Relationship enrichment

Canfield, Brian S

The idea of engaging in an activity that results in improving a relationship holds broad appeal. Based on this appeal, relationship enrichment programs have emerged as a phenomenon in U.S. society, enjoying widespread acceptance. Various relationship enrichment programs are offered in many communities, typically under the sponsorship of churches, community agencies, and other organizations. The growth of relationship enrichment programs over the past several decades and their continued prevalence reflects their enduring popularity.

The intent behind relationship enrichment programs is to provide participants with new knowledge, skills, and experiences that will, in turn, improve the quality and level of satisfaction of an existing relationship. For the most part, enrichment programs are not intended to address significant problems or clinical issues and are not considered an appropriate substitute for counseling or therapy. Rather, relationship enrichment programs are designed to expand existing relationships that are deemed to be, overall, functional or healthy, based on some criteria. Although programs differ in terms of target population, theoretical orientation, techniques, and methodology, all utilize some sort of structured format consisting of educational or experiential activities, or both.

THERAPY AND RELATIONSHIP ENRICHMENT

The larger society entrusts counselors, therapists, and other helping professionals with the task of assisting people in their efforts to bring about desired changes in their lives. The work conducted in counseling and related therapeutic and educational activities takes various forms. In many instances the focus of professional intervention is therapeutic. Theories and techniques are employed to ameliorate emotional pain and suffering, improve troubled interpersonal relationships, and support improvement in the overall quality of human life.

In other situations the focus of professional assistance is developmental or educational in nature. Rather than seeking to remove or ameliorate some sort of "problem," the goal becomes one of enhancing the quality of an existing functional or healthy relationship. In this mode the task is one of "enrichment" rather than "therapy." Utilizing various techniques, the counselor or facilitator works to cultivate or accelerate a client's skills and strengths toward the goal of improving an already functional relationship.

Both therapy and enrichment programs stem from the philosophical tradition beneficence in which the "helper" (a counselor, therapist, or program facilitator) engages in activities designed to benefit the client. Therapy is concerned primarily with ameliorating problem issues. Enrichment programs are concerned primarily with improving the quality of relationships not generally viewed as problematic. The beneficent intent of both therapy and enrichment programs are the same though-a desire to help people.

Although neither therapy nor relationship enrichment programs can be viewed correctly as intentional forms of social control, both exist and are constructed on some set of assumptions that are culturally defined. In most forms of therapy, the counselor, with or without the client's consensus, utilizes a set of assumptions as to what constitutes desired change. Similarly, relationship enrichment programs are based on a set of implicit, if not explicit, criteria as to what changes constitute improvement or enrichment of a relationship (e.g., better communication, a more satisfying sex life, improved quality time together).

Even though the goals of therapy and enrichment programs may be different, the line between the two cannot be clearly or easily demarcated. Though different in many respects, both therapy and relationship enrichment programs focus on improving the quality of human relationships. As such, they may be viewed as logical extensions of one another (Cole & Cole, 1993).

STRUCTURE AND FORMAT OF THE PROGRAM

To what degree healthy relationship qualities can be "taught" to couples through a systemic enrichment program remains largely an open question. Relationship enrichment programs have proliferated widely since their inception more than 50 years ago. By design, enrichment programs differ from therapy in terms of philosophy and client selection criteria (Worthington et al., 1995). Though enrichment programs vary in terms of length, methodology, and emphasis, the common goal of most relationship enrichment programs is to equip couples with the requisite knowledge and relational skills to improve relationships and avert future relationship problems. To varying degrees, enrichment programs provide some combination of information, group interaction, and experiential activities to enhance the quality of participants' relationships. Some programs emphasize prevention (Hahlweg & Markman, 1988), and others emphasize higher levels of functioning (Guerney, 1977), or experiential learning (Hickmon, Protinsky, & Singh, 1997).

It should be noted that relationship enrichment programs and family enrichment programs are two separate fields which typically draw upon different theories, models, and techniques (Cole & Cole, 1993). The focus of most relationship enrichment programs is the relationship dyad. Although relationship enrichment techniques may be employed with a single dyad, most enhancement programs involve group interaction. As such, the predominant format for relationship enrichment programs traditionally has been, and remains, multiple couple groups (Mace & Mace, 1975; Miller, Wackman, Nunnally, & Miller, 1988).

The notion of relationship enrichment programs draws heavily from the "human potential movement" and its tenet that emotionally healthy individuals at various developmental stages could enhance existing relationships through education and experiential activities (Cole & Cole,1993). This view is consistent with the belief that all behaviors make sense if they are understood in a particular context. As such, to improve a relationship, which is embedded in a certain context, couples need only be provided with new information and new experiences to alter and improve an existing relationship context.

Many couples are thought to be unable to improve their relationship solely through their own efforts because they lack the necessary information and experiential knowledge. Once they receive this information through a relationship enrichment program, however, the couple would adopt this new information, resulting in improved interactions. In turn, these new interactions, which would be more rewarding to the couple than the previous interactions, then would become self-reinforcing and subsequently would emerge as a permanent addition to the couple's behavioral repertoire, thereby enhancing an already functional relationship.

In addition to group relationship enrichment programs, some therapists and many clergy meet with a single couple to provide assessment and information about their relationship. Premarital counseling, though different from a relationship enrichment program, is a common relationship enrichment practice that many clergy utilize as a prerequisite to marriage. This premarital counseling addresses common adjustment issues for couples in the hope of preventing or reducing marital problems in the future.

HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS

The confusion surrounding attempts to clearly distinguish therapy from enrichment is understandable when viewed in a larger context of defining "healthy" and "unhealthy" relationships. To adopt a set of criteria and to make a distinction between "healthy" and "unhealthy" relationships, based on that criterion, is a relatively easy proposition. Nevertheless, identifying and assessing healthy or unhealthy relationships becomes problematic when the criterion's evidence is marginal or not clearly evident.

Compounding this problem, though the presence or absence of clinical symptoms or other markers of distress can be used as criteria for assessing many aspects of a relationship, no universal definition, and therefore no clear boundary, is in place to differentiate "healthy and "unhealthy" relationships (Lewis, Beavers, Gossett, & Phillips, 1976). An attribute or behavior that may be considered "unhealthy" in one context may be considered "healthy" in another context, differing only in terms of degree or intensity rather than quality. Any distinction between healthy and unhealthy relationships is contextually defined and is at best a useful social construction.

At some point in their training or clinical practice, most mental health professionals involved with marital and family work develop some notion of emotional health for couples and relationships. These views are based largely on personal experience or bias and lack any supporting data. Only in the past several decades have researchers begun to investigate family life in an attempt to show us traits that are consistently evident in emotionally healthy families and lacking in unhealthy families (Cole and Cole, 1993).

To understand the emotional health of relationships, we must view the family in the context of its environment. Different couples have different needs. Those needs require that the two individuals comprising the dyadic relationship have some degree of adaptability in response to conditions that may arise. What research has noted is that no single ideal relationship model is the ideal to which a couple should attempt to conform (Lewis et al., 1976). Qualities that may constitute an emotionally healthy relationship under one set of circumstances may prove dysfunctional under other circumstances.

The importance of the relationship dyad as a cornerstone of the emotional health of a family is evident to most counselors. For example, a family with preschool-age children may require a higher degree of structure and support than a family with older children. In responding to the needs of very young children, some parents are dictatorial in their approach to rules and decisions. Rather than attempting to debate bedtime schedules with a reluctant 3-year-old child, some parents adopt an authoritarian style of management. That style may work well in one family but may be problematic, or even unworkable, in another family with different needs.

