Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232551173

StrategicHope-FocusedRelationship-Enrichmentcounselingwithindividuals

ArticleinJournalofCounselingPsychology·October1997

DOI:10.1037/0022-0167.44.4.381

CITATIONS

43

READS

399

6authors,including:

JenniferS.Ripley

RegentUniversity

29PUBLICATIONS589CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

KristinM.Perrone-McGovern

BallStateUniversity

50PUBLICATIONS368CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,

lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Availablefrom:KristinM.Perrone-McGovern

Retrievedon:18September2016

Journal of Counseling Psychology1997, Vol. 44, No. 4,381-389

Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-0167/97/$3.Q0

Strategic Hope-Focused Relationship-Enrichment CounselingWith Individual Couples

Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Terry L. Hight, Jennifer S. Ripley, Kristin M. Perrone,Taro A. Kurusu, and Dawn R. Jones

Virginia Commonwealth University

Strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment is a brief, eclectic, research-based program toenhance couples' relationships. Couples (N = 51; 16 married, 24 cohabiting, 11 engaged)completed 5 sessions of enrichment counseling (n - 26) or 3 written assessments (n = 25)from 1 of 12 counselors. Couples receiving enrichment counseling had higher relationshipsatisfaction and quality-of-couple skills at posttest and at the 3-week follow-up than didwritten-assessment-only (control) couples. Conditions did not differ in terms of quality ofoverall attraction or 2 measures of commitment. We concluded that relationship enrichmentusing this program was effective, powerful, and cost-effective. Future research should focuson testing the effectiveness of the program presented in a group format.

Couples often seek assistance from counseling psycholo-gists to enrich their relationships, and these psychologistsmust not only intervene effectively but cost-effectively aswell. Many relationship-enrichment programs have beenproposed (for reviews, see Alexander, Holtzworth-Munroe,& Jameson, 1994; Guerney & Maxson, 1990; Zimpfer,1988), and in most of these programs, couples meet ingroups to discuss prescribed topics (e.g., the Association ofCouples for Marriage Enrichment [ACME], Mace & Mace,1984; Marriage Encounter, Calvo, 1975) or to learn andpractice communication skills (e.g., the Interpersonal Com-munication Program, Miller, Wackman, Nunnally, & Miller,1988; Relationship Enhancement, Guerney, 1977). In con-trast, in Structured Enrichment (L'Abate, 1981, 1985),couples meet with a counselor who provides informationand skills training.

These approaches to relationship enrichment suffer fromat least one of three weaknesses. First, few have beeninvestigated empirically. Second, many were developed inthe 1970s and do not incorporate recent findings aboutmarriage and methods to improve it. Third, most are quitetime-consuming. Worthington and his colleagues (Ham-monds & Worthington, 1985; Worthington, 1991; Worthing-ton, Buston, & Hammonds, 1989; Worthington et al., 1995)have developed an empirically investigated, state-of-the-art,brief relationship-enrichment program, which can be con-ducted by mental health providers in a variety of settings. Inthis article we report an empirical investigation of theeffectiveness of this program, which we call strategichope-focused relationship enrichment.

Everett L. Worthington, Jr., Terry L. Hight, Jennifer S. Ripley,Kristin M. Perrone, Taro A. Kunisu, and Dawn R. Jones, Depart-ment of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toEverett L. Worthington, Jr., Thurston House, Virginia Common-wealth University, 808 West Franklin Street, P.O. Box 842018,Richmond, Virginia 23284-2018. Electronic mail may be sent viaInternet to eworth@vcu.edu.

Strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment is built onmuch empirical investigation. Worthington and his col-leagues, in separate studies, have examined elements of aneclectic approach to couples' enrichment. In the first study(Hammonds & Worthington, 1985), married and unmarriedcouples discussed intimacy, communication, and conflictresolution—several of the core elements of strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment—in an unstructured groupformat. Couples were not trained or taught, but they sharedtheir experiences in a facilitated group. Although facilitatorsattempted to follow (not lead) participants' conversations,facilitators influenced the direction of discussion by what thefacilitators attended to. In the second study (Worthington etal., 1989), couples were either (a) taught (in a facilitatedgroup or in a counselor-couple triad) intimacy, communica-tion, and conflict-resolution skills by watching and discuss-ing 10-min teaching tapes or (b) allowed to discuss the threetopics without viewing the teaching tapes. In this 2 X 2(Group or Triad X Brief Teaching or None) design, thegroup format accounted for more variance than did the briefteaching—though both had an effect. Effect sizes for pre- toposttreatment changes in dyadic satisfaction varied betweena mean of 0.10 for the two conditions in which couples werecounseled and 0.58 for the two group conditions. There isevidence that in addition to teaching and training couplesand facilitating their interactions in groups, providing coupleswith thorough assessments of their relationships plus writtenand oral feedback to them about their relationships alsofacilitate couples' enrichment (see Worthington et al., 1995).

Strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment is built oncurrent knowledge. Existing programs—such as ACME,Marriage Encounter, the Interpersonal Communication Pro-gram, Relationship Enhancement, or Structured Enrich-ment—were developed in the 1970s, and most focused onenhancing communication. In the 1990s, the importance ofinfluencing communication has been well established; how-ever, with the high divorce rate (Gottman, 1994), manycouples are demoralized and without hope for a successfulmarriage. They may opt for cohabitation, though the progno-

381

382 WORTHINGTON ET AL.

sis for successful relationships based on cohabitation is evenless promising (Brown & Booth, 1996) than the prognosisfor successful marriage. Building hope for a good, commit-ted relationship is a crucial task for couples (Wallerstein &Blakeslee, 1995). Fortunately, research on hope has acceler-ated in recent years. Many of Snyder's (1994) findings areused in strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment topromote hope in couples.

Besides the need to focus on hope in modern relation-ships, counselors need to move beyond communication-centered training to help partners consider other importantaspects of their relationships, such as building intimacy,resolving differences, and making commitments. Even whendealing with communication issues in relationships, counsel-ors should heed advances in multimodal measurement ofcouples' communication, such as Gottman's (1994) rindingthat couples1 satisfaction can be predicted 4 years in advanceby examining the ratio of positive to negative interactionsacross a variety of discussions.

Strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment is built ona concern for effective use of time. In recent years, normshave rapidly been redefined concerning expectations forappropriate durations of psychological treatments (Koss &Shiang, 1994; Worthington, 1996). Most previous programswere developed when people expected treatment to take along time. For instance, Alexander et al. (1994) reviewedresearch on couple enrichment and found that the meannumber of sessions was six, each lasting between 2.5 and 3hr. To date, the research of Worthington and his colleagueshas focused on components of strategic hope-focused rela-tionship enrichment, which have been provided in shortintervals (e.g., a total of 3 hr or less; see Hammonds &Worthington, 1985; Worthington et al., 1989, 1995). How-ever, despite the brevity of the interventions that Worthing-ton and his colleagues have investigated, the componentshave produced substantial effects compared with thosefound by Alexander et al. in their review of research onlonger programs for couple enrichment (e.g., Alexander etal. found effect sizes ranging from 0.27 to 0.51).

In our study we investigated the effectiveness, relative to acontrol condition, of five sessions (5.5 total hr) of strategichope-focused relationship enrichment provided to individualcouples by a counselor. We hypothesized that five sessionsof enrichment counseling would be more effective inincreasing the quality of couples' relationships and theirlevel of commitment than would a control condition.

Method

Participants

Couples. Fifty-one couples (N = 102 individuals) participatedin a study that provided enrichment experiences for their marital(n = 32) or nonmarital relationship (n = 70). Participant couplesreceived either enrichment counseling (n = 52 individuals) or threewritten assessments with no feedback but with the promise oftreatment after the study ended (n = 50 individuals); the lattercondition was the control condition. One member of each couplewas a student from a class in introductory psychology who wasparticipating with his or her partner (who usually was not astudent). The partner who was a student received credit equal to

less than .25% of the course grade. Participant couples werescreened for appropriateness (e.g., not currently in therapy, nosevere self-assessed problems); only one couple did not meet theinclusion criteria.

Mean age of men was 25.7 years (range = 18-47); of women,24.0 years (range - 18-49). Individuals were of diverse races: 73were Caucasian; 7 were African American, 2 were Asian American,2 were Latino-Latina, 1 was Native American, 1 listed "other,"and 16 did not specify race. Mean duration of marriage was 5.2years (range = 0.3-21.0 years). For people in nonmarital relation-ships, 24 were cohabiting and engaged (mean duration = 1.7 yearssince dating began; range = 0.3-9 years), 24 were cohabiting andnot engaged (mean duration = 1.4 years since dating began;range = 0.2-4.8 years), and 22 were engaged but not cohabiting(mean duration = 1.4 years since dating began; range = 0.1-5.3years).

Couple-enrichment counselors. Couple-enrichment counsel-ors were 12 graduate students (11 women) in a couples' therapyclass in a doctoral program accredited by the American Psychologi-cal Association. Mean age of the counselors was 26.4 years(range = 24-32). Of the students, 9 had master's degrees; 3 didnot. All students began the year with at least one complete year ofgraduate training, and all were enrolled in counseling practicumconcurrent with the course. All counselors saw at least two couples.Two counselors saw a third couple. Counselors reported theirpreferred orientation toward couples' counseling. Six preferredemotionally focused couples' therapy; 5 preferred cognitive-behavioral, structural, or integrative therapy (integrative therapistswere those who identified themselves as such or who checked twoor more approaches); 1 did not specify an orientation.

Design

We used an experimental design in the study. Couples wererandomly assigned either to the enrichment or the control condi-tion. Couples were randomly assigned to counselors.

Treatments

Enrichment counseling. We repeatedly used a strategic hope-focused conceptualization with individual couples. The approachwas called strategic because interventions fit within a strategy ofpromoting love (i.e., valuing and not devaluing the partner), faith(i.e., partners' confidence in each other, in a positive future for theirrelationship, and in an improved relationship after the enrichmentexperience), and work (i.e., effort to improve the relationship). Itwas called hope-focused because of the two components of hopeidentified by Snyder (1994). The approach motivates couples totake the initiative in improving their relationships (i.eM Snyder's"agency") and trains them in concrete methods of achieving theirgoals (i.e., Snyder's "pathways"). Within this conceptual frame-work, we used techniques drawn eclectically from several ap-proaches to couples' therapy.

Counselors used five sessions (5.5 total hr) that involved thefollowing eight components:

1. A 1.5-hr assessment (for a description, see Worthington,1990; Worthington et al., 1995) included some solution-focusedinterventions (deShazer, 1985; Weiner-Davis, 1992).

2. A written feedback report was provided to each partner at thebeginning of Session 2 and was discussed (see Worthington et al.,1995).

3. Counselors discussed the value of increasing the ratio ofpositive to negative interactions (Jacobson & Chris ten sen, 1996).Counselors presented a model for conceptualizing that ratio, using

HOPE-FOCUSED RELATIONSHIP ENRICHMENT 383

a "love bank" metaphor (Harley, 1994; Stuart, 1981), in whichpositive interactions with the partner represented deposits, andnegative interactions with the partner represented withdrawals thatwere worth 5 times as much as each deposit. This calculation wasbased on Gottman's (1994) finding that a 5:1 ratio of positive tonegative interactions is needed for stable and satisfying relation-ships.

4. Counselors taught leveling and editing communications (Gott-man, Notarius, Gonso, & Markman, 1976) and used a brief versionof Miller et al.'s (1988) awareness wheel and listening mats.

5. Counselors taught a LOVE acrostic to help couples negotiateconflicts. The letter L stood for "listen" to the partner and repeat orparaphrase prior to responding (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg,1994); O, for "observe your effects" (Baucom & Epstein, 1990;Stuart, 1981); V, for "value your partner" (Worthington, 1994); andE, for "evaluate both partners' interests" (Fisher & Ury, 1981).

6. Counselors dealt with a couple's intimacy by using space inthe office as a metaphor for intimacy (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981),which was also called scaling by deShazer (1985).

7. Couples created a memorial to commemorate a successfulenrichment experience (Worthington, 1990).

8. In the last session, counselors presented couples with awritten assessment report that summarized progress and recom-mended additional ways for couples to improve their relationship(Worthington etaL, 1995).

According to the protocol, Steps 1 and 2 had to occur in the firstand second session, respectively. Steps 7 and 8 had to occur in thetermination session. Enrichment counselors had discretion aboutthe order of Steps 3-6 depending on their assessment of the couple;however, the protocol required each step to be done, unless anemergency prevented it. In all cases except one, which combinedtwo of the sessions into a single 2-hr session, all eight interventionswere completed within five sessions.

To ensure that counselors complied with the protocol, (a) counselorsused a manual that prescribed their behavior; (b) counselors weresupervised; (c) each week supervisor and counselors discussed thecomponent for the upcoming week and processed the past session;(d) counselors completed assessment reports, providing a check onthat component; (e) at the end of each session, clients rated thepresence of, quality of, and amount of time the counselors spentteaching and discussing each component prescribed in the protocol.Clients' ratings of each component suggested that clients recog-nized that time was spent on each component. However, ratingscales lacked psychometric support, so data are not reported here.

Control. In timing of assessments, couples in the controlcondition were yoked to the couples in the enrichment-counselingcondition. Couples in treatment and control conditions were paired.When the couple in enrichment counseling was ready for each ofthe three assessments, the yoked couple in the control conditionwas assessed within a day of (before or after) the treatment couple.

Measures

Partners' demographic information. Couples reported theirrelationship status (married, cohabiting but not engaged, engagedbut not cohabiting, engaged and cohabiting), the duration of theirromantic relationship, and their gender, age, and race.

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). The DAS is a32-item paper-and-pencil instrument that measures the degree ofdyadic consensus, affectional expression, dyadic satisfaction, anddyadic cohesion in couples. Some research has suggested that thesubscales are not as reliable or valid as the whole scale (Cohen,1985), so we used only the full-scale score. On the basis ofCronbach's (1951) alpha, the estimated internal consistency of theDAS is .96 (Spanier, 1976; Spanier & Filsinger, 1983). Spanier

(1976) found the DAS to have adequate content, criterion, andconstruct validity. Internal consistency estimates were calculatedon the present sample for each time. At pretreatment, alpha was .94;at posttreatment, .95; and at follow-up, .94.

Couple Assessment of Relationship Elements (CARE). Wedirectly measured the quality of relationships in terms of sevenspecific aspects theorized to be associated with relationship quality(Worthington, 1990, 1991, 1994). Using the CARE, each partnerrated the relationship three times (pretreatment, posttreatment, andat follow-up) on seven 7-point Likert-type items; ratings rangedfrom 1 (couldn 't be worse) to 4 (not bad, not good) to 7 (couldn 't bebetter). The relationship was rated on (a) communication, (b)resolution of differences, (c) freedom from blaming the partnerwhen things go wrong, (d) willingness to admit to having hurt thepartner and to ask the partner for forgiveness, (e) ability to forgivethe partner after a hurt, (f) intimacy, and (g) commitment to thepartner for the long term.

To examine the psychometric properties of the CARE, wedistributed 200 packets of questionnaires to individuals in introduc-tory psychology classes who were involved in an ongoing hetero-sexual relationship. Each packet contained questionnaires for thestudent and his or her partner. In only 4 cases were both partnersalso students. Each partner had to complete the surveys to beeligible for inclusion. Of 200 potential participant couples, 121couples (N = 242) returned usable questionnaires (61% returnrate), which we called the validation sample. Of the 121 couples, 14(12%) were married (mean duration = 10.6 years), 13 werecohabiting and engaged, 14 were cohabiting but not engaged, 15were engaged but not cohabiting, 62 had dated longer than 3months, and 3 did not complete the item. The mean age of thevalidation sample was 22.0 years (range - 16-69). Of the 242participants, 144 (60%) were Caucasian, 65 (27%) were AfricanAmerican, 15 (6%) were Asian, 6 (2%) were Latino-Latina, and 12(5%) listed "other" or left the item blank. We split the validationsample into halves through random assignment. On the first half,we conducted an exploratory factor analysis using principal-axisfactoring and extracted two factors. For an item to be retained, ithad to have a factor loading greater than .5 and be at least .15greater than the factor loading on the other factor. The first factorcomprised five items (communication, resolving differences, free-dom from blaming, seeking forgiveness, granting forgiveness). Theeigenvalue was 3.76 and accounted for 54% of the variance; wenamed this factor Quality of Couple Skills. The second factor(intimacy, commitment) had an eigenvalue of 1.13 and accountedfor 16% of the variance; we named it Quality of Global Attraction.Means, standard deviations, factor loadings, and communalities arereported in Table 1.

To test the stability of the factor structure, we did a confirmatoryfactor analysis using the other half of the data. We tested aone-factor model against a two-factor model by using the chi-square difference test (Byrne, 1994; Hoyle & Panter, 1995). (In thechi-square difference test, differences between nested models canbe evaluated by subtracting the chi-square of each model andtesting it on a chi-square distribution, with degrees of freedomequal to the difference in degrees of freedom between the twomodels.) The two-factor model fit the data, with a comparative fitindex (CFI; Bentler, 1990) of .96, X

2(13, N = 120) = 27.4, p < .02.The one-factor model also fit the data (CFI = .92), x 2 ( H N = 120)= 39.6, p < .001. The difference in chi-square was significant,X2(l, N= 120) = 12.2, p < .001, which suggested that thetwo-factor model fit the data better than did the one-factor model.To further test the stability of the two-factor solution, we repeatedthe confirmatory factor analysis on the sample of 51 couples in ourstudy (called the study sample). The two-factor model fit the data(CFI = .89), x 2 d3 , N = 102) = 42.4, p < .001. The one-factor

384 WORTHINGTON ET AL.

Table 1Factor Loadings, Means, Standard Deviations, and Communalities for Each Item in theCouple Assessment of Relationship Elements

Item

Componentloadings

_ _Item

M SD h2

3. Resolving differences4. Freedom from blaming my partner when things go poorly6. Ability to forgive my partner when he or she has hurt me2. Communication5. Willingness to admit to my partner when I have hurt him

or her and to ask for forgiveness1. Intimacy7. Commitment to my partner for the long term

.82 .30 5.18 1.07 .76

.81

.65

.61

.61.22.17

.01

.42

.32

.35

.76

.66

5.035.505.28

5.345.646.38

1.331.121.01

1.281.110.94

.66

.69

.48

.50

.46

.62

Note. Values in boldface type are component loadings at or above the criteria for selection.Component loadings: 1 = Quality of Couples Skills; 2 = Quality of Global Attraction, h2 is thecommunality, which is the variance an item shares with other items in the factor.

model did not fit the data well (CFI = .84), x2(14, N = 102) =54.7, p < .001. The difference in chi-square was also significant,X2(l, N = 102) = 12.3, p < .001, which again suggested that thetwo-factor model fit the data better than did the one-factor model.

For subsequent reliability and validity analyses, we collapsed thetwo halves of the validation sample into a single data set(N = 242). To provide estimates of reliability for the CARE, wecomputed coefficient alphas for each factor for the validationsample, and we computed a second mean alpha by summing acrossthe three times that the study sample was tested (i.e., pretreatment,posttreatment, and follow-up). For Quality of Couple Skills, theestimates of internal consistency were .86 (for the validationsample) and .87 (for the study sample). For Quality of GlobalAttraction, the estimates of internal consistency were .64 and .74for the validation sample and the study sample, respectively. Thefactors demonstrated acceptable internal consistency.

To provide construct validity for the CARE within the validationsample, we examined correlations between each factor of theCARE and constructs that we expected to be more or lesscorrelated with each factor (see Table 2). For instance, we expectedthe DAS to be a strong criterion for convergent validity for Qualityof Couple Skills and to be a less strong criterion for convergent

validity for Quality of Global Attraction. Quality of Couple Skillsand DAS were correlated .67, and Quality of Global Attraction andDAS were correlated .61. There was a difference between magni-tudes of the dependent correlations (z = 1.65, p = .05; see Meng,Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1991). We concluded that both factors weresubstantially related to couples' adjustment, though to differentdegrees.

To provide discriminant validity for Quality of Couple Skills andconvergent validity for Quality of Global Attraction, we correlatedboth factors with three measures of commitment—one single-itemmeasure (Beach & Broderick, 1983), a 41-item measure ofcommitment due to constraint (Stanley & Markman, 1992), and a14-item subscale for commitment due to dedication (Stanley &Markman, 1992)—and with perceived sexual intimacy from thePersonal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR; Schaefer& Olson, 1981). On all criterion variables, we expected thatQuality of Couple Skills would be less highly correlated thanwould Quality of Global Attraction. Quality of Couple Skillscorrelated .31 with the single item of commitment, whereas Qualityof Global Attraction correlated .65 with it {z - 6.67, p = .0001).Quality of Couple Skills correlated .20 with commitment con-

Table 2Correlations of the Two Subscales of the CARE With a Variety of Measures of Convergentand Discriminant Validity for the Validation Sample

Variable 1

1. Quality of Couple Skills8 —2. Quality of Global Attraction11 43*3. Dyadic Adjustment15

4. Single-item commitment0

5. Constraint*6. Dedication11

7. Sexual intimacy6

8. Trait Hopef

9. State Hopes

67*31*2038*24*32*38*

61*65*41*58*52*1823*

—43*31*52*44*38*41*

—43*58*29*1014

—49*21

- 0 101

—38*27*32*

—0607 92*

Note. Decimal points are omitted.aSubscale of Couple Assessment of Relationship Elements (CARE). bDyadic Adjustment Scale(Spanier, 1976). cBeach and Broderick (1983). dSubscale of Commitment Inventory (Stanley &Markman, 1992). eSubscale of Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (Schaefer &Olson, 1981). Trait Hope Scale (Snyderet al., 1991). *State Hope Scale (Snyderet al., 1996).*/><.0001.

HOPE-FOCUSED RELATIONSHIP ENRICHMENT 385

straint, whereas Quality of Global Attraction correlated .41 with it(z = 3.45, p = .001). Quality of Couple Skills correlated .38 withcommitment dedication, whereas Quality of Global Attractioncorrelated .58 with it (z - 3.73,p = .001). Quality of Couple Skillscorrelated .24 with sexual intimacy on the PAIR; Quality of GlobalAttraction correlated .52 with sexual intimacy on the PAIR(z = 4.75, p = . 0001).

To provide discriminant validity for both factors, we correlatedeach with Snyder et al.'s (1991) Trait Hope Scale and Snyder etal.'s (1996) State Hope Scale. Quality of Couple Skills correlated.32 with Trait Hope and .38 with State Hope. Quality of GlobalAttraction correlated .18 with Trait Hope and .23 with State Hope.Correlations were significant but low. We concluded that the twofactors of the CARE were internally reliable and were validmeasures of Quality of Couple Skills and Quality of GlobalAttraction. Items on each subscale of the CARE were summed tocreate subscale scores, which were used as two of the dependentvariables within the study.

Commitment Inventory (Stanley & Markman, 1992). Stanleyand Markman have suggested that the Commitment Inventorycould be arranged into two subscales: a Dedication subscale, whichmeasures commitment because the person wants to remain in therelationship, and a Constraint subscale, which measures commit-ment because one feels constrained from breaking away from therelationship. Each scale had internal reliabilities greater than .70.The Commitment Inventory had concurrent validity at predicting avariety of other measures of commitment. We calculated internalconsistency estimates on our sample for the Dedication and theConstraint subscales at each time. At preassessment, the alpha forDedication was .93, and for Constraint, .72; at postassessment, thealpha for Dedication was .96, and for Constraint, .72; at follow-up,the alpha for Dedication was .96, and for Constraint, .85.

Couple's Pre-Counseling Inventory (CPC1; Stuart & Stuart,1983). The CPCI has 13 sections that thoroughly assess arelationship. Because we did not use the CPCI in our analyses, wehave not summarized its psychometric properties here. The CPCIwas completed by couples who received enrichment counseling,but it was not completed by control couples. It should be consideredpart of the treatment rather than a measure of effectiveness.

Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (Schaefer &Olson, 1981). The PAIR is a 36-item self-report inventory thatmeasures ideal and perceived intimacy in five areas: emotional,social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational intimacy. Schaefer andOlson reported that scores on the PAIR were positively correlatedwith scores on the Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke & Wallace,1959) and on the Waring Intimacy Questionnaire (Waring &Reddon, 1983). Internal consistency estimates were at least .70 foreach subscale of the PAIR. In our research, the PAIR—like theCPCI—was completed only by partners who received enrichmentcounseling and should be considered as part of the treatment. TheSexual Intimacy subscale was used as one criterion in thevalidation of the CARE.

Procedure

We recruited participants from large introductory psychologyclasses to participate in a relationship-enrichment study. At screen-ing, participants completed the demographic questionnaire, theDAS (Spanier, 1976), the CARE scale, and the CommitmentInventory (Stanley & Markman, 1992), and they were randomlyassigned to a condition.

Couples in the enrichment condition received enrichment coun-seling according to the protocol described above.1 After theyfinished the enrichment counseling, couples completed the postin-tervention questionnaires (DAS, CARE, and Commitment Inven-tory). Three weeks after the feedback session, couples completedthe instruments again, either in the presence of the counselor or athome (in which case couples returned the questionnaires to thecounselor when they were completed).

Couples in the control condition completed measures at all threetimes; they were assessed at times and in places similar to those inthe enrichment condition. They received no feedback about theirscores. They were offered a 3-hr workshop on relationship enrich-ment after completing the follow-up; thus, they had an anticipationof treatment. Of the couples, 72% attended the workshop.

Results

Equivalency of Conditions

Demographics X Condition. In the main analyses, weused individuals' scores rather than couples' scores. Wechecked for equivalency of conditions at pretreatment.Chi-square analyses were performed for Condition X Mari-tal Status (4 statuses); there were no differences, x2(3, N —102) = 1.48, p = .69. Conditions did not differ in terms ofpresence or absence of previous marriage, x2(2, N = 102) =3.25, p = .20. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) inwhich duration of current relationship was the dependentvariable similarly showed no difference between conditions,F(l, 98) = 0.90, p = .35. One-way ANOVAs also showedno difference between conditions on age, F(l , 100) = 3.00,p = .O9.

Potential effects of attrition. Attrition from the enrich-ment and control conditions was equal at the posttest, X2O>N= 102) = 0.25, p = .62, and at the follow-up, \HhN = 102) = 0.34, p - .56. Of the 26 couples receivingenrichment, 4 dropped out by the posttest, and 1 other coupledropped out by the follow-up. Of the 25 couples receivingwritten assessment only, 3 dropped out by the posttest and 3others dropped out by the follow-up. Using pretreatmentscores on the DAS, the CARE, and the CommitmentInventory as dependent variables, we conducted a one-waymultivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to assess whetherdropouts (by the follow-up) differed from those who com-pleted the study. No difference was found, F(4,97) = 1.55,

/7 - .19 .Effects of other potentially confounding variables on

outcomes. Because we conducted the study in consecutivesemesters, we performed a 2 X 2 X 3 (EnrichmentCounseling vs. Control Couples X First vs. SecondSemester X Time [S]) MANOVA with repeated measures,using the DAS, the CARE subscales, and the CommitmentInventory subscales as dependent variables, to determinewhether participants during each semester were comparable.No multivariate effects for semester or interactions involv-ing semester were significant, and data from the two

1 An intervention manual describing the approach to counselingon which the relationship-enrichment interventions are based isavailable for purchase from Everett L. Worthington, Jr.

386 WORTHINGTON ET AL.

semesters were collapsed in subsequent analyses. In asimilar MANOVA in which we used four marital statuses asan independent variable instead of semester, no multivariatemain effects or interactions with marital status were signifi-cant. In subsequent analyses we ignored marital status as avariable. In another similar MANOVA in which we usedgender instead of semester, no multivariate main effects orinteraction with gender were significant. Gender was notconsidered in subsequent analyses. We concluded thatconditions were equivalent prior to treatment.

Effects Over Time of Enrichment Counseling Relativeto the Control

We constructed an intercorrelation matrix of the depen-dent variables at each time.2 Means and standard deviationsfor enrichment-counseling and control individuals on thefive dependent measures at pre-, posttreatment, and fol-low-up are summarized in Table 3. We also calculatedCohen's d for enrichment-counseling and control couplesfrom pretreatment to posttreatment and from pretreatment tofollow-up (see Table 4). Thus, for the enrichment-counsel-ing condition using the DAS, the pre- to posttreatment d wasthe difference in means at pre- and posttreatment divided bythe pooled standard deviation (i.e., [120.5 - 111.5]/9.55).

To test the effects of enrichment counseling on individu-als' ratings of their relationship, we performed a two-way(Enrichment Counseling vs. Control X Time [S]) MANOVAwith repeated measures; the DAS, both subscales of theCARE, and both subscales of the Commitment Inventorywere the dependent variables. Using listwise deletion, theStatistical Package for the Social Sciences program dropped6 participants from the MANOVAs whenever a participantdid not complete all measures (posttreatment and follow-up). Thus, of the 102 participants, data from 28 participants(6 because of listwise deletion and 22 because of attrition)were not included in the MANOVAs. The 28 people who didnot complete all measures did not differ on pretreatmentmeasures from the 74 participants who completed allmeasures, F(5, 95) = 1.90, p = .10.

There was a significant Condition X Time interaction,F(10, 62) — 2.57, p = .01, suggesting that any significantmain effects needed to be interpreted with that in mind.There was no significant multivariate effect of condition,F(5, 67) - 1.31, p — .27. There was a significant multivari-ate effect of time, F(10, 62) = 5.24, p = .0001; because thateffect was of no interest given the significant multivariateinteraction, we did not do follow-up tests on that main effect.

We performed univariate ANOVAs on each dependentvariable to reveal the locus of significant interaction effects.We used a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of .01 for univariateanalyses. For the DAS, there was a significant Condition XTime interaction, F(2, 142) = 11.16, p = .0001. (In thisanalysis, there was a violation of sphericity. When we usedHuynh-Feldt epsilon-corrected degrees of freedom—1,101—the interaction was still significant.) Analysis of simple maineffects, using Tukey's honestly significant difference test(critical difference = 4.3), revealed that at pretreatment,individuals in the enrichment condition (M = 111.5) did not

differ from those in the control condition (M = 114.8). Atposttest, those in the enrichment condition had higher scoreson the DAS (Af = 120.5) than did those in the controlcondition (M = 113.8). At follow-up, DAS scores for indi-viduals in enrichment counseling (M = 123.3) still differedsignificantly from those individuals in the control condition(M = 116.5). For the Quality of Couple Skills subscale ofthe CARE, there was a significant Condition X Timeinteraction, F(2, 152) = 13.62, p < .0001. Analysis ofsimple main effects by using Tukey's test (critical differ-ence = 1.5) revealed that at pretreatment, individuals in theenrichment condition (M = 24.8) did not differ from individu-als in the control condition (M = 26.2). At posttest, those inthe enrichment condition had higher scores on the Quality ofCouple Skills {M = 27.9) than did those in the controlcondition (M — 25.9). At follow-up, Quality of CoupleSkills scores for individuals in enrichment counseling(M = 29 A) still differed significantly from scores for indi-viduals in the control condition (Af = 26.8). For Quality ofGlobal Attraction, there was no significant Condition XTime interaction, F(2, 152) = 2.05, p = .13. For theConstraint subscale of the Commitment Inventory, there wasno significant Condition X Time interaction, F(2,152) < 1,nor was there a significant Condition X Time interaction forthe Dedication subscale, F(2, 152) = 1.23, p = .30.

Statistical Check

The DAS and the CARE were highly intercorrelated. Todetermine whether the DAS and the CARE were redundant,we conducted four step-down one-way (using condition asthe independent variable) ANOVAs—two at posttreatmentand two at follow-up. In the first, variance from the DAS atposttreatment was removed at the first step, F{\, 80) = 5.35,p = .02, and residual variance from the Quality of CoupleSkills was removed at the second to determine whether theQuality of Couple Skills variable accounted for significantvariance beyond that accounted for by the DAS, F(l, 79) =3.12, p — .08(n^). In the second ANOVA, variance from theDAS at follow-up was removed at the first step, F(l, 72) =3.79, p = .06, and residual variance from the Quality ofCouple Skills was removed at the second step, F(l, 71) =5.49, p = .02. Despite the high intercorrelation, the Qualityof Couple Skills was not considered redundant with theDAS. For Quality of Global Attraction, in the third ANOVAvariance from the DAS at posttreatment was removed at thefirst step, F(l, 80) = 5.35, p = .02, and variance from theQuality of Global Attraction was removed at the second step,F(l, 79) < 1. In the fourth ANOVA, variance from the DASat follow-up was removed at the first step, F(l , 72) = 3.79,p = .06, and residual variance from the Quality of GlobalAttraction was removed at the second step, F(l, 71) = 1.91,p = .17. The Quality of Global Attraction might beconsidered redundant with the DAS in our analyses.

2 This intercorrelation matrix is available upon request fromEverett L. Worthington, Jr.

HOPE-FOCUSED RELATIONSHIP ENRICHMENT 387

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for Enrichment-Counseling and Control Participantson Self-Report Measures of Outcome at Pretreatment, Posttreatment, and Follow-Up

Measure

Dyadic Adjustment ScaleCARE

Quality of Couple SkillsQuality of Global Attraction

Commitment InventoryConstraintDedication

Dyadic Adjustment ScaleCARE

Quality of Couple SkillsQuality of Global Attraction

Commitment InventoryConstraintDedication

Pretreatment

M SD

Posttreatment

M

Enrichment counseling

111.5

25.212.2

107.1215.2

9.7

3.91.2

15.418.5

Control

114.8

26.212.0

109.5221.4

18.6

5.22.0

13.022.6

120.5

28.212.5

108.5222.3

113.8

25.911.6

108.6216.3

SD

9.4

3.91.0

15.817.0

20.7

5.22.5

15.829.3

Follow-up

M

123.3

29.512.6

108.5221.0

116.5

26.711.8

107.9219.0

SD

10.0

2.70.9

18.917.7

19.0

5.12.2

19.426.8

Note. For Dyadic Adjustment Scale, range = 0-151; for Quality of Couple Skills subscale ofCouple Assessment of Relationship Elements (CARE), range = 5-35; for Quality of GlobalAttraction subscale of CARE, range = 2-14; for Constraint subscale of Commitment Inventory,range = 41-287; for Dedication subscale of Commitment Inventory, range = 14-98.

Discussion

Major Findings

In this research we examined the outcome of brief,structured, couple-enrichment counseling aimed at increas-ing couples' hope of a successful relationship. We found iteffective at changing couples' relationships. The counseling

Table 4Cohen's dfor Enrichment Versus Control Participants forSelf-Report Measures of Outcome From Pretreatment toPosttreatment and From Pretreatment to Follow-Up

Measure Enrichment

Pretreatment to posttreatment

Dyadic Adjustment ScaleCARE

Quality of Couple SkillsQuality of Global Attraction

Commitment InventoryConstraintDedication

0.95

0.770.27

0.090.40

Pretreatment to follow-up

Dyadic Adjustment ScaleCARE

Quality of Couple SkillsQuality of Global Attraction

Commitment InventoryConstraintDedication

1.20

1.260.40

0.080.32

Control

-0.05

-0.06-0.18

-0.06-0.15

0.09

0.10-0.10

-0.10-0.10

Note. CARE = Couple Assessment of Relationship Elements.

changed partner satisfaction (adjustment and quality ofcouple skills) more than relationship stability (quality ofglobal attraction or commitment—either dedication or con-straint), and higher satisfaction was maintained at a 3-weekfollow-up. Because effect sizes from pre- to posttreatmentand from pretreatment to follow-up were above the meaneffect sizes shown in previous research (for reviews seeAlexander et al., 1994; Giblin, Sprenkle, & Sheehan, 1985;Hahlweg & Markman, 1988) and interventions were brief(5.5 hr) relative to extant programs, strategic hope-focusedrelationship enrichment appears effective and cost-effective.

Program Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness

Strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment appears tobe comparable in effectiveness to most other relationshipenrichment programs (e.g., Calvo, 1975; Cooper & Stolten-berg, 1987; Guerney, 1977; L'Abate, 1981, 1985; Mace &Mace, 1984; Miller et al., 1988; Noval, Combs, Wiinamaki,Bufford, & Halter, 1996). Giblin et al. (1985) found thatmean effect size for self-report measures was .52. Alexanderet al. (1994) reported mean effect sizes ranging from 0.27(samples with fewer than 35% of the couples initiallydistressed) to 0.51 (samples with more than 35% distressed)for published research. Guerney's (1977) program (dura-tion ~ 16-20 hr) has been found to be the strongest (meaneffect size of 1.14; Hahlweg & Markman, 1988). In compari-son (see Table 4), our pretreatment to posttreatment effectsizes for the enrichment-counseling condition ranged from0.09 to 0.95 for pre- to posttreatment (mean effectsize = 0.50).

Effectiveness of enrichment treatments was maintained

388 WORTHINGTON ET AL.

after treatment ended, which is consistent with reviews ofempirical research on couple enrichment. Alexander et al.(1994) showed that for self-report measures, mean effectsize was 0.44 at posttreatment and 0.34 at follow-up. Incontrast, Hahlweg and Markman (1988) found that forbehavioral measures, posttreatment effect sizes were lessthan effect sizes at follow-up, which was also true in ourstudy (see Table 4). Our effect sizes ranged from 0.08 to 1.26for pretreatment to follow-up (mean effect size — 0.65).

It is not surprising that satisfaction was affected more byenrichment procedures than was relationship stability. Rus-bult (1980) and colleagues (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney,Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991) have repeatedly shown withnonmarital relationships that satisfaction is only one compo-nent of stability. Surra and Hughes (1997) have found thatsatisfaction and stability might ebb and flow in some typesof nonmarital romantic relationships. Moreover, concerningmarriage, extensive theorizing by Lewis and Spanier (1979)and empirical research by Stanley and Markman (1992)show that satisfaction and stability in marriage are different,but related, constructs. One third of our sample was marriedcouples. The choice of a treatment goal for married andunmarried couples might properly be limited to increasingrelationship satisfaction. One cannot convincingly argue thatfor unmarried couples, relationship enrichment should at-tempt to increase relationship stability; however, almost allcouples want to increase satisfaction in their relationships.

Other enrichment programs usually take longer than thepresent program—typically between 15 and 18 hr (Hahlweg& Markman, 1988), three times that of our program. At first,strategic hope-focused relationship enrichment appears to becost-effective. However, many programs (e.g., ACME, theInterpersonal Communication Program, Relationship En-hancement; cf. L'Abate, 1985) are conducted in groups ofcouples, whereas our program uses a dyadic counselingformat. Thus, the time required of the facilitator to use ourprogram in its current format is greater than that required byother programs to reach the same number of couples. Furthercomparison of the cost-effectiveness of these programs isneeded.

Limitations and Future Research

Generalizability of our findings might be limited for atleast three reasons. First, students who volunteer for studiesmay differ from those who seek couple enrichment atcounseling centers, in community organizations, or fromprofessional counselors. Second, the originator of the pro-gram (Everett L. Worthington, Jr.) supervised treatment;often, program developers obtain results that might not bereplicated as strongly by other investigators. Third, we didnot conduct long-term follow-up. Results at a 3-weekfollow-up might differ substantially from longer term ef-fects. Replications are needed to investigate generalization.

Many research questions are yet to be investigated. First,research must directly compare the relative effectiveness ofstrategic hope-focused relationship enrichment to the effec-tiveness of proven programs. Second, we must determine theoptimum duration of treatment; if 5.5 hr produced goodeffects, would longer treatment enhance those effects? Third,

future research should determine the optimum modality oftreatment. Other programs (except for L'Abate's, 1985,program) have been conducted in groups rather than withindividual couples; could the effectiveness of strategichope-focused relationship enrichment be enhanced if it weredelivered in groups, or perhaps by means of videotape orworkbook? Again, what is the optimum duration of theprogram? Fourth, research is needed to determine moreabout the program's process: Which couples might respondto couple-enrichment interventions, which components con-tribute the most to changes in couples, do couples maintaingains over long periods of time, do nonmarried partners whobenefited from the enrichment experience maintain theirincreased satisfaction and choose to marry later, and whatlevel of training is needed for competent counselors?Finally, future research should eschew using measures ofrelationship stability and focus on measures of satisfactionand on behavioral measures of communication, conflictresolution, and intimacy (to eliminate explanations of effec-tiveness because of shared method variance). Strategichope-focused relationship enrichment is an effective andrelatively cost-effective intervention that has begun toaccumulate empirical support, but independent investiga-tions of its effectiveness are needed.

References

Alexander, J. F., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jameson, P. (1994).The process and outcome of marital and family therapy:Research review and evaluation. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield(Eds,), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4thed., pp. 595-630). New York: Wiley.

Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N, (1990). Cognitive-behavioralmarital therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Beach, S. R. H., & Broderick, J. E. (1983). Commitment: Avariable in women's response to marital therapy. AmericanJournal of Family Therapy, 11, 16-24.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Brown, S. L., & Booth, A. (1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: Acomparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 58, 668-678.

Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS andEQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Calvo, G. (1975). Marriage encounter: Official national manual.St. Paul, MN: Marriage Encounter.

Cohen, P. (1985). Locke Marital Adjustment Scale and the DyadicAdjustment Scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 13,66-71.

Cooper, A., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1987). Comparison of a sexualenhancement and a communication training program on sexualand marital satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,309-314.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and internal structure oftests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

deShazer, S. (1985). Keys to solutions in brief therapy. New York:Norton.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agree-ment without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.

Giblin, P., Sprenkle, D. H., & Sheehan, R. (1985). Enrichmentoutcome research: A meta-analysis of premarital, marital, andfamily interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11,257-271.

HOPE-FOCUSED RELATIONSHIP ENRICHMENT 389

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationshipbetween marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., Notarius, C. I., Gonso, J., & Markman, H. J.(1976). A couple's guide to communication. Champaign, IL:Research Press.

Guerney, B. G., Jr. (Ed.). (1977). Relationship enhancement. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guerney, B. G., Jr., & Maxson, P. (1990). Marital and familyenrichment research: A decade review and look ahead. Marriageand the Family, 52, 1127-1135.

Hahlweg, K., & Markman, H, J. (1988). Effectiveness of behav-ioral marital therapy: Empirical status of behavioral techniquesin preventing and alleviating marital distress. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology, 56,440-447.

Hammonds, T. M., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1985). The effect offacilitator utterances on participant responses in a brief ACME-type marriage enrichment group. American Journal of FamilyTherapy, 13, 39-49.

Harley, W. F., Jr. (1994). His needs, her needs: Building anaffair-proof marriage. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell.

Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structuralequation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equationmodeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobson, N. S.T & Christensen, A. (1996). Integrative coupletherapy: Promoting acceptance and change. New York: Norton.

Koss, M. P., & Shiang, J. (1994). Research on brief psychotherapy.In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psycho-therapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 664-700). New York:Wiley.

L' Abate, L. (1981). Skills training programs for couples andfamilies. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskem (Eds.), Handbook offamily therapy (pp. 631-661). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

L'Abate, L. (1985). Structured enrichment (SE) with couples andfamilies. Family Relations, 34, 169-175.

Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the qualityand stability of marriage. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L.Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp.268-294). New York: Free Press.

Locke, H., & Wallace, K. (1959). Short marital adjustment andprediction tests: Their validity and reliability. Marriage andFamily Living, 2, 251-255.

Mace, D. R., & Mace, V. C. (1984). Close companions: Themarriage enrichment handbook. New York: Continuum.

Markman, H. J., Stanley, S., & Blumberg, S. L. (1994). Fighting foryour marriage: Positive steps for preventing divorce and preserv-ing a lasting love. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1991). Comparingcorrelation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175.

Miller, S., Wackman, D., Nunnally, E., & Miller, P. (1988).Connecting with self and others. Littleton, CO: InterpersonalCommunications Programs.

Minuchin, S.T & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy tech-niques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Noval, L. S., Combs, C. W., Wiinamaki, M., Bufford, R. K., &Halter, L. (1996). Cognitive-behavioral marital enrichment amongchurch and non-church groups: Preliminary findings. Journal ofPsychology and Theology, 24, 47-53.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romanticassociations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus,I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships:Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.

Schaefer, M. X, & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: ThePAIR Inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7,47-60.

Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get therefrom here. New York: Free Press.

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C , Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving,L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C, &Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development andvalidation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.

Snyder, C. RM Sympson, S. C , Ybasco, F. C , Borders, T. F.,Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development andvalidation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 70, 321-335.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scalesfor assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-28.

Spanier, G. B., & Filsinger, E. E. (1983). The Dyadic AdjustmentScale. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment:A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 155-168). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment inpersonal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54,595-608.

Stuart, R. B. (1981). Helping couples change. New York: GuilfordPress.

Stuart, R. B., & Stuart, F. M. (1983). Couple's pre-counselinginventory. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Surra, C. A., & Hughes, D. K. (1997). Commitment processes inaccounts of the development of premarital relationships. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 59, 5-21.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1995). The good marriage: How& why love lasts. New York: Warner Books.

Waring, E. M., & Reddon, J. (1983). The measurement of intimacyin marriage: The Waring Questionnaire. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 39, 53-57.

Weiner-Davis, M. (1992). Divorce busting: A revolutionary andrapid program for staying together. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1990). Marriage counseling: A Christianapproach to counseling couples. Counseling and Values, 35,3-15.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1991). A primer for intake interviews withcouples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 19, 344-350.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1994). Marriage counseling: A Christianapproach. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 13, 166-173.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1996). Speculations about new directions inhelping marriages and families that arise from pressures ofmanaged mental health care. Journal of Psychology and Chris-tianity, 15, 197-212.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Buston, B. G., & Hammonds, T. M. (1989).A component analysis of marriage enrichment: Information andtreatment modality. Journal of Counseling and Development, 62,555-560.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., McCullough, M. E., Shortz, J. L., Mindes,E. J., Sandage, S. J., & Chartrand, J. M. (1995). Can maritalassessment and feedback improve marriages? Assessment as abrief marital enrichment procedure. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 42, 466-475.

Zimpfer, D. G. (1988). Marriage enrichment programs: A review.Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13, 44-53.

Received October 21,1996Revision received April 23,1997

Accepted April 24,1997 •