 22, 31–41.

Wilmoth, J. D., & Smyser, S. L. (2007, November). Premarital requirements andperceived effectiveness of clergy. Poster session presented at the annual meetingof the National Council on Family Relations, Pittsburgh, PA.

Wilmoth, J. D., & Smyser, S. L. (2010). Use of premarital assessment questionnairesby clergy in marriage preparation. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy,9, 252–267. doi: 10.1080/15332691.2010.491783

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

Of

the

Hol

y C

ross

] at

11:

08 0

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

13