Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

ISSN: 1050-2556 (Print) 1540-4811 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

Can Divorce Be Prevented by Enhancing the

Coping Skills of Couples?

Guy Bodenmann PhD

To cite this article: Guy Bodenmann PhD (1997) Can Divorce Be Prevented by Enhancing the
Coping Skills of Couples?, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 27:3-4, 177-194, DOI: 10.1300/
J087v27n03_12

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v27n03_12

Published online: 12 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 583

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjdr20
 Can Divorce Be Prevented
by Enhancing
the Coping Skills of Couples?
Guy Bodenmann

ABSTRACT. Divorce has become the end result of many modem

marriages. In Westem countries, 30-50% of all marriages end in di-
vorce, causing much pain for the concerned partners and the children
involved. While this development has been apparent in the United
States for quite some time, similar divorce rates are now being seen in
most of the industrialized countries in Europe as well. Despite this fact,
many studies show that marriage is still very popular and that most
people wish to many during the course of their life. How, then, can
couples be helped to experience a more satisfying relationship and to
establish higher stability in their mamage? Several longitudinal studies
offer an answer to this question. It has been shown that couples who are
well equipped with certain competencies such as communication skills,
problem-solving abilities and coping strategies are less likely to experi-
ence a negative evolution of their marriage and are consequently less
likely to divorce. It has thus been argued that preventing divorce may
be possible by teaching couples such competencies at a relatively early
stage in their relationship. While several preventive trainings for cou-
ples already exist, the training proposed in this article is new in that it
primarily focuses on the coping skills of the couplc. Research has
shown that stress is an eminent enemy of close relationships and that it
has the power to gradually destroy relationships over a long period of
time on an unconscious level. In this article, we propose possibilities
concerning how couples faced with stress can improve their coping
skills and thereby strengthen their relationship. [Arlicle copies available
for a h e Jivni The Hawor?lr Docunenf Delivety Setvice: 1-800-342-9678.
E-mail addtws: ge~itfo@hawor/li.com]

Guy Bodenmann, PhD, is on the faculty, Institute of Family Research and

Family Counseling at the University of Fribourg, Rue de Faucigny 2, CH-1701
Fribourg, Switzerland.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 27 (314) 1997
O 1997 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 177
178 JOURNAL O F DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Divorce is currently an issue with which modem marriages are largely

confronted. When a young couple married at the beginning of this century,
it was taken for granted that thc relationship would remain stable over a
very long period. Today, this is no longer thc case. In the past few decades,
the divorce rate has grown at an alarming rate, indicating that marriages
today are characterized by a high level of instability. Currently in the
United States, more than half of all marriages end in divorce (e.g., Cherlin,
1981; Martin & Bumpass, 1989; Gottman, 1994) and in Europe, the rate of
divorce is gradually reaching similar proportions. Especially in Northern
countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, divorce rates
are nearly as high as in the United States and reach 40%-50%. France,
Germany and other Westem countries in Europe havc a somewhat lower
rate, varying between 30-40%. According to the Swiss Federal Depart-
ment of Statistics, in 1995, 38% of all marriages (15,643) in Switzerland
ended in divorce. In the past three decades, the divorce rate in Germany
has increased by 143%. Similar developments have also taken place in
other European countries. In Switzerland, the divorce rate climbed from
21% in 1975 to 38% in 1995. This development is rather destructive for
several reasons. Firstly, the consequences of divorce are not only (in most
cases) deleterious for both partners, but also have an indisputable impact
upon the children involved (e.g., Amato & Keith, 1991; Hetherington,
1982; Guidobaldi et al., 1983). The significance of this aspect becomes
apparent when we take into account that in the United States, 38%of white
children and 75% of black children under the age of 16 are implicated in
the divorce of their parents more than once (see Hetherington & Clingem-
peel, 1992). In 1995 in Switzerland, 12% (12,000) of the population's
children were affected by the divorce of their parents. Furthermore, it has
been found that children whose parents divorce are more likely as adults to
be involved in marriages which cnd in divorce (see Glenn & Kramer,
1987; Mucller & Pope, 1977; Diekmann & Engelhardt, 1995). This phe-
nomenon, namely that divorce is frequently transmitted from generation to
generation, would seem to indicate that divorce is not only the private
affair of the couple and of the family unit, but that it also has a vital impact
upon the structure and functioning of the society in which we live.
The causes behind the increase of divorce rates are complex and cannot
be fully explained by focusing upon one area alone. Divorce is a phenome-
non influenced by psychological, societal, political, religious, economic
and other factors, as well as by legal policy (see Kurdek, 1993; Norton &
Click, 1976; Price & McKenry, 1989; White, 1990, etc.).
However, the negative course of a marriage is not a conditio sinc qua
non. As several longitudinal studies show, the deterioration of marital
 Guy Bodet~t~tat~tt 1 79

rclationships is in most cases due to a lack of compctencies among both

partners. Many studies reveal that, above all, deficiencies in communica-
tion skills, problem-solving capacities and coping are important predictors
of marital dissolution (see, e.g., Bodenmann, 1995a, b; Filsinger & Tho-
ma, 1988; Gottman, 1994; Huston & Vangclisti, 1991; Markman, 1981;
1984).
In a five-year longitudinal study conductcd by Markman (1984), it was
found that those couples who already possessed adequate communication
competencies at the onset of their relationship, reported themselves to be
significantly more satisfied with their relationship five years later than did
those couples who had shown a deficiency of these competencies. A
hrther study conducted by Filsinger and Thoma (1988), which showed
that negative reciprocity in a couple's interaction was the best predictor of
a negative relationship and ultimately of separation or divorcc, underlines
the importance of these communication competencies. In addition, in their
two-year longitudinal study, Huston and Vangelisti (1991) found that neg-
ativity within the realm of communication was the best predictor of an
unsuccessful marriage. Certain longitudinal studies also point to the im-
portance of establishing satisfactory problem-solving competencies (Kelley,
Huston & Cate, 1985) and physical relaxation abilities (Levenson & Gott-
man, 1985) as potential strategies for increasing relationship quality.
In our own longitudinal study conducted over a period of 4.5 years, we
could show that individual and dyadic coping may also act as important
buffers between stress and the quality of marital interaction and satisfac-
tion on the one hand (scc Bodenmann & Langenick, 1996; Bodenmann,
Pcrrez & Gottman, 1996) and marital stability on thc other. While ade-
quate copers were able to maintain a normal level of communication even
under stress, the quality of dyadic interaction was dramatically decreased
among subjects with dysfunctional individual coping skills; that is to say,
those individuals who either blamed themselves intrapsychically, their
partner or other persons or who practiced negative self-verbalization
instead of applying tension-reducing strategies or reframing the situation.
We also found that inadequate coping has a direct as well as indirect,
deleterious impact on marital stability and that it decreases the quality of
marital interaction as well as the psychological and physical well-being of
both partners. It seems that stress gradually corrodes close relationships
over time and that it does so largely on an unconscious level. We were able
to demonstrate, however, that couples who were involved in dyadic coping
were at a lower risk for separation or divorce (see Bodenmann, 1995c,
Bodenmann & Perrez, 1991). Dyadic coping is defined as the efforts of
one or both partners in situations of individual stress which affect the
180 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

relationship (indirect dyadic stress) or stress within the couplc (direct

dyadic stress) to engage in a stress management process aimed at creating
a new homeostasis within both partners individually and within the couple
as a unit. As forms of dyadic coping, we distinguish "common dyadic
coping" (whereby both partners participate in the coping process symmet-
rically or complementarily), "supportive dyadic coping" (during which
one partner assists the other in histher coping efforts), and "delegated
dyadic coping" (during which one partner takes over several tasks in order
to reduce the stress experienced by histher mate). Our conceptualization of
the dyadic stress-coping-process is based upon a systemic-transactional
view, whereby one partner sends stress signals (verbally explicit, verbally
implicit or nonverbally) to which the other partner may react (verbally or
nonverbally) (Bodenmann, 1995~).
The results of these studies raise the question as to whether it would not
be beneficial to already begin strengthening marriages early in the course
of their development. Since there is a higher risk that couples possessing
low competencies will experience a negative evolution of their relation-
ship which may, ultimately, end in divorce, it would seem desirable that
marital counselors or therapists intervcne as early as possible in order to
help couples enhance these competencies. This argument is further sup-
ported by the fact that most couples seek marital therapy at a stage when
their relationship is already largely dysfunctional. Studies on the effective-
ness of marital therapy indicate that of those couples who seck help, only
approximately 40% benefit from the intervention (Jacobson et al., 1984;
Jacobson & Addis, 1993; Hahlweg & Markman, 1988). These data indi-
cate that half of the couples seeking help do so too late and, as a conse-
qucnce, either fall back into negative interaction patterns (approximately
30%) or divorce (Snyder, Wills & Grady-Fletcher, 1991). This would
seem to support the idea that couples often do not seek professional help
until a time when, despite the competency of the therapist and the proven
&. restoration of relationshiv sat-
effcctiveness of the intervention Droarams.
*
isfaction through therapy is no longer possible.
This situation comoels us to Dose the auestion as to whether traditional
forms of marital therapy are, in fact, appropriate or if, instead, the timc has
come for more preventive-oriented approaches.

PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR COUPLES

Much development has occurred in marital therapy in the past thrcc
decades. Based upon empirical findings and social learning theory, behav-
ioral marital therapists have proposed a large body of intervention strate-
 Guy Bodenmann 181

gies primarily focusing upon enabling couples to function independently

of the therapist by over-learning negative communication or interaction
patterns, by modifying thcir dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes and by
finding a satisfying balance between intimacy and distance within the
relationship (Christensen & Shenk, 1991; Jacobson, 1993).
These approaches are based upon the assumption that the application of
new functional dvadic behaviors may directly im~rovemarital satisfaction
by instigating more positivity in a couple's daily interaction by reducing
negative behaviors. This focus upon skills rather than the partner's person-
ality traits or characteristics (such as attraction, love, etc.) is important as it
allows couples to do something for the well-being of their relationship.
This has lead to placing a stronger emphasis upon preventive programs
(see Coie et al., 1993). Current preventive programs include the Minnesota
Couj~lesCommunicalion Program (MCCP: Millcr, Nunnally & Wackman,
1975), the Conjugal Relationship Enhancement Pvogram (CRE:Guerney,
1977), the Premarital Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP: Mark-
man et al., 1984; Renick, Blumberg & Markman, 1992) in the USA and
Ein Partnerschajilickes Lernprogramm (EPL: Thurmaier, Engl, Eckert &
Hahlweg, 1992) and the Couple's Coping Enhancement Training (CCET:
Bodenmann, 1996) in Gennany and Switzerland, respectively.
While the MCCP focuses upon the enhancement of marital interaction
by learning direct, open and transparent communication and meta-com-
munication, the CRE of Guerney (1977) is particularly oriented toward the
improvement of empathy-based understanding in marital interaction and
self-disclosure. One of the main targets of the PREP (Markman et al., 1984;
Renick, Blumberg & Markman, 1992; Stanley, Markman, St. Peters &
Leber, 1995) is the training of communication and problem-solving skills.
The EPL (Hahlweg et al., 1993) also focuses upon the improvement of
communication skills (in particular, adequate emotional communication)
and the enhancement of problem-solving and conflict resolution skills.

THE CCET (COUPLE'S COPING ENHANCEMENT TRAINING)

The CCET was dcvcloped on the basis of empirical research and
components of already existing preventive programs. It emphasizes the
improvement of (a) the enhancement of individual and dyadic coping and
(b) communication and problem-solving skills. The first focus has its
origin in the findings that (1) stress negatively affects marital interaction
and satisfaction; (2) that the impact of stress on marital interaction can be
moderated by adequate coping; (3) that happy couples practice dyadic
coping more often and that an absence of dyadic coping is a major prcdic-
182 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

tor of divorce, and finally; (4) that unhappy couples are less likely to
respond to their partner's emotional stress signals. These results lead us to
the conclusion that it is of vital importance to incorporate the tmining of
coping skills into prevention programs for couples.
The training itself can be divided into six units which were conceptual-
ized according to Maccoby and Solomon's (1981) critcria for behavior
change. These criteria includc: (a) scnsibilization of the problem through a
psycho-educative approach briefly illustrating the utility of the exercise by
making reference to its theoretical implementation and related empirical
results; (b) transmission of knowledge showing what can be done differ-
ently and how the desired competencies manifest themselves; (c) motiva-
tion to implement these competencies by illustrating that by doing so the
problem may be effectively changed; (d) procurement of these competen-
cies by means of relevant exercises (e.g., model learning, role play, self-
observation, etc.); (e) performance instruction, namely use of thc relevant
competencies in everyday lifc; ( f ) motivation to maintain the newly ac-
quired competencies on a long-term basis (by reciprocal reinforcement,
self-reinforcement, confirmation that positive changes have taken place
within the couple, etc.). The couples are then trained in the above criteria
by means of theoretical input, appropriate models illustrated in role play
and in video sequences (during which the difference between problematic
and positive behavior may be recognized), diagnostic exercises (during
which the couple is given the opportunity to analyze their own situation as
well as what possible changes may be made) and group discussions in
order to address how negative behaviors may be changed. These different
elements (theory, diagnostic, practical exercises, discussion) are alternated
in an attempt to create the most optimal learning environment possiblc
(see Figure 1).

Description of the Six Units of the CCET

I . Unit: Theoretical Intmduction Facilitating a Belter Understanding

of Stress and Coping

In this unit, the participants learn how to discriminate between different

types of stress, the possible causes of stress, how stress manifests itself,
how cognitive appraisals influence the emergence of stress as well as how
stress may affect marriage. These topics are theoretically introduced and
illustrated by the use of various cxamplcs (vidco clips, short stories, etc.).
The individuals' own situation and model cases are used to illustrate
specific elements relevant to these theoretical concepts.
 FIGURE 1. Components of the Couple's Coping Enhancement Training

Enhancement of Non-partnership related Discussion of

individual coping stress stress equity, boundaries
and fairness in the
stress prevention improvement of stress improvement of relationship with
improvement of perception in the communication regard to dyadic
appraisals relationship skills coping.
improvement of improvement of one's improvement of
coping own stress problem-solving
installation of a. communication skills
hedonistic installation of dyadic
repertoire coping (common,
supportive, delegated
dyadic coping)
184 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

2. Unit: Oplimizing Itzdividual Coping Abilities

In the second unit, each individual is taught how to improve his or her
own coping abilities. In this section, the primary focus is placed upon the
enhancement of stress prevention skills. Each partner learns how to prevent
unnecessary stress by optimizing daily organization, planning for thc future,
sctting realistic goals, etc. The ability to schedule one's life in a manner
allowing enough time for leisure and other pleasant activities and of plan-
ning one's life realistically have proven helpful strategies in preventing
unnecessary stress. A second aspect which is introduced is the importance
of incorporating pleasant activities into one's daily schedule (hedonistic
repertoire). These activities (hiking, swimming, cultural events, reading,
music, social activities, etc.) are meant to function as islands of relaxation
and sources of regenerative power which can be used to combat the ncga-
tivc influences of daily stress (see Briiderl, 1994). Next, an assessment of
personal interests is made and the participants are encouraged to build up or
strengthen their own personal hedonistic repertoire.
The main focus of this unit, however, is the enhancement of appraisal
competencies and coping skills. The participants of the training are
introduced to the role which appraisal plays in their emotional state, as well
as to possibilities of improving their own judgment of situations through the
use of a testing grid which can be applied to rate the situation in question.
The connection between cognitive appraisals, emotions and coping is dis-
cussed and fonns of adequate coping according to one's appraisals are
presented. The individuals learn how to adjust their appraisals and how to
deal more eficaciously with everyday stress events. In accordance with the
empirical results and findings of other researchers, we suggest that function-
al coping strategies (such as tcnsion reduction, reframing of the situation,
positive self-verbalization, etc.) should be trained and strengthencd, while
all types of blaming thoughts, rumination, negative self-vcrbalization, etc.,
should be reduced and eventually eliminated. The present coping style of
the couple is analyzed, propositions for improvement are made and they are
taught how to change dysfunctional coping styles by applying observation
schemes in their daily lifc (similar to the technique developed by Beck and
associates, 1979). In addition, a relaxation method (Jacobson's progressive
relaxation training, 1938), which acts as an important completion to the
cognitive techniques presented, is taught.
3. Unit: The Enhancement of Dyadic Coping

The enhancement of dyadic coping in marriage includes four primary

issues: (a) improvement of one's own stress communication in such a way
 Guy Bodenn~ann 185

that the partner is able to respond to one's needs; (b) improvement con-
cerning the perception of stress signals given by the partner; (c) adequate
supportive dyadic coping and; (d) the practice of common dyadic coping
or the delegation of coping tasks. The first point requires not only compe-
tencies in thearea of explicit (direct) and unambivalent stress communica-
tion, but also presumes nlutual trust and prior experience that the partner is
able and willing to act in a supportive manner. Open stress communication
often means unconditional self-disclosure through the sharing of vely
personal feelings (fear, insecurity, helplessness, incapability or merely
insufficient practical resources to handle the demands of the stressful
situation). Relationships allowing the communication of such intimatc
issues create an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. These
competencies are first shown by presenting a model couple on video. In a
second step, each partner assesses hislher own usual manner of communi-
cating stress and its effectiveness. Through role playing, the couples then
learn how to better express the stress they are experiencing (verbal explicit
stress communication: "I fecl vcry agitated. This matter was vely impor-
tant to me, and I'm frustrated about my failure." "I think I'm worthless. 1
remember a similar situation when I was in school and the teacher. . . ").
Here, a first link to current communication training is made, and speaker
and listener competencies are introduced (see Hahlweg et al., 1993).
The second element of this unit addresses those abilities which are
necessary to better decode stress signs in the partner. Because verbally
explicit stress communication is relatively evident and easier to react to,
special emphasis is placed on how to decode non-verbal (body position,
sighs, trembling, etc.) and paraverbal stress signs (voice tone, etc.). Duc to
the fact that non-verbal stress signals trigger relatively low responsiveness
in the partner, it is important that each individual I h m to recognize stress
in hisher partner on a non-verbal level. These competencies are first
illustrated by a model couple and are then practiced through role playing,
during which both partners attempt to apply better stress communication
and better decoding competencies.
A third elcmcnt encompasses the enhancement of supportive dyadic
coping performance in situations in which the partner requires or would be
grateful for help. This element not only necessitates competencies in pro-
viding this support, but also requires tact and empathy. These aspects are
incorporated into the CCET through role playing and through negotiation in
personal discussions during which one partner addresses a stressful topic
while the othcr tries to support himher in hisfher coping efforts. Reactions
of thc partner, such as potentially hurtfUl, non-verbal behavior or verbal
comments, etc., are registered and discussed in terms of the intentions of the
186 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

sender and the reception of the partner in need. In supportive dyadic coping,
wc attempt to install emotional and practical supportive competencies
which can be applied in stressful situations, including instruction of tension
reduction methods, helping the partner to reframe the situation, solidarizing
with the partner, etc. Once again, a model couple is used to show the
different possible supportive dyadic coping strategies, after which the cou-
ples themselves are asked to engage in thc exercise.
A final objective of this unit is to teach couples to practice common
dyadic coping or delegation in accordance with situational features. Com-
mon dyadic coping is an important strategy which allows a couple to use
and strengthen its synergetic power and to enhance its sense of together-
ness. Consequently, in the CCET, we attempt to sensitize the couples
concerning this powerful strategy. Communication skills and coopcration
are additional basic features characterizing common dyadic coping. A lack
of these competencies and a lack of motivation regarding stress manage-
ment, both of which might otherwise reunite the resources of both part-
ners, necessitates furtherdiagnosis. Thus, couples who do not cope togeth-
er in situations where common dyadic coping would be appropriate, who
do not symmetrically share tasks, and who do not practice egalitarian
role-taking, should be introduced to the importance of these techniques
and issues. In addition, the benefits of common dyadic coping are dis-
cussed within the framework of closeness-distance regulation, as proposed
by Jacobson (1993). Common dyadic coping represents a promising dyad-
ic resource which may prove helpful in handling demands differently.

4. Unit: Fairness in the Relationship

In this unit, the importance of justice, fairness and equal engagement in

the relationship, based upon the equity theory of Walster et al. (1977) and
the social cxchange thcory of Thibaut and Kelly (1959), is addressed. Here
the couples learn the importance of taking turns offering support to the
partner and of equally participating in the daily coping of stress. In addi-
tion, the significance of personal boundaries (clear boundaries between
partners, thc generations, thc couple unit and its environment, etc.) (Minu-
chin, 1977) and thc necessity of proximity-distance regulation (Christen-
sen & Shenk, 1991; Jacobsoti, 1993) are discussed. By using a model
couple, the differences between dyadic coping and boundary transgression
(i.e., injury to the intimate sphere of another) are shown and couples are
trained by the use of role play. The couples are then asked to discuss how
the above concepts of boundaries, proximity and distance manifest them-
 Guy Boderrmann 187

selves in their own relationship and to consider their own wishes concem-
ing common activities.

5. Unit: Communication Skills

In the fitth unit, couples are taught communication skills. Due to the
fact that the quality of communication significantly decreases under stress,
such competencies are of great importance. Whereas the training elements
I to 4 focused upon stress outside of the couple, units 5 and 6 address
stress which is directly related to the couple's relationship. Based upon the
communication trainings of Markrnan et al. (1984) and Hahlweg et al.
(1993), couples are trained in listener and speaker abilities and are taught
how to generalize these rules in different types of situations, such as
self-disclosure in stress situations, conflicts with the partner, common
stress management, etc. In this section, the couples are asked to use the
competencies and communication skills they have leamed in order to
discuss a "heated" conflictual topic.

6. Unit: Conflict and Problem-Solving Skills

The last element of our training focuses upon how to deal with conflicts
when they arise and how to improve problem-solving skills. The couples
are encouraged not to avoid conflict issues in their daily life, but rather to
deal with them by using the competencies which they have had the oppor-
tunity to practice during the course of the training. The couples are then
shown how they can better cope with problcms in their daily life by using
a step-by-step program which allows them to define the problem, to brain-
storm possible ways of coping with the problem, to evaluate the proposed
solutions and to implement a step-by-step schedule allowing actualization
of the strategy chosen.

The Structure of the CCET

The above competencies are trained in a workshop setting. The theoret-

ical concepts and the examples using model couples and video sequences
are presented and discussions are encouraged. Each individual and each
couple is able to practice the relevant skills by means of numerous exer-
cises supervised by the trainers (one trainer for every two couples). By
using examples taken from video clips and by role playing, the competen-
cies are installed in such a way that the couples are enabled to perform the
skills which they have learned during the course of their everyday life.
188 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

The training, which is given ovcr a period of 18 hours, is offered either

in the form of a weekend course from Friday evening to Sunday evening
or as a three-hour course once a week over a period of six weeks. While
the training is oriented toward unmarried couples in stable relationships,
toward newlywed couples or toward couples who merely wish to improve
the quality of their relationship, the two primary target groups of the
training are those couples: (a) who are intending to many or (b) who are
characterized by a longer-term, stable relationship and who wish to further
or maintain the well-being of their relationship. The groups are organized
according to these categories in order to achieve an environment condu-
cive to meeting the specific needs of those couples involved. Here, it is
important to note that the training itself should not be considered a form of
therapy and should not be offered to couples experiencing major life crises
or who have the intention of separating.

Evaluation of the CCET

At the present time, several couples are in the process of completing the
above training. In order to evaluate the effects of the CCET, a battery of
different questionnaires (assessing marital quality, marital communication,
stress, individual coping, dyadic coping, mental health, physical well-be-
ing and measures sensitive to treatment validity) as well as systematic
observation are used. The treatment group is comprised of a sample of
approximately 50 couples and another 50 couples are used as a control
group (no intervention). An additional 50 couples receive only a biblio-in-
tervention (the same training in written form but without any practical
exercises) and a final group of approximately 20 couples undergo the
training with subsequent repetition workshops (poster sessions). The study
is carried out for a duration of two years. The assessment points are two
weeks before the training (baseline), two weeks after the training, six
months later (1. follow-up), one year later (2. follow-up) and two years
after the training (3. follow-up). Unfortunately, at the present time, we are
unable to report data concerning the empirical evaluation as the data
collection is still in process.

DISCUSSION

In this article, we addressed the question as to how to improve marital

quality and stability in order to prevent unnecessary divorce. As many
marriages in Western countries evolve in a negative manner and are
eventually subject to dissolution, it was proposcd that couples should bc
 Guy Bodenmann 189

helped at an early stage in thcir relationship to strengthen such competen-

cies as communication skills, problem-solving capacities and adequate
coping skills. Longitudinal studies have revealed that deficiencies in these
competencies are powerful predictors of separation and divorce. A young
couplc whose relationship is characterized by positive dynamics (feelings
of love, high mutual attraction, fascination for each other, etc.) should be
encouraged to learn skills in order to handle everyday stress as well as the
demands of marital life precisely at this time when they would be most
motivated to do so. In this way, when problems occur, they would not only
be prepared but also capable of managing them and would thus be better
able to prevent their relationship from evolving in a negative fashion.
Couples who are already locked in negative dynamics and hostile interac-
tion patterns are less able to free themselves from this negative spiral.
Furthermore, it has been shown that couples often hesitate too long in
seeking professional help and usually only resort to marital therapy when
it is already too late. This insight has lead several counselors and therapists
to propose preventive training for couples in which competencies are
trained. The CCET (Couple's Coping Enhancement Training) presented in
this article emphasizes, above all, the enhanccment of individual and dy-
adic coping competencies in addition to traditional skills trained in other
programs. This emphasis on coping is based upon findings that stress and
coping play an'important role in marital quality changes and in the dissolu-
tion of close relationships.
The creation of the CCET, which represents a substantial expansion of
current preventive training, was based upon two questions: ( I ) is it worth-
while to suggest new factors in marital training and (2) as some couples do
not truly benefit from current interventions, could it be that important
variables have thus far been neglected and that the beneficial effects of
, such training could be further enhanced?
It is our belief that the answer to both questions is yes. As this article
demonstrates, until recently, intervention programs for couples neglected
the impact of stress on marriage and the vital role which coping may play
in helping to maintain a satisfying relationship by improving daily marital
interaction and the health of both partners. It is our assumption that the
strength of our new approach does not lie in repairing the relationships of
distressed couples and in bridging already broken marriages. Rather, its
strength lies inpreventing marital distress by supplying couples with indi-
vidual and dyadic coping strategies which they can use to deal with daily
hassles and significant stress factors inside and outside of their relation-
ship. Due to the fact that stress is a silent and often unconscious destruc-
tive factor in marriage, it would seem of vital importance to address skills
190 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

which may help to detect its development and to fight against the deleteri-
ous impact it has on close relationships.
The rationale of our approach is based upon the need to improve stress
coping abilities in both the individual as well as in the couple. Therefore,
our training encompasses an enhancement of individual as well as dyadic
competencies in regard to stress regulation. Concerning the latter, as sev-
eral of our studies suggest, not only competencies in providing supportive
dyadic coping, but also the ability to perceive stress signals in the partner,
must be improved upon. In addition, forms of common coping and the
possibility of delegating
- - - in stressful situations must be installed.
- coping
Perception skills, competencies in supporting the partner, encouragement
to collaborate in common stress manaeement " activities and trust in the
partner's ability to handle stressful tasks or to givc substantial support
must be trained or fortified. Because the communication techniques of
PREP (Markman et al., 1984) or EPL (Hahlweg et al., 1993) are of great
importance, we have included them in our training program. A combina-
tion of our coping enhancement training with classical cognitive-behavior-
al training is considered to be particularly effective. Furthermore, in the
context of dyadic coping in particular, the dimensions of intimacy and
distance, which were added to the realm of marital therapy by Jacobson
(1993), are also taken into consideration.
The goal of this article was to underline the necessity of prevention
work with couples and to suggest that competencies in coping with stress
represent a new dimension which should be included in such programs. As
previously mentioned, although the data which is currently being collected
concerning the effectiveness of the CCET is not yet available for analysis,
it is our hope that thc results of this study will us with new ins&hts
concerning the importance of including individual and dyadic coping
strategies within the realm of preventive couple intervention.
Data of studies evaluating thc cffcctiveness of PREP and EPL show
that couples who participated in these preventive training programs were
significantly more satisfied with their relationship and showed a lower
rate of divorce (see Hahlweg et al., 1993; Markman et al., 1984; Mark-
man et al., 1986; Markman et al., 1988; Markman et al., 1993; Thurmaier
et al., 1992, etc.). While 30% of the control group's marriages dissolved
within a time span of three years, only 10% of the intervention group
separated or divorced within this same time period. Such findings en-
courage the need for further preventive work and illustrate the impact of
this new approach.
192 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Gottman, J.M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoid-
ance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples.
Jo~rrnalof Corrsultirrg & Clirrical Psyclrology, 61, 6-1 5.
Gottman, J.M. (1994). Wlrafpredicls divorce ? Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Gucrney, B.G. (1977). Relationsliip e~rhancement.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guidobaldi, J., Cleminshaw, H.K., Perry, J.D. & McLoughlin, C.S. (1983). The
impact of parental divorce on childrcn: Report of the nationwide NASP study.
School Psychology Review, 12,300-323.
Hahlweg, K. & Markman, H.J. (1988). Effectiveness of behavioral marital thera-
py: Empirical status of behavioral techniques in preventing and alleviating
marital distress. Journal of Consultitrg and Clirrical Psychology, 56,440-447.
Hahlweg, K.,Thurmaier, F., Engl, J., Eckert, V. & Markman, H.J.(1993). Praven-
tion von Beziehungsstorungen. Syslenr Fat~rilie,6,89-100.
Hetherington, E.M. (1982). Modes of adaptatios to divorce andsingleparenfhood
which enhances healrhy family functioning: Implicafiorrsfor a preverrfative
program. Virginia: University of Virginia Press.
Hetherington, E.M. & Clingempeel, W.G. (1 992). Coping with marital transitions.
Monographs for the Societyfor Research in Child Development, 57, 1-242.
Huston, T.L. & Vangelisti, A.L. (199 1). Socioemotional behavior and satisfaction
in marital relationships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Persoeality artd So-
cial Psychology, 6 l , 7 2 1-733.
Jacobson, E. (1938). Progressive relaxatio~r.Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Jacobson, N.S. (1993). Couple therapy: Integrating change and acceptance. Work-
shop syllabus " Working with d%ficultcouples," Vancouver, December 1993.
Jacobson, N.S.,Follette, W.C., Revenstorf, D., Baucon, D.H., Hahlwcg, K. &
Margolin, G. (1984). Variability in outcome and clinical significance of behav-
ioral marital therapy: A reanalysis of outcome data. Journal of Consulti~rgand
Clinical Psychology, 52,497-504.
Jacobson, N.S. & Addis, M.E. (1993). Research on couples and couple therapy:
What do we know ? Where are we going ?Journal of Consulfirig atrd Clinical
P~ychology,61.85-93.
Kelley, C., Huston, T.L. & Cate, R.M. (1985). Premarital relationship correlates of
the erosion of satisfaction in marriage. Jourrtol of Social and Perso~ralRela-
tiomhips, 2, 167-178.
Kurdck, L.A. (1 993). Predicting marital dissolution: A 5-year prospective longitu-
dinal study of newlywed couples. Jour~ralof Personalily arid Social Psyclrolo-
gy, 64,22 1-242.
Levenson, R.W. & Gottman, J.M. (1985). Physiological and affective predictors
of change in relationship satisfaction. Jourrral of Personality arid Social
Psychology, 49,85-94.
Maccoby, N . & Solomon, D.S. (1981). Heart disease prevention. Community
studies. In R.E. Rice & W.J. Paisley (eds.), Public comrnurrica~io~~scampaigm
(pp. 105-125). Beverly Hills: Sage.
 Guy Bodennlann 193

Markman, H.J. (1 981). Predicting marital distress: A 5-year follow-up. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49,760-762.
Markman, H.J. (1984). The longitudinal study of couples' interactions: Implica-
tions for understanding and predicting the development of marital distress. In
K. Hahlweg & N.S. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital inferaction. An analysis and
nrodijication @p. 253-281). New York: Guilford.
Markman, H.J., Floyd, E, Stanley, S. & Jamicson, K.(1984). A cognilive-behav-
ioral program for the prevention of marital and family distress: Issues in
program development and delivery. In K. Hahlweg & N.S. Jacobson (Eds.),
Marital interaction: Analysis and nrodijication.New York: Guilford Prcss.
Marlunan, H.J., Floyd, EJ., Stanley, S.M. & Lewis, H.C. (1986). Prevention. In
N.S. Jacobson & A S . Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy
@p. 173-195). New York: Guilford Press.
Markman, I-I.J.,Floyd, E, Stanley, S.M. & Storaasli, R. (1988). The prevention of
marital distress: A longitudinal investigation.Journal ofConsulting and Clini-
cal Psychology, 56.2 10-2 17.
Markman, H.J., Renick, M.J., Floyd, E.J., Stanley, S.M. & Clements, M. (1993).
Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management
trainings: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61.70-77.
Martin, T. & Bumpass, L. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption. Demogra-
phy, 26, 37-52.
Miller, S., Nunnally, E. & Wackman, D. (1975). Minnesota couples communica-
tion program (MCCP); Premarital and marital groups. In D.H. Olson (Eds.),
h a t i n g ~elarionships@p. 2 1-40). Lake Mills: Graphic.
Minuchin, S. (1977). Fantilie und Fomilientherapie. Theorie und Praxis der
strukterallen Fandientherapie. Stuttgard: Klett-Cotta.
Mueller, C.W. & Pope, H. (1977). Transmission between generations. Journal of
Marriage and rhe Family, 39.
Norton, A.J. & Glick, P.C. (1976). Marital instability: Past, present, and future.
Journal ofSocia1 Issues, 32,s-20.
Price, S.J. & McKenry, P.C. (1989). Divorce. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Renick, Blumberg, Markman (1 992). The Prevention and Relationship Enhance-
ment Program: An empirically based preventive intervention program for cou-
ples. Family Relations, 41, 141-147.
Snyder, D.K., Wills, R.M.& Grady-Fletcher, A. (199 1). Long-term effectiveness
of bchavioral versus insight-oriented marital therapy: A 4-year follow-up
study. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 138-141.
Stanley, Markman, St. Peters, Leber (1995). Strengthening marriages and pre-
venting divorce: New directions in prevention research. Family Relations, 44,
392-401.
Thibaut, J.W. & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The socialpsychology ofgtoups. New York:
Wiley.
194 JOURNAL O F DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Thurmaier, F., Engl, J., Eckert, V. & Hahlweg, K. (1992). Pravention van Ehe-
und Partnerschafisstomngen EPL (Ehevorbereitung-Ein Partnerschanliches
Lernprogramm). Verhaltenstherapie, 2, 1 16- 124.
Walster, E., Utne, M.K. & Traupman, J. (1977). Equity-Theorie und intime So-
~ialbeziehungen.I n G. Mikula & W. Strijbe (IGsg.), Sympathie, Fieunrischafr
und Ehe (pp. 193-220). Bern: Huber.
White, L.K.(1990). Determinants ofdivorcc: A rcvicw o f research i n the eighties.
Journal of Marriage and the F'anrily, 52, 904-912.

lor facul~/proiessionalswith journal subscription recommendation

authorrty for their institutional library . . .
If you havereadareprinlorpholocopyofthisarticle, would
you like to make sure that your library also subscribes to
this journal? If you have the aulhority to recommend sub-
scriptions to your library, we w~llsend you a lree sample
c o w lor roview with vour librarian. Just lill out the form belowand make
sure that you type or write out clearly both the name the journal and
your own name and address.

( ) Yes, please send me a complimentary sample copy of this journal:

(please write in complete journal title h e r 4 0 not leave blank)

I will show this journal to our instilutional or agency library for a possible
subscription.
The name of my institutional/agency library is:

INSTITUTION:
ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE : ZIP:

Return to: Sample Copy Department. The Haworth Press. Inc..

10 Alice Street. Binghamton. NY 13904-1580