1. The Gendered Impact of Family Life Stage on Relationship Education
J. Scott Crapo, Kay Bradford, & Brian J. Higginbotham
Abstract
In this study we examined if family life stage affects the outcomes of relationship education (RE), if diverse paths of family development matter in family development theory, and if this differs by gender. We organized participants by family life stage and by whether they fit the theory’s traditional stage progression. ANCOVAs were used to estimate the impact of family life stage, traditionality, and an interaction of the two on the post-test scores of three RE outcomes, while controlling for pre-test scores and income. For males, significance was reached for two of the three outcome variables. Nothing reached significance for females. Results, and their implications for practice, are discussed.
Methods
Procedures
Data were gathered from participants who self-selected to participate in a couple relationship education course offered in a Western state. The participants received a six hour dose, and were recruited from either the community or from the Department of Workforce Services. Participants were given both a pre- and a post- evaluation measure.
Participants
Male mean age was years (SD = 10.12) and female was years (SD = 10.23)
Ethnicity was mostly white (87% for males and 83.9% for females)
51.4% of the males had a technical degree or higher, and so did 54.1% of the females
Mean income for males was $60,023 (SD = $28,639) and $52,260 (SD = $29,537) for females
ANCOVA Results
Males
Significance was achieved in two of three RE outcomes, as shown below.
Females
No predictor achieved significance for any of the outcome variables for females.
Significance Tests for Knowledge
Significance Tests for Control Rejection F p
Corrected Model
4.451
0.000
3.371
Income
3.730
0.056
1.459
0.229
Knowledge Pretest
38.341
Control Rejection Pretest
20.367
LifeStage
0.614
0.689
0.623
0.683
Traditionality
4.251
0.041
11.115
0.001
LifeStage X Traditionality
0.292
0.917
2.458
0.036
Note. R2 = .297 (Adjusted R2 = .230).
Note. R2 = .244 (Adjusted R2 = .171).
Control Rejection Interaction
Background
Researchers have identified a number of topics that seem to influence the outcomes of RE (Hawkins & Ooms, 2010). However, with the exception of financial disadvantage and life stress (Amato, 2014; Hawkins & Erickson, 2015), most of the research has been on the aspects of class content and delivery. There remains a need to investigate those aspects and attributes of the participants’ own family life that may be contributing to the wide variety of outcomes found in RE programs.
Sample Size by Category
Lifestage
Traditionality
Total
Male
Traditional
Non-Traditional
Establishment 30 10 40
Transition 5
PreSchool 50
SchoolAge 41 32 73
Teen 12 20
AdultChildren 14 9 23
142 86
228
Female 37 13 7 6 38 25 63 11 24 22 35 55 42 97
163
119
282
Goals of Relationship Education
Increase knowledge and skills needed to make relationships successful
Reduce divorces and parental separations by increasing commitment
Reduce aggression and acceptance of controlling behaviors
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ~ DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY, CONSUMER AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Family Development Theory
One aspect of family life that may be important to RE outcomes is how the family’s needs change over time (Hawkins, Carroll, Doherty, & Willoughby, 2004). Since family development theory traces the changing needs and tasks of a family throughout its development (White, 1991), it is well suited for this investigation. One of the most commonly used iterations of family development is Duvall’s (1971) eight stages.
However, these stages assume a tradition of a white, nuclear, heteronormative, 1950esque development of the family, and fail to capture the complexity of the modern family. Some studies have tried to use the age of the oldest or youngest child as the sole determining factor of the stage (e.g. Martinengo, Jacob, & Hill, 2010), but this renders the theory not as a whole-family development theory, but as a chronological progression of childrearing. If the stages and the theory are to capture the essence of the development of the family, then it would stand to reason that the pathway of development would matter as much as the age of the children. In other words, if a family has developed according the theory’s expected (traditional) pathway, there will be meaningful differences compared to those who have developed along a different, more diverse path.
Discussion and Implications
Gender may be an important factor in RE.
Different RE outcomes may depend on different factors.
While family life stage was not a predictor per se, it did interact with traditionality.
This implies that using child age alone is insufficient for family development theory. Other aspects of the family’s development (such as their developmental pathway) may be important to consider.
Developmental history may impact RE outcomes itself, and not just be a co-condition of SES.
For men, it seems those who had a less traditional path had higher posttest outcomes.
RE may be effective at helping men who have a more diverse developmental pathway.
For females, it appears that aspects of family life investigated here don’t contribute to RE outcomes.
More research is needed investigating how family life impacts RE outcomes.
One major limitation of this study is sample size—when split up, some cells became very small.
Measures
Family Life Stage: Participants were categorized into family life stage based on the age of their children, or if they had no children, the length of their relationship.
Traditionality: Participants were sorted into either a traditional or non-traditional category based on demographic information such as history of divorce, who they are living with, and if they have children in the home.
Knowledge: measured using three items from Bradford, Higginbotham, and Skogrand’s (2014) perceived levels of relationship knowledge. (pre α = .66, post α = .75)
Commitment: measured using three items from Stanley and Markman’s (1992) commitment inventory. (pre α = .60, post α = .63)
Control Rejection: measured using three items from the Control subscale of the Intimate Partner Violence Attitude Scale (Fincham, Cui, Braithwaite, & Pasley, 2008). (pre α = .63, post α = .65)
Establishment
Teenage
Transition to Parenthood
Launching Center
Preschool Age
Middle Aged Parents
School Age
Aging Family Members
Analyses
We used two-way ANCOVAs to estimate the impact of family life stage on the post-test scores of three RE outcomes, controlling for pre-test scores and income. Models were run separately for men and women.
Amato, P. R. (2014). Does social and economic disadvantage moderate the effects of relationship education on unwed couples? An analysis of data from the 15‐month Building Strong Families evaluation. Family Relations, 63(3),
Bradford, K., Higginbotham, B., & Skogrand, L. (2014). Healthy relationship education: A statewide initiative case study and outcome evaluation. Marriage & Family Review, 50,
Duvall, E. M. (1971). Family Development (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Braithwaite, S., & Pasley, K. (2008). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence in dating relationships. Psychological assessment, 20(3), 260.
Hawkins, A. & Ooms, T. (2010). What works in marriage and relationship education? A review of lessons learned with a focus on low-income couples. National Healthy Marriage Resource Center.
Hawkins, A. J., & Erickson, S. E. (2015). Is couple and relationship education effective for lower income participants? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1),
Hawkins, A. J., Carroll, J. S., Doherty, W. J., & Willoughby, B. (2004). A Comprehensive Framework for Marriage Education. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 53,
Martinengo, G., Jacob, J. I., & Hill, E. J. (2010). Gender and the work-family interface: Exploring differences across the family life course. Journal of Family Issues, 31,
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3),
White, J. M. (1991). Dynamics of family development: A theoretical perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Descriptive Results
Male
Female
Measure
M or % SD
Knowledge Pretest
3.36
0.62
3.39
0.61
Knowledge Posttest
3.78
3.91
0.55
Commitment Pretest
4.03
0.60
3.86
0.68
Commitment Posttest
4.45
0.52
4.37
Control Rejection Pretest
3.80
0.82
3.76
0.77
Control Rejection Posttest
0.67
4.10
0.74
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this study is to give preliminary answers to the following questions:
Does family life stage impact the outcomes of relationship education?
Do diverse paths of family development matter in family development theory?
Do these answers differ by gender?