Parents with young children whose controlling style had worked well for years are often at a loss to explain emerging conflicts when these same children enter their teenage years. Conflict that emerges is often discounted as "adolescent rebellion" rather than attributed to a fixed family structure and corresponding parenting style. The ability to adapt to the changing needs of family members at various developmental stages is critical to the emotional health of each family member (Minuchin, 1974).

Although each relationship and each family is unique, in examining family functioning, Beavers (1985) suggested three broad groups of families, ranging from severely dysfunctional to optimally healthy. These groups consist of dysfunctional families, defined as having at least one family member who exhibits some type of problematic symptom, and two groups categorized as healthy families, termed "optimal" and "adequate."

From this paradigm all healthy families, both optimal and adequate, handle conflict with greater success than dysfunctional families. Significant differences, however, distinguish adequately healthy families and relationships from optimally healthy families and relationships. Viewing the couple or marital dyad as a subsystem of the larger family system, an examination of a couple or a marital relationship is logical and possible using Beaver's categories.

Adequate Relationships

An adequately healthy relationship has a clear and definite role structure. Though functional, however, this role structure is relatively weak compared to the role structure in optimally healthy relationships. That is, the couple is often in disagreement over a variety of issues, and has more difficulty negotiating and solving problems. Rigid role stereotyping, particularly sexual stereotyping, is common in these relationships. Adequately healthy relationships also seem to be caught up more in efforts to control than to resolve problems and encourage the personal growth and development of each family member (Lewis et al., 1976; Beavers 1985, Beavers & Hampson, 1990; Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983).

On the positive side, even though adequately healthy couples may show maladaptive behavior patterns in some instances, they generally are able to meet each other's basic needs and often are able to raise competent children. Because of friction in the relationship, however, confusing communication patterns and the need for control, competency on the part of the children often is achieved only through considerable emotional distancing from the parents or family group.

A redeeming quality of adequately healthy couples typically is consistent involvement in their family and relational tasks. Although occasionally in conflict, couples value their relationship and their parental roles, and though their relationship skills may be marginal, they are committed to the task at hand. Relationship commitment and consistency seem to overcome many of the other problems that are evident in adequately healthy relationships. A couple's belief in the importance of the relationship often compensates for any lack of competency in interpersonal skills.

Optimal Relationships

As with adequately healthy relationships, optimally healthy relationships have a clear and definite role structure. Roles in optimal relationships, however, tend to be more flexible. These couples are more concerned with accomplishing tasks than with rigid roles or controlling others. They view negotiation as a desirable process for resolving relationship problems. The need to maintain peace in the relationship at all costs is not a quality of optimal relationships. They view human emotions such as fear, anger, and happiness as normal reflections of what they are experiencing, not things to be avoided. They view conflict and anger as signs that something has to be corrected. They communicate feelings openly and clearly without fear of reprisal. Although they value all family relationships, they recognize the marital relationship as critically important to the family's overall well-being.

Although many people equate emotional closeness with love and security, healthy relationships tend to maintain a balance between the dual qualities of intimacy and autonomy (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1988). Optimal relationships provide a degree of support while equally allowing and encouraging the separateness and individuality of each person.

By contrast, many unhealthy relationships are emotionally "too close," to the point of enmeshment (Bowen, 1978). Enmeshment severely restricts or prohibits the emotional growth of an individual in a relationship. The opposite extreme of enmeshment is typified by a total lack of support for one's partner. Optimal relationships appear to be midrange, balancing individual needs of autonomy and collective needs of emotional intimacy.

Qualities attributed to healthy relationships should be viewed as general tendencies. Each relationship is unique and understood best in the context of the tasks and demands of life with which it is involved. Increasingly, individual emotional health, family emotional health, and the emotional health of a couple or marital relationship are viewed as interrelated. As such, the emotional health of a given relationship will have an inevitable impact upon the emotional well-being of each person in the relationship as well as other family members.

Because the categories and qualities noted in the Beavers' model (1985) stem from research on healthy family functioning, the findings are applicable to any relationship within the family system, including the marital dyad. These findings on the importance of healthy relationships tend to support the overall goal and emphasis of relationship enrichment programs.

RELATIONAL DYADS

In his family of origin work, Murray Bowen (1978) emphasized the emotional instability of the relational dyad and emphasized the triad as the most basic emotional unit. Although the relational triad may be conceptualized as the basic emotional unit (Bowen 1978; Donley 1993), the relational dyad comprises the most basic communication unit.

Trost (1996) noted that any conceptualization of family includes a minimum of two members, and that the smallest family unit would consist of a single relational dyad. Cook (1994) stated the importance of understanding how patterns of dyadic interaction fit into the broader context of the family system. The importance of the couple or marital relationship is consistent with the structural family therapy perspective that the marital dyad functions as an executive or administrative subsystem of the larger family system. As such, the importance of the emotional health of the marital relationship is seen as a key to overall family emotional health (Minuchin, 1974). This recognition of the importance of the relational dyad supports the intent of relationship enrichment programs in strengthening and enhancing couple or marital relationships through education and experiential activities.

OUTCOME RESEARCH ON RELATIONSHIP

ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS

As with any professional counseling or educational endeavor, accountability and outcome effectiveness are important concerns. Though a number of studies have been conducted examining the effectiveness of participation in relationship enrichment programs, the findings vary depending upon the outcome criteria examined.

Outcome research on the effectiveness of relationship enhancement programs indicates that most programs yield a short-term positive effect for most couples. Although couples tend to report an overall positive experience with participation in relationship enrichment programs, research on the long-term effectiveness is less revealing. Even though the notion of relationship enrichment programs enjoys wide acceptance among the public and many professionals, the long-term positive effects of these programs has not been demonstrated (Hahlweg and Markman, 1988).

Studies on relationship enrichment programs are typically limited to the evaluation of a specific program and a limited population. Given the nature of research in effectiveness of relationship enrichment programs, we cannot with any degree of confidence generalize the research findings of one relationship enrichment program and apply those findings to a different program. Similarly, we cannot extrapolate findings from existing studies and generalize those findings in a meaningful way to the entire field of relationship enrichment. Even so, a number of outcome studies do provide useful information when examined in the context of a given relationship enrichment program employed with a given population.

In an experimental design testing the relationship of assessment and feedback to relationship enrichment, Worthington et al. (1995) concluded that assessment and verbal feedback to couples produced noticeable positive changes among couples in already well functioning relationships. They concluded that the subsequent positive changes in the relationships of participating couples could be attributed, in large part, to their participating in the relationship enrichment program.

Mattson, Christensen, and England (1990) undertook a study on the outcome effectiveness of the Training in Marriage Enrichment program (Dinkmeyer and Carlson, 1984). Results of this study, which included a pretest-posttest evaluation design of 38 couples, indicated that the Training in Marriage Enrichment program had a positive effect on participants' perception in the areas of marital self-evaluation, marital communication, marital adjustment, and relationship change. The study, however, did not assess long-term changes in participants' perceptions.

Mace (1982) noted that the early stage of a marriage provides an ideal time for marital enrichment because couples have not yet established entrenched patterns of relating to one another. In this vein, Hawley (1995) examined the outcome effectiveness of three relationship enrichment programs on 99 newlywed couples. Two of the programs, Learning to Live Together (Bader & Remmel, 1987) and Growing Together (Dyer & Dyer, 1990), were designed specifically for the marital transition of newlywed couples. The third program, Training in Marriage Enrichment (Dinkmeyer & Carlson, 1984) was developed for use by all couples, regardless of length of marriage.

PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Recognizing the cultural limitations of traditional approaches to relationship enrichment programs, new theoretical models and instructional methods that approach the question of crosscultural "competency" from a different perspective seem to be needed, perhaps drawing from the post-modern perspectives of cybernetic theory and social constructionism. Drawing from an understanding of secondorder cybernetics (Becvar, Canfield, & Becvar, 1997), it may be more productive to consider the enrichment program facilitator's cultural identity and world view as an integral part of any understanding individual client needs in the relationship enrichment process. Although one never can truly know the cultural experience and identity of another person, counselors can develop a degree of self-awareness and an appreciation for how cultural differences influence the counselor-client relationship.

All counseling, therapy, and psychoeducational activities such as relationship enrichment programs operate from some theoretical position that offers an explanation of the nature of human behavior. We can draw from many worldviews, some epistemologically similar and others quite dissimilar.

Although numerous philosophical perspectives have been set forth, for convenience these may be grouped into broad categories of "modernism" and "post-modernism." Traditional approaches to counseling, therapy, education, and training stem from the modernist tradition. In recent decades post-modern perspectives have garnered increasing interest from counseling professionals.

Post-modernism, sometimes referred to as conceptualism or post-structuralism, includes the concepts of constructivism, social constructionism, second-order cybernetics, and other post-modern perspectives. From this perspective the notion of "concept" is largely subjective. All concepts, including things and processes, are, to a greater or lesser degree, products of human consciousness.

This view would seem to be in direct opposition to the views put forth by physical science (itself, largely a modernist notion), which holds that immutable realities exist in the physical world independent of observer biases. Upon closer examination, however, these views are not mutually exclusive. Most conceptualists do not deny the existence of an independent reality of "things," just that any such reality requires the observer's recognition and attribution of meaning (Becvar et al., 1997). As such, any objective reality (i.e., behaviors, attributes, or processes that exist in a relationship) may have any one of a multitude of possible meanings, depending upon the observer's beliefs.

The process of attributing meaning to a phenomenon is a human endeavor. Ultimately, each person is the sole measure of his or her world, as each person conceptualizes a phenomenon to a degree that it becomes "known." As such, human awareness is the final measure, because the human mind is what brings all things into the realm of the humanly knowable.

Counselors are taught to speak the language of the client. Any existing belief, or changing belief that a client may hold about some thing (e.g., relationship, concept, behavior, event) invariably will be filtered through the client's cultural perspective. Therefore, counselors and program facilitators would do well to gain some understanding of the client's conceptual reality.

Theory in the behavioral sciences and education stems from philosophical assumptions. Because the process of relationship enrichment is concerned in large part with how people see themselves, their partners, and the world around them, we will examine some of the underlying philosophical tenets concerning the nature of "reality."

The Modernist Philosophical Tradition

Traditional theories in the mental health field, education, and normative social science are based on the philosophical tenets of modernism. This realist view holds that we can achieve an understanding of an objective world through discovery. In this worldview, the meaning or essence of everything exists independent of any observer. This view supports the notion of an objective knowledge and truth, which the counselor or relationship enrichment program facilitator, as "expert," may share with the client. The enrichment program facilitator would employ various methods to illuminate and guide participants toward a more "desirable" set of behavioral interactions. This perspective presupposes that these "desired" relationship qualities exist, at least to a large extent, independent of the client couple.

Proponents of the concept of relationship enrichment engage in, or draw upon, research to ascertain characteristics of emotionally healthy couples. These research findings serve as the foundation of a behavioral technology (i.e., relationship enrichment programs) employed with the intent of enhancing the quality of relationships. Couples seeking improvement in their relationship come to rely upon "the knowledge of objective experts who supposedly possess the truth about a reality which is out there, and which can be represented accurately and understood via reliable research data" (Becvar & Becvar, 1996, p. 87). As such, the facilitators of relationship enrichment programs "as social engineers intervene to socialize clients into the definition of health defined by the research evidence of the social scientists" (Becvar et al., 1997, p. 25).

Post-Modern Perspectives

In recent decades the tenets and suppositions of the modernist philosophical tradition have come into question, particularly in relation to mental health practice. Differing philosophical perspectives have been employed in developing new approaches to mental health practice. The application of post-modern perspectives to the idea of relationship enrichment is problematic, though, as the entire notion of "enrichment" is, in many respects, a modernist concept.

Recent efforts, however, have infused post-modern ideas into heretofore modernist institutions such as counseling, marriage and family therapy, and group work (Becvar, et al., 1997). To understand these efforts, we will examine some philosophical perspectives associated with a post-modern perspective. Although many of these schools share some common tenets, they have significant differences in terms of degree and emphasis.

Constructivism

Constructivism holds that there are no independent absolute "truths," that each person must "construct" his or her own reality. Constructivism does not deny the existence of an independent reality "out there." It merely holds that humans, as a corporal creature, can recognize and understand the world and all its concepts only within the limits imposed by a physical brain and body. Concrete realities and immutable truths indeed may exist, but these truths and realities have no meaning for a person until meaning is attributed by that person. The constructivist position assumes that reality must conform to the content of individual consciousness.

Nominalist-conceptualism

Closely aligned with constructivism, but somewhat more radical, the nominalist-conceptualist view regards all concepts as "subjective," defined essentially by the observer's beliefs. In this view, all concepts are products of human consciousness, unrelated to the facts of an independent reality. Concepts exist as mere names or notions arbitrarily assigned to arbitrary groupings. The extreme nominalists take the most radical position by rejecting any notion of the existence of an objective reality. This perspective attempts to establish the primacy of consciousness by dispensing with existence (reality) altogether, by denying the status of independent concrete things. Concepts about the world are solely the product of the individual mind, and notions about the world are seen as complex fantasies, constructed out of lesser fantasies.

Social Constructionism

Social Constructionism is similar to constructivism in many ways. The emphasis of social constructionism, however, is on how society, through its institutions, creates an individual's reality. This position holds that, while objective realities may exist, the culture in which a person is embedded defines the meaning of any such reality for that person. Personal beliefs are merely reflections of the beliefs extolled by the culture in which we live. As such, there is no objective truth and, therefore, no inherently right or wrong way of viewing the world. Beliefs and concepts deemed "real," "desirable," or "correct" are defined by the culture in which we live through language, religion, customs, and education. From a social constructionist perspective, each of us is inextricably embedded in, and shaped by. our culture.

Through various social institutions and methods of assimilation, we are taught from birth to view the world in certain ways. People who embrace a worldview that is culturally endorsed are rewarded. Conversely, individuals who deny or reject the culture's beliefs are ostracized or punished. In subtle, and not so subtle, ways the society and culture in which we live compel us to accept certain beliefs as truth and reject other beliefs as false. The diversity of human cultures, however, yield a diversity of worldviews. In applying post-modern concepts to the idea of relationship enrichment, an understanding of the client's cultural beliefs and expectations becomes essential.

CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

The idea of engaging in a systematic process to "enrich" human relationships is largely an American and western European notion. By definition, any effort to enrich a relationship reflects some cultural ideal of "relationship."

Although as humans we may be more alike than different, our differences hold profound implications with regard to our beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of life. Differences in beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of life are reflected in the variety of human cultures that hold markedly different worldviews. Cultural differences account for variations in how people view problems, the process of change, the role of the counselor or facilitator, as well as relationship roles and expectations. When considering human relationships and the idea of relationship enhancement, an understanding of human cultures and cultural differences is warranted.

In the course of their professional work, counselors or program facilitators almost certainly will be called upon to work with individuals and couples who differ racially, ethnically, or culturally from the counselor or facilitator. This reality requires that counselor or facilitator possess knowledge and skills in order to minimize the possible negative effects of cultural differences.

Cultural differences hold profound implications with regard to beliefs, attitudes, and expectations of life. These differences account for variations in how people view life in general, as well as the process of change and overall expectations for relationships. Members of a given cultural group draw from a common pool of beliefs, traits, and identities. Any commonality, however, applies to the cultural group as a whole and not necessarily to any individual, couple, or family within the cultural group. In addition, a common cultural attribute may vary greatly in terms of presence and intensity within a population. A given "common" trait may be strongly present in most members, marginally present in others, and lacking altogether in some members of the group who share the same cultural identity. As such, generalization of any cultural trait or facet of cultural identity can be misleading. These generalizations may be detrimental to the counseling relationship and potentially harmful to the client.

The counseling literature widely recognizes that a fundamental quality of an effective counselor is the ability to empathize with clients regardless of cultural differences (Anderson & Cranston-Gingras, 1991; Sue, 1991). Sabnani, Ponterotto, and Borodovsky (1991) noted the potential problems facing white counselors living in a majority society when working with clients of a racial or ethnic minority group.

For the most part, though, relationship enrichment programs and outcome studies on enrichment program effectiveness have not addressed the issue of cultural differences and the impact those differences may have on expectations and outcome. Even though the need for counselor competency in crosscultural and multicultural awareness has gained wide acceptance among counselor educators and counseling professionals (McRae & Johnson, 1991), the same cannot be said for trainers and facilitators of relationship enrichment programs who, for the most part, continue to view the process of relationship enrichment through a lens devoid of cultural considerations.

The "one size fits all" approach to most relationship enrichment programs presents some obvious problems in terms of diversity of participants. Lacking a practical conceptual frame that transcends cultural limitations, generalized familiarity with people from certain cultural groups lead to a false sense of understanding with regard to clients' needs and expectations. Given this lack of a cultural dimension in most relationship enrichment programs, there would seem to be a need for facilitators of relationship enrichment programs to adopt theoretical models and training methods that incorporate an awareness of cultural considerations.

Though some basic knowledge of a client's culture is appropriate, a relationship enrichment program facilitator cannot acquire an in-depth understanding of all potential clients from all existing cultural groups. In many respects the role of "expert" facilitator, in a cultural sense, is counterproductive. The idea that an outside observer can casually study aspects of a person from another culture and gain a useful and meaningful understanding of that person's needs and expectations is reductionistic, and a potentially flawed approach to counseling and program facilitation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Relationship enrichment programs have grown over the past 50 years and remain popular in contemporary society. These programs generally are not considered an appropriate substitute for counseling or therapy but, rather, are designed to provide participants with new knowledge, skills, and experiences that will enhance an already functional relationship.

Relationship enrichment programs differ in terms of theoretical orientation, techniques, and methodology employed. All, however, utilize a format consisting of educational or experiential activities, or both. Although aspects of relationship enrichment programs are widely used in premarital counseling, most relationship enrichment programs employ a structured, multiple couple, group format.

Outcome research on the effectiveness of relationship enrichment programs is limited, and the studies that have been conducted typically have examined a specific program and a small population. The outcome research on relationship enrichment programs that has been conducted indicates that most programs result in short-term positive effects for participating couples. Research on the long-term effectiveness of relationship enrichment programs, however, is lacking.

Relationship enrichment programs are based on theories and research studies focusing on healthy relationships. As a consequence, the programs hold basic assumptions about ideal or desired relationship qualities. In general, the studies and theories lack consideration of cultural diversity and normal variants that may be present in human relationships.

Relationship enrichment programs may be seen as generally useful, or at least innocuous, in their effects upon couples and individuals. The basic premise upon which these programs are built, however, presumes the existence of an ideal relationship model and ideal relationship behaviors that individuals and couples can attain, or at least approach, through education and systematic training.

The relationship ideals put forth in relationship enrichment programs may be based, at best, on limited research examining healthy relationships. An additional concern is the potential that relationship enrichment programs hold as a form of social engineering or social control. Under the guise of social science, couples are socialized to a narrow range of "desired" behaviors and "ideal" relationship interactions, reflecting the personal biases and relationship preferences of the program authors or facilitators.

At present, no evidence is available to suggest that the potential concerns associated with relationship enrichment programs offset the potential benefits these programs offer. Any concerns are further minimized when relationship enrichment programs are designed and conducted by mental health professionals who are sensitive to the primacy of client needs over adherence to a theoretical model or a philosophical position. As relationship enrichment programs continue to proliferate, additional empirical research and theoretical study are needed to assess outcome effectiveness, as well as ethical and philosophical considerations relating to the widespread utilization of relationship enrichment programs.

1Although a distinction can be made, in this chapter the term "healthy" is used as a synonym for the terms "normal" and "functional." Likewise, the term "unhealthy" is used synonymously for "abnormal" and "dysfunctional."

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. J., & Cranston-Gingras, A. (1991). Sensitizing counselors and educators to multicultural issues: An interactive approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 91-98,

Bader. E., & Remmel, A. ( 1987). Learning to live together leader's guide. Toronto: University of Toronto, Family, and Community Medicine.

Beavers, R. W ( 1985). Successful marriage: A family systems approach to couple therapy. Boston: Norton & Co.

Beavers, W. & Hampson, R. (1990). Successful families: Assessment and intervention. New York: Norton.

Becvar, R., & Becvar, D. (1996). Family therapy: A systemic integration (3d ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Becvar, R. J., Canfield, B. S., & Becvar, D. S. (1997). Group work: Cybernetic, constructivist, and social constructionist perspectives. Denver: Love Publishing.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.

Cole, C. L. & Cole, A. L. (1993). Family therapy theory implications for marriage and family enrichment. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, and S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods, A contextual approach. New York: Plenum Press.

Cook, W. L. (1994). A structural equation model of dyadic relationships within the family system. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 500509.

Dinkmeyer, D., & Carlson, J. (1984). Training in marriage enrichment: A leader's guide. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Donley, M. G. (1993). Attachment and the emotional unit. Family Process, 32, 3-20.

Dyer, P., & Dyer, G. (1990). Growing Together Minneapolis: Prepare/ Enrich.

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

Hahlweg, K., & Markman, H. (1988). Effectiveness of behavioral marital therapy: Empirical status of behavioral techniques in preventing and alleviating marital distress. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 56, 440g47.

Hawley, D. & Olson, D. (1995). Enriching newlyweds: An evaluation of three enrichment programs. American Journal of Family Therapy. 23(2), 129-147.

Hickmon, W. A., Jr., Protinsky, H. O., and Singh. K. (1997). Increasing marital intimacy: Lessons from marital enrichment. Contemporary Family Therapy, 19(4).

Kenny, D. A. ( 1988). The analysis of data from two-person relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 57-77). New York: Wiley.

Lewis, J., Beavers, R., Gossett, W., & Phillips, V. (1976). No single thread: Psychological health in family systems. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Mace, D. R., & Mace, V. C. (1975). "Marriage enrichment-Wave of the future?" Family Coordinator, 24, 131-135.

Mattson, D. L., Christensen O. J., and England, J. T ( 1990) The effectiveness of a specific marital enrichment program: Time. Individual Psvchology, 46(1).

McRae, M. B., & Johnson, S. D. (1991). Toward training for competence in multicultural counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 131-135.

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

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Olson, D., Russell C., & Sprenkle, D. (1988). Circumplex model: Systemic

assessment and treatment of families. New York: Haworth Press. Sabnani, H. B., Ponterotto, J. G., & Borodovsky, L. G. ( 1991). White racial identity development and cross-cultural counselor training. Counseling Psychologist,19(1), 76-102.

Sue, D. W. ( 1991). A model for cultural diversity training. Journal of Couiseling & Development, 70, 99-105.

Trost, J. (1996). Family structure and relationships: The dyadic approach. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27(2). 395-409.

Worthington, E. L., McCullough, M. E., Shortz, J. L., Mindes, E. J., Sandage, S. J. D., & Chartrand, J. M. (1995). Can couples assessment and feedback improve relationships? Assessment as a brief relationship enrichment procedure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(4), 466-475.

Copyright Love Publishing Company Feb 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved