Understanding Relationship-Quality

Understanding Authors
Jenny Reynolds
Dr Catherine Houlston
Relationship Quality Dr Lester Coleman
Understanding Relationship Quality
Authors:
Jenny Reynolds
Dr Catherine Houlston
Dr Lester Coleman
About OnePlusOne
OnePlusOne is a UK charity that strengthens relationships by creating resources
that help families and frontline workers tackle relationship issues early.
We help couples and parents through a range of web-services, while our online
learning equips front line workers with the skills to offer timely and effective face
to face support to families.
Everything we do is based on the latest research evidence. Our research builds

the knowledge base on relationships and, by sharing what we know, we
influence policy and the creation of services that work.
Acknowledgements
This compilation of evidence on Relationship Quality would not have been possible without the assistance
from a number of people. We would like to thank former OnePlusOne colleagues Justine Devenney,
Dr Gareth Lloyd, and Dr Rebecca Lacey (UCL) on the retrieval of data from a number of cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies that underpin the report. We are also most grateful to Hannah Green and Dr Mariya
Stoilova (both OnePlusOne) on ensuring the data and literature carefully reflect the very latest evidence and
for reviewing the final drafts prior to publication.
OnePlusOne Understanding Relationship Quality © 2014

Understanding Relationship Quality 3
Contents
Introduction 4
What is relationship quality and why does it matter? 6
How do we measure relationship quality? 8
Trends in relationship quality 13
What affects relationship quality? 18
What measures could improve couple relationship quality? 24
Summary 31
References 32
4 Understanding Relationship Quality
Introduction
Although relationship quality is not part of our daily vocabulary and we may
not even be familiar with the term, relationship quality is the substance of our
everyday lives. Relationship quality is about good relationships, how well
partners get on, and how happy they are in their relationship. It tells the story
of what is going on in these different families. Why is that relevant? Good
relationships matter for the health and well-being of partners and, if present,
for that of their children. Relationship quality is therefore a useful indicator of a
population’s well-being. It is also the aim of initiatives to support families, such
as the UK coalition government’s £30 million investment in relationship
support. It could and should be an aim of broader interventions to support
families, such as those struggling with unemployment, parenting difficulties,
caring for a partner with poor health, or looking after a child with additional
needs. This support is important because difficult circumstances put
substantial pressure on couple relationships. Finally, examining relationship
quality is like looking under the bonnet of a car. It provides crucial insights into
the mechanics of couple relationships and why some keep going while others
grind to a halt.
This publication offers a timely review of the research evidence concerning

relationship quality. There seems to be a growing awareness of the
importance of good quality relationships and the impact troubled
relationships can have on personal, social, and economic wellbeing of
individuals. The scope of this review is deliberately broad. It is intended for
front-line family workers, as well as policy makers and
commissioners. Students, researchers, and those
interested in families and relationships are also likely
to find this a useful starting place for understanding
more about relationship quality.
HAPPY
Headline Data
Relationship quality is Good quality

generally used to refer Approximately Couples in poor quality relationships are
to how happy or satisfied 20% to 25% relationships are at risk of associated with
a person is in his or her of the population are a range of negative positive
relationship and how well outcomes for
estimated to be in outcomes, such as
partners get on together. individuals, children
relationships of poor depression and ill-health,
relationship quality. as are their children. and families.
Measures of relationship quality can be used for a range In general, relationship quality declines over
of purposes, such as, to identify couples that may benefit the course of a relationship, however the extent and
from support, to provide practitioners and couples with speed of the decline varies. Some couples manage
insight into the relationship as part of a relationship to sustain high levels of relationship quality while
enhancement programme, or to assess the others start with low levels of relationship quality that
outcome of couple or family interventions. continue to decline quite rapidly until the
relationship falters.
A number of factors combine to increase the likelihood that The stressful life events that are likely
couples will experience lower levels of relationship to undermine relationship quality include:
quality, these include: the personalities and experiences the transition to parenthood, work stress,
each partner brings to the relationship, the stressful life events economic stress, partner ill-health, and
they encounter, and how they communicate and cope, caring for a child with additional needs.
particularly during difficult times.
According to different
Relationship support One of the main barriers to Other barriers to sources, between 30%
may help improve couple
making use of support such utilising support include to 40% of people have
relationship quality. Although a deep felt belief that
as counselling is stigma. approached their GP
participants in surveys are
43% of respondents in the relationships are a about relationship
fairly positive about private matter and
British Social Attitudes Survey difficulties, making GPs
relationship support, that if things go wrong
would not want anyone to the most frequently
few make use of it in practice. there is little to be done
know if they had seen a turned to source of
counsellor or therapist. about it. professional help.
What is relationship quality

and why does it matter?
What is relationship quality parents have better relationship quality (Garriga &
Kiernan, 2013). The research demonstrates that
In general, relationship quality, often termed
the effect of couple relationship quality on child
marital quality in the research literature1, refers to
behavioural outcomes is the same for children
how happy or satisfied an individual is in his or
irrespective of mother’s education, her ethnicity
her relationship. It is a frequently studied aspect of
and whether married or not, mother’s experience
relationships, however there is little consensus
of parental divorce and child’s gender. Children
around the definition of relationship quality or the
from households with low income are affected
theory underpinning it ( Johnson, 1995; Fincham
more by distressed parental relationships than
& Beach, 2010). Probably because of this lack of
children who are financially better off. However,
consensus, “relationship quality” is often used
good RQ is a protective factor for children in a
interchangeably with terms such as “relationship
context of family poverty. This impact of
happiness”, “relationship satisfaction”, and
relationship quality exists irrespective of the
“relationship adjustment”, although these
nature of the parent-child relationship. However,
concepts are not synonymous.
the research shows that a high quality parental
There are two main approaches to understanding relationship may be a protective factor for
relationship quality: children’s well-being even when there is high-level
The Interpersonal or Relationship conflict in the parent-child relationship.
approach
Healthy relationships, healthy partners
This approach focuses on patterns of interaction
between a couple and looks at areas such as how Where relationships break down, adults and
couples communicate, their conflict behaviours, children are more likely to do poorly on a range
and how they spend time with one another. of indicators of health and well-being. There are
also wider implications for society, including the
The Intrapersonal approach economic and social costs of relationship
Another perspective is that relationship quality is breakdown (Coleman & Glenn, 2009).
not about the behaviours and interactions in the The significant link between relationship
relationship but only refers to how partners rate breakdown and poorer prospects has, therefore,
their happiness or satisfaction with the been an important feature of couple research over
relationship. This involves a subjective evaluation the last forty years and has shaped much of the
of a couple’s relationship (Fincham & Rogge, 2010). public discourse about families. The main feature
of this discourse has been the notion that
marriage per se bestows health and wellbeing
Why does relationship quality benefits on spouses - a kind of marriage premium
matter? - that is lost with marriage breakdown (Waite &
Although relationship quality may seem to be a Gallagher, 2000).
theoretical concept removed from the reality of
However, more recent research has highlighted
families’ daily lives, relationship quality is
the importance of the good quality relationship
important. The consequences of poor
between partners, irrespective of marital status,
relationship quality are significant for partners,
for the health, life satisfaction, and wellbeing of
children, and wider society.
partners (Proulx et al., 2007; Coleman & Glenn,
Recent evidence shows that children whose 2009; Robles et al., 2013) and their children
parents have poorer relationship quality have (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Barrett et al., 2011;
more externalising behaviour problems (such as Reynolds et al, forthcoming). In other words, it is
hyperactivity-inattention) than children whose not being in a relationship per se that confers
1. Relationship quality refers to people in a wide range of relationships, including those cohabiting and closely involved. However, as marriage is a legal union
between couples, married couples are easier to identify and therefore tend to feature more in studies examining the quality of relationships.
health and well-being advantages, but it is the adjustment is consistent across different
quality of the relationship that matters. economic, racial, ethnic, and family structures
In some cases, as Holt-Lunstad and colleagues (Moore, Kinghorn & Bandy, 2011).
(2008) conclude from their study on blood
pressure and relationship quality, ‘‘one is better off
single than unhappily married’’ (p. 5). Changing family norms
Indeed, troubled partners often make troubled Relationship quality is also an important concept
parents (Reynolds & OnePusOne, 2008; in a society where the formation and dissolution
Cummings & Davies, 2010; Reynolds et al., of relationships has become more complex and
forthcoming). Parents in a happy relationship diverse. For example, rates of cohabitation have
interact more positively with their children and increased along with re-partnering and step
provide sensitive, warm, and accepting parenting. families, couples “living apart together” and
In contrast, a poorer couple relationship is linked greater visibility of gay and lesbian partnerships
to permissive parenting and more negative (Lloyd & Lacey, 2012). In previous decades the
parent-child relationships (Carlson & McLanahan, relationship status framework- “married”, “single”,
2005). Conflict between parents can have “divorced” or “widowed” - provided the basis for
particularly negative consequences for children. assessing social entitlements, shaping policy, and
Children exposed to badly managed conflict are at debating the state of the family. We need only to
risk of poorer physical and mental health; of reflect on the abolition of the married couples tax
failing to reach their potential at school; of allowance, changes in the calculation of benefit
experiencing sleeping difficulties; and of having entitlements, or the extension of the legal rights
trouble getting on with others including peers that were the purview of marriage alone to civil
(Coleman & Glenn, 2009; Barrett et al., 2011; partnerships, to recognise the decreasing
Reynolds et al., forthcoming). relevance of these family labels. Relationship
quality, rather than relationship status, is a much
Whilst poor relationship quality is associated with more helpful indicator of individual and social
negative outcomes, good quality relationships are well-being, as well as a more sophisticated tool
linked to well-being and positive outcomes for for allocating support to families where it is most
individuals, their children and families (Vaillant, needed. Indeed, recent debates about the future
2012). Research shows that parents in higher of public services and the role of the state have
quality relationships have better adjusted suggested that “broadening and deepening
children, who themselves are more likely to have relationships should be seen as an outcome to
good quality relationships in the future (Amato & which the state should aspire” (Cooke & Muir, 2012,
Booth, 2001; Cunningham & Thorton, 2006). The p.10), with the state aiming to facilitate the well-
association between relationship quality and child being of people in a broader range of relationships.
Relationship quality and depression: chicken or egg?

There is a strong association between relationship quality and depression (Proulx et
al., 2007), but is poor relationship quality a cause or consequence of depression?
Although evidence supports both pathways, there is stronger support for the theory
that a poor quality relationship triggers or exacerbates depression (e.g. see Proulx et
al., 2007). For example, longitudinal studies have found that marital dissatisfaction
predicts increases in depressive symptoms over time (Mead, 2002); co-varies with
changes in depressive symptoms (Kurdek, 1998; Karney, 2001); and increases the
likelihood of a major depressive episode within a year (Beach, 2001). Researchers
have also identified neural sites that may explain how relationship quality and
psychological and physical well-being are linked (Acevedo et al., 2012).
How do we measure
relationship quality?
Why is measuring relationship Relationship quality measures can also be used as
quality useful? part of a portfolio of evaluation tools to assess the
impact of broader family support interventions.
Measures of relationship quality have been As the later section shows, relationships can come
developed, primarily by researchers and under pressure in a range of circumstances and
relationship therapists, to help identify distressed the effectiveness of interventions to ease the strain
couples in need of relationship support and to may be assessed by measuring relationship
inform understandings of how relationships work quality.
( Johnson, 1995). However, the measure of
relationship quality can have a much wider Relationship quality measurement may also
application. contribute to assessing the suitability of families
for fostering and adoption. Given the strong link
Simple measures can be used in surveys to between relationship quality and parenting
provide a snapshot of a population’s well-being practices, couples that are able to nurture their
and to monitor change over time, if a series of own relationships are in a strong position to
surveys are used (such as the National Child create a beneficial home environment for
Development Study, the British Household Panel children.
Survey, and the Millennium Cohort Study).
Couples embarking on a relationship and those
Some measures are also useful screening tools who work with them may also make use of
that can be used to identify couples at risk of or in relationship quality measurements. For example,
the early stages of relationship difficulties. For marriage preparation courses and relationship
example, one study found that specially trained enrichment programmes often include a
health visitors were able to administer a short questionnaire that helps partners to understand
relationship screening tool to parents in the their relationship better, assess their compatibility,
postnatal period in order to offer support to and highlight issues that they may wish to address.
parents or signpost them to additional expert Again, measuring relationship quality can be used
help (Simons et al., 2001). Following completion to assess the outcome of such efforts.
of the screening tool, one in five mothers seen by
the health visitors during their six week postnatal
check was identified as experiencing relationship
difficulties and most of these women were able to Measuring relationship quality
received help from the health visitor (Simons et A variety of measures have been developed for
al., 2003). use across different contexts, ranging from simple
statements asking a respondent to rate how
happy they are in a relationship, through to more
complex and detailed instruments comprising a
number of factors. Some measurements of
relationship quality have been developed for use
with particular population groups, including step-
families, military families, or various ethnic groups
(see Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2004 for a review).
While it is not possible to cover all of them, we
focus on some of the most commonly used scales
below.
Single statement responses rating

happiness or satisfaction
One type of relationship quality measurement
used often in surveys asks participants to respond
to a singular statement about their relationship.
This is the case in the National Child Development
Study – a longitudinal cohort study that follows all
those born on a given day in 1958 over their lifetimes.
40% Chart 1
Reported relationship
35% happiness of those
aged 50 yrs, 2008,
30% England, Wales &
Scotland
Proportion
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Men
0% Women
Very unhappy 2 3 4 5 6 Very happy
How happy is your relationship with your partner?
Source: National Child Development Study - 2008, age 50 yr sweep
Data on the participants is collected at regular

intervals throughout childhood and adulthood, Relationship quality: more than
referred to as sweeps. In 2008 participants in the a moment in time?
study were asked “How happy is your relationship
Relationship quality is often measured at
with your partner, all things considered?” with
answers rated on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being very one point in time, for example, as part of
unhappy and 7 being very happy. Their responses a survey, which offers a snapshot of the
are recorded in Chart 1. current state. However, relationship
quality resembles a trajectory – a line
mapped from the beginning of the
Although these, singular statement measurements
relationship over its life course (Fincham
have been criticised by some, other studies have
shown them to be quite robust and reliable in & Beach, 2006). To understand better
producing consistent measurements across relationship quality we need to refer to
different settings ( Johnson, 1995). the quality of the relationship at the
beginning, as well as the way it
progresses. Longitudinal studies
following couples over time provide this
kind of insights into relationship quality.
Measuring relationship quality usually consists of

Issues of agreement and a series of questions that form scales or sub-
disagreement in the Locke- scales with the scores of the scales totalled to
arrive at an overall score of relationship quality.
Wallace Marital Adjustment Test
Scales are often protected by copyright and some
can be used only by permission, with
acknowledgement of authorship or for a fee.
“State the approximate extent of Below are some examples of measures of
agreement or disagreement relationship quality.
between you and your mate on
The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test
the following items.”
(MAT)
The Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test
The six response options range from (generally referred to as the MAT) was developed
always agree to always disagree: in 1959 to provide a simple assessment of marital
fit – how well a husband and wife
Handling family finances “accommodated” one another – in order to assess
Matters of recreation whether a marriage is likely to succeed or fail. The
Demonstration of affection MAT comprises a series of multiple-choice
questions, such as: If you had your life to live over
Friends
again, do you think you would: (a) Marry the same
Sex relations person, (b) Marry a different person, (c) Not marry
Conventionality (right, good or at all. It also asks respondents to rate the extent
proper conduct) to which they agree or disagree with their partner
on eight issues (see box top left) alongside a
Philosophy of life
single question about their own marital happiness
Ways of dealing with in-laws. on a scale line. The MAT is one of the earliest
relationship quality measures and therefore
provides data on marital quality over a 50-year
period. The measure is still used occasionally,
although questions have been raised about
whether some of the language and concepts
remain relevant today (Freeston & Plechaty,
1997).
Relationship quality
is generally used to The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS)
refer to how happy The DAS (Spanier & Lewis, 1980) was developed
for clinical and counselling uses. The scale
or satisfied a person consists of 32 questions. Respondents are asked
to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree
is in his or her with their partner across 15 issues, including
relationship and those listed in the MAT. The larger number of
items included in the scale makes it sensitive to
how well partners changes in relationship quality over time,
get on together. although more time-consuming to administer.
The DAS may, therefore, be useful in a research
setting, to examine for example whether the Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS; Rust &
quality of a couple’s relationship has altered over Golombok, 1986). The Inventory focuses on two
time, or in a counselling setting, to evaluate the domains. One domain asks about shared interests,
impact of the support provided. communication, sex, warmth, roles and decision
A short form of the DAS has also been developed making, and coping. The other domain focuses on
(- the DAS-7, sometimes referred to as the ADAS: beliefs about and attitudes towards relationships
the Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale, as well as behaviour in the relationship and how
Hunsley et al., 2001). This is a 7-item version of much partners agree. There is a longer version of
the scale comprising a subset of items from the the GRIMS with 28 items, and a shorter 10-item
original DAS. Items focus on “levels of agreement version (the GRIMS-S), with the shorter
and disagreement” in the relationship. The DAS-7 version using a selection of items from the longer
correlates well with the full DAS (Sharpley & Cross, version. Some items from the GRIMS were
1982; Sharpley & Rogers, 1984). It is able to included in the Millennium Cohort Study,
distinguish between “distressed’ and “non- providing a useful snapshot of contemporary
distressed” relationships (Sharpley & Rodgers, 1984) relationships (see Chart 3). The authors have
and changes in relationships as a result of suggested that the longer version of the GRIMS
interventions (Ireland et al., 2003; Zubrick et al., 2005). can be used to measure relationship change over
time and also as a screening measure to highlight
relationship difficulties. The short version is more
The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) appropriate to screening only.
The QMI was developed by Norton in 1983 in
response to the much longer DAS. The QMI is a 6- Relationship Dynamics Scale (RDS)
item scale. Respondents answer the first five The RDS (Stanley & Markman, 1997) was
items on a 7- point scale ranging from -1 (strongly developed as a diagnostic tool for use in the
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The 6th item on “Prevention and Relationship Enhancement
happiness is answered on a 10-point scale ranging Programme” (PREP), a marriage preparation
from 1 (extremely low) to 10 (extremely high). The course, but it has also been used in a number of
wording of this item is similar to that used in the research studies. The scale invites respondents to
MAT, asking the respondent to describe the degree rate, on a three-point scale, how often they
of happiness in [your] marriage. Norton (1983) encounter the eight issues listed in the scale,
argued that relationship quality was best including:
represented by a single variable, and that splitting
the concept into a number of constituent parts My partner criticizes or belittles my opinions,
was not useful. Accordingly, this scale uses a small feelings, or desires
number of questions to generate a single score My partner seems to view my words or actions
estimating relationship quality, which makes the more negatively than I mean them to be
test easy to administer, though more suited to
When we have a problem to solve, it is like we
examining relationship quality at a single time-
are on opposite teams
point than detecting changes over time.
I feel lonely in this relationship
Golombok-Rust Inventory of Marital State
(GRIMS) Unlike some scales, the RDS’ focus is on negative
The GRIMS (Rust et al., 1986) was developed to aspects of the relationship, including conflict and
help couple counselling centres measure change communication difficulties. Relationships are
before and after treatment and was originally classified into, “green, amber or red”, depending on
created as a partner to the Golombok-Rust respondents’ scores. Amber warrants a concern
with the state of the relationship, while red There is an 8 item (4 negative & 4 positive
indicates the presence of patterns that imply a adjectives) and a 16 item (8 negative & 8 positive
relationship at significant risk. The RDS formed the adjectives) version, with responses on a scale from
basis of a screening tool in a successful trial 1 ‘not at all’ to 7 ‘extremely’.
utilising specially trained health visitors to screen
Studies using the CSI found it to be more sensitive
parents in the postnatal period for relationship
than the full DAS or MAT. It provided a more
difficulties (Simons et al., 2001).
meaningful outcome measure following couple
The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) counselling, was more sensitive to differences
The CSI (Funk & Rogge, 2007) pioneered the use between couples, and was more sensitive to
of an advanced statistical development technique change in couples’ relationship quality over time
(Item Response Theory). Questions from several (Funk & Rogge, 2007; Fincham & Rogge, 2010).
older questionnaires were tested together and
analysed to establish which were the most useful Limitations to relationship quality
and valid. The final items include both positive measures
and negative relationship statements e.g. “Do you As identified earlier, there are benefits to
enjoy your partner’s company?”; “I sometimes measuring relationship quality ranging from
wonder if there is someone else out there for me”; diagnosis, screening, and assessment of change.
“My relationship with my partner makes me However, it is also important to be aware of the
happy”. Studies using the CSI found it to be more limitations of existing measures. Although there is
sensitive than the full DAS or MAT to differences some degree of agreement between different
between couples, and to changes in couples measures, there is considerable variation in the
relationship quality over time (Funk & Rogge, factors and components of relationships which
2007; Fincham & Rogge, 2010). The CSI can be are explored across these measures. This is largely
used as a 32, 16 or 4-item scale. due to variations in how relationship quality is
The Positive and Negative Relationship conceptualised and defined.
Questionnaire (PNRQ) Generally, the measures available tend to rely on
The PNRQ (Fincham & Rogge, 2010) takes a self-report, which may be affected by issues such
different approach to measuring relationship as distortion or limits to respondents’ self-
quality from many other scales. The PNRQ awareness. Some researchers have called for the
attempts to assess satisfaction and dissatisfaction development of more implicit and objective
in the relationship separately - rather than measures of relationship quality (Fincham &
assuming that satisfaction and dissatisfaction lie at Rogge, 2010). Self-report, however, does present a
either end of a continuum. The scale tries to cost-effective and quicker means of assessment
capture how respondents feel about the compared to more implicit measures, such as
relationship by inviting them to respond to a observation or computer-based tasks.
series of contrasting adjectives e.g. “interesting …
boring”; “full … empty”. Most of the commonly used measures of
relationship quality have been shown to have
predictive power and adequate psychometric
properties. However, there is a limit to the
information available about the use of these
measures for various subgroups. Many of the
measures were designed and tested using
heterosexual married couples and may not
necessarily be suitable for diverse populations of
cohabiting, living apart together or same-sex
couples. Similarly, the extent to which they are
useful accross different ethnic is less documented
(Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2004).
Trends in relationship quality

How happy are our Chart 2 provides a snapshot of relationship
relationships? happiness of participants in the National Child
Development Study (NCDS) born in 1952 and
Although the divorce rate gives some indication of aged 42 at the time of the survey, as well as
the state of the nation’s relationships, as the participants from the British Cohort Study (BCS)
talking point demonstrates, it provides a partial born in 1970 and aged 30 at the time of the
picture of relationship quality. For example, some survey. The chart shows similar percentages of
partners remain together despite being unhappy respondents across both cohort studies who are
in a relationship. National surveys, such as the either “happy” or “very happy” in their
cohort studies that follow a sample of people relationship and those who rate themselves as
from birth through their life-time and other one- either “very unhappy” or “moderately unhappy”.
off surveys, provide greater insight into levels of
relationship quality in the UK.
45% Chart 2
40%
happiness - comparing
35% those aged 42 yrs and
those aged 30 yrs in
30% 2000, England, Wales
& Scotland
Proportion
25%
L
20%
15%
10%
5% NCDS
BCS70
0%
Very unhappy 2 3 Neither happy/unhappy 5 6 Very happy
Source: National Child Development Study - 2000, age 42 yr sweep; British Cohort Study - 2000, age 30 yr sweep
How are relationship quality and stability linked?

Does poor relationship quality automatically signify the end of a relationship? There is
certainly a link (correlation) between relationship quality and whether the relationship lasts
(sometimes referred to as “relationship stability”). In their study following newly-weds over the
first ten years of marriage, Lavner & Bradbury (2010) found a close correspondence
between levels of marital satisfaction and divorce rates. For example, after four years of
marriage 54% of those who started with the lowest levels of marital quality experienced the
steepest decline in marital quality and had divorced. At the other end of the spectrum, only
4% of those who started with high levels of marital satisfaction, which remained stable over
the four-year period, had divorced. Similar patterns were apparent ten years later.
But that is not the end of the story. A significant proportion of couples that were unhappy
after four years together, remained married six years later. So what keeps couples together?
A range of factors may be important, including a belief that it is the best thing for the
children, a belief in the unbreakable ties of marriage, lack of economic independence, fear
of partner violence and a sense that, although things are bad, they may be even worse off if
they leave the relationship (Lauer & Lauer, 1986; Preveti &Amato, 2003).
We can see similar proportions when looking at For example, one study utilised six waves of data
the responses to some items from the GRIMS, from the Study of Marital Instability over the Life
posed to participants in the Millennium Cohort Course collected from 1980 to 2000. This involved
Study, another longitudinal cohort study this time a random sample of adults under 55, married for
with participants recruited at birth in 2000. varied lengths of time at the start of the study
Chart 3 shows that 21% of respondents wished (see Booth et al., 2003). Kamp Dush and
there was more warmth and affection between colleagues (2008) found just under 40% of
themselves and their partner; 17% disagreed with participants were in relationships of high
the statement describing the relationship as full of relationship quality and just over 40% in
joy and excitement; and 16% sometimes feel relationships of “middling” quality. For both these
lonely in the relationship even though they are groups their levels of relationship happiness
with their partner. generally remained the same over the twenty
years of the study. Of course, this may mean that
Studies conducted in the USA with smaller
those who became unhappy in their relationships
samples, involving more comprehensive measures
dropped out of the study.
of relationship quality, have also reported 20% of
respondents in discordant relationships (Beach et
al., 2005; Kamp Dush et al., 2008).
100%
Chart 3
Responses to
90%
elements of the
80% GRIMS amongst
Millennium Cohort
70% Study participants
(MCS, second sweep,
Proportion
60% 2001/2002)
50%
40%
30% Strongly agree

Agree
20%
Neither agree or disagree
10% Disagree
Stongly disagree
0%
My partner is usually My partner doesn't I sometimes feel Our relationship is I wish there was I suspect we may be
sensitive to and seem to listen to me lonely even though I full of joy more warmth and on the brink
aware of my needs am with my partner and excitement affection between us of separation
Source: Millennium Cohort Study (2001/2002)

Has relationship happiness in whether their marriage is “very happy, pretty

the population changed over happy, or not too happy” either every year or
every other year between 1973 and 2010.
recent decades?
The findings, depicted in Chart 4, record a
What has been the impact on relationship quality
modest drop in marital happiness levels from their
of the major changes in society and in family
peak in the early 1970s at 67%-69% to below 60%
norms described in previous chapters over the last
in the early 1980s. They have remained fairly
fifty years? Although these data are not available
steady since then. The per cent of respondents
in the UK, we can get some idea of national trends
describing their relationship as “not too happy”
in relationship quality in the USA. The US General
fluctuates between 2% to 4% (Rogers & Amato,
Social Survey has asked respondents to say
1997; Smith, 2011).
80% Chart 4
Trends in marital happiness
70% between 1973 and 2010 in
the USA
60%
% rating their marriage
50%
40%
30%
20%
Very happy
10%
Pretty happy
Not too happy
0%
73 74 75 76 77 78 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20
Source: General Social Survey, USA
Why have levels of marital satisfaction remained similar over the years?
We might have expected to see marital happiness rates rise over recent decades. One
reason is that, as divorce has become readily available and more acceptable, unhappily
married individuals have been able to opt out of marriage. Similarly, the increase in the
number of people cohabitating could mean that only those who are very sure of their
relationship will opt into marriage. That would leave only the “most happy” in marriage.
Using different data sets from two national US surveys, one in 1980 and one in 2000, Amato
and colleagues (2003) attempted to explore changes in marital quality over time.
They concluded that marital quality is subject to counteracting forces. Some social changes,
such as wives’ job demands, and premarital cohabitation are associated with declining
marital quality. On the other hand, factors around equality, such as more equal decision-
making and non-traditional attitudes towards gender, have enhanced relationship quality,
with the exception of the redistribution of housework. Increases in husbands’ share of
housework appeared to depress husbands’ relationship quality but improve it for wives.
The course of relationship The NCDS findings point to a possible decline in

quality relationship quality over the course of a
relationship. This is borne out by other studies,
These studies of national trends are interesting some of which have also used longitudinal data,
social indicators, painting a picture of “average” which suggest that relationship quality does
levels of relationship quality at any one time. indeed decline over time (Van Laningham et al.,
However, they do not tell us about how 2001), that is to say that partners experience a
relationship quality develops over time for drop in relationship happiness as a relationship
different couples. Chart 5 indicates that a higher progresses. Some studies suggest that the decline
proportion of respondents in the NCDS who have is a gradual process (Karney & Bradbury, 1995)
been in a relationship for 21 years or more rated while others suggest that the decline is rapid after
their relationships as very unhappy compared the first ten years (Kurdek, 1999).
with those who have been in a relationship for
five years or fewer. Researchers originally thought that this decline in
relationship quality followed a U-shaped curve,
Nearly half of those who were in relationships of declining following the birth of the first child and
under five years length were “very happy” (49%) picking up again once children left home (Glenn,
compared with 41% at 21-30 years. In fact, the 1990; see Umberson et al., 2005 for discussion;
proportion of respondents who rated themselves Keizer and Schenk, 2012). However, most recent
as very happy and were in a relationship of findings, using longitudinal studies suggest that,
between six and 20 years duration was even although relationship quality does indeed decline,
smaller than those in relationships of 21 years it does not “bounce back” in later years (Van
and over. Laningham et al., 2001; Kamp Dush et al., 2008).
Where there is a recovery, it is only amongst
couples who started out with poor relationship
quality (Umberson et al., 2005).
100%
Chart 5
90%
happiness by duration of
80% relationship of those aged
42 yrs, 2000, England,
70% Wales & Scotland
Proportion
60%
50%
40% Very happy

6
30% 5
Neither happy/unhappy
20%
3
10% 2
Very unhappy
0%
up to 5 years 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs 21-30 yrs
Duration of relationship
Source: National Child Development Study - 2000, age 42 yr sweep
Variations in relationship their marriages than men (Van Laningham et al.,

quality 2001; Umberson et al., 2005; Amato et al., 2007).
However, recent studies have challenged this
assumption finding that just under half of newly-
Patterns of change in relationship quality
wed husbands and wives shared the same level of
In the same way that relationship quality may marital quality over the first four years of the
change over time, researchers have also identified relationship (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010).
different trajectories of relationship quality for
different groups of participants, with some
participants starting with much higher levels of Relationship quality and marital status
relationship satisfaction than others (Umberson et
Most studies find cohabiting relationships are
al., 2005; Lavner & Bradbury, 2010; Birditt et al.,
associated with poorer relationship quality
2012). These studies found that couples
compared with married ones (see Jose et al., 2010
characterised by relatively high levels of
for a review). This is not true, however, for older
satisfaction in the first few years of their
cohabiting couples. Older couples show little
relationship see a very modest or no decline in
difference in relationship quality whether they are
relationship quality over the years. Couples,
married or cohabiting. This probably reflects
however, who start with low levels of relationship
differences in attitudes towards, and beliefs about,
quality experience steeper and more rapid
cohabitation. Younger adults may see
declines in satisfaction. In all these studies low
cohabitation as a weaker tie than marriage, and
levels of relationship quality and its on-going
have lower levels of commitment or see it as a
decline predicted which couples would go on to
stage in courtship leading to marriage. Older
divorce.
cohabiting adults are more likely to see their
relationship as a long-term alternative to marriage
Relationship quality and age (Brown & Kawamura, 2010).
As well as varying with the length of the

relationship, there is a modest continuous decline Relationship quality and religious status
in relationship quality linked to aging (Umberson
Religious involvement is associated with a positive
et al., 2005). Although they are related, age and
impact on relationship quality (Wolfinger &
relationship length may reflect different processes
Wilcox, 2008), particularly among lower income
and therefore mean different things for
couples (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009). This is likely to
relationship quality. For example, as individuals
be because religion has both an indirect and
mature they may be better at handling their
direct impact on relationship quality. Religion
emotional responses and so be less likely to argue.
influences relationship quality directly by
On the other hand, partners who have been
encouraging values, beliefs, and behaviours that
together longer may find themselves sharing
are helpful to marriage such as commitment,
fewer interests and struggling to feel connected
fidelity, and forgiveness (Christiano, 2000; Wilcox,
(Umberson et al., 2005).
2004; Lambert et al., 2012; Lambert et al., 2012).
Religion also has an indirect effect on marriage:
His and her relationship quality? religious beliefs and practice tend to promote
psychological well-being, conformity to social
Are men or women more likely to experience norms, and social support among partners, all of
poorer relationship quality? Previous research has which are linked to better marriages (Gottman
found that women are generally less satisfied in 1998; Amato & Booth, 1997).
What affects relationship quality?

As we have shown so far, around 20% of people The arrows connecting the different domains in
are likely to be in unhappy relationships at any Figure 1 illustrate how these factors impact on
one time (Kamp Dush et al., 2008). A key question relationship quality, and, over time on the
therefore is what affects relationship quality? Why outcome of the relationship. Partners’ enduring
are some relationships happier than others? vulnerabilities influence how they relate to one
another and how they cope with the life events
Vulnerability-Stress they encounter. Couples with relatively poor
Adaptation Model coping and communication skills might remain
happy in the relationship if they do not have to
Researchers have drawn on a range of data from cope with many stressful events. On the other
many different samples of couples to attempt to hand, couples that have to cope with a series of
identify what factors influence relationship quality. stressful life events can run into difficulties when
One influential and very comprehensive model, stress affects how partners manage their
known as the vulnerability-stress-adaptation differences and interpret one another’s behaviour
model, was developed on the basis of findings of (Neff & Karney, 2004). The figure also
115 longitudinal studies – equivalent to over demonstrates how relationship quality both
45,000 marriages (Karney & Bradbury, 1995; influences, and is influenced by, couple’s adaptive
Bradbury & Karney, 2004). As Figure 1 shows, processes.
marital quality and stability depend on three
interrelated factors: the personal traits and More recent research has found that couples
experiences that partners bring to a relationship vulnerable or “at risk” in one area, such as
(their Enduring Vulnerabilities); the life events they adaptive processes, are also more likely to be
encounter on the way (Stressful Events); and how vulnerable in another. For example, couples with
they communicate and cope during difficult times negative communication styles also experience
(Adaptive Processes). Of course, it is not possible more stress, report more aggression, and are
to test the model as this would require unethical characterised by a range of difficult personality
social interference, but longitudinal evidence traits (Bradbury & Lavner, 2011).
comes as close as we can get to collecting reliable
evidence about whether the model holds true.
Figure 1: Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model of Relationships
Enduring
Vulnerabilities
Adaptive Marital Marital

Processes Quality Stability
Stressful
Events
Couples’ perspectives on
relationships
The importance of attitudes towards and
beliefs about relationships is highlighted
by a recent in-depth study of
relationships. The study differentiated
between couples where partners held a
“developmental” view of relationships
and those with a “non-developmental”
view (Coleman, 2011).
“Developmental” couples were more
likely to initiate discussion about issues
even if it was uncomfortable to do so;
learn from difficult experiences; express
dissatisfaction; and engage in
The following sections explore in more detail the constructive conflict. They were also
enduring vulnerabilities, stressful events and the aware of how to protect their
adaptive processes that are central to the relationship through closeness and time
Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation model. together, independence, providing
support for each other, and
communicating effectively. Couples in
Enduring Vulnerabilities this group had sought external
Enduring vulnerabilities include partners’ past professional support to improve their
experiences, personalities and genetic make-up, relationship when they felt it was
beliefs and attitudes about relationships, family of warranted.
origin, and social background. Personality
A “non-developmental” perspective was
variables, such as agreeableness, neuroticism,
negativity, propensity to be short-tempered, and apparent where people frequently
low self-esteem, are linked to the level of avoided confrontation with their partner
relationship quality reported at the outset of a by subjugating their own needs,
relationship (see Karney & Bradbury, 1995; resigning themselves to continuing their
Bradbury & Karney, 2004) and also discriminate dissatisfying relationship, and failing to
between couples where relationship quality resolve arguments. They commonly held
declined and those where it remained high in a a belief that a couple could not learn to
study of newly-weds (Lavner & Bradbury, 2010). improve their relationship and
Family background is another factor associated considered relationship support to be
with relationship quality. One explanation for ineffective and a sign that the
these inter-generational patterns is that children relationship was not worth saving.
learn how to relate to others in their family home
Taken alongside the findings of other
and therefore bring to adult relationships the
studies, it appears that people who hold
unhelpful or negative ways of relating they
experienced in childhood (Bradbury & Karney, ‘developmental’ beliefs are likely to be
2004; Whitton et al., 2008). Beliefs and attitudes more motivated to maintain and
are also important, including attitudes towards improve their relationship, as well as to
decision-making, commitment, and gender roles engage with support compared to
(Kamp Dush et al., 2008). those less developmentally minded
(Coleman, 2011; Lavner & Bradbury, 2012).
Stressful life events al., 2008). However, a recent meta-analysis which

tested the findings of a number of longitudinal
Relationship quality can also be affected by the studies surprisingly found no difference, on
difficult events or circumstances couples average, between parents and non-parents in the
encounter (Umberson et al., 2005). How couples decline in relationship quality over a similar
cope with, and respond to, these events affects period of time (Mitnick et al., 2009), and some
the quality of the relationship. Their response to couples actually appear to become more satisfied
stressful events is in turn influenced by their in the relationship when they become parents
patterns of relating and their “enduring (Doss et al., 2009).
vulnerabilities”. For example, relationships where
partners experienced low levels of stress in Understanding these potentially confusing
childhood are less vulnerable to stress in findings lies in recognising that becoming parents
adulthood (Umberson et al., 2005). One reason can have a major impact on the couple
that external stressors can undermine relationship relationship for a proportion of parents, but not
quality is that couples struggle to separate how all. Studies that average relationship quality
they feel about the relationship overall from the across the sample may not identify these different
negative feelings they experience day-to-day (Neff groups of parents. Some of the factors that have
& Karney, 2009). Some of the common stressful been found to increase the likelihood of a more
life events that couples encounter are looked at in troubled transition to parenthood include: levels
more detail below. of relationship satisfaction before becoming
parents (Lawrence et al., 2008); disagreements
Becoming parents about whether or not to start a family (Lawrence
Becoming parents is one of the life et al., 2008; Cowan & Cowan, 2000); experiences
events most likely to precipitate a of a troubled home when growing up (Perren et
decline in relationship quality al., 2005); and constrained resources. For example,
(Twenge et al., 2003; Mitnick et al., unmarried, very young parents living on the
2009). Studies that compare relationship poverty line often do not have access to the
quality before and after having children as well as emotional, financial, and social resources they
studies that compare couples with and without need to manage their relationship over the
children both find a decline in relationship quality transition to parenthood (Carlson & McLanahan,
following the birth of a child (Twenge et al., 2003; 2006). Other factors include each partners’
Lawrence et al., 2008; Hirschberger et al., 2009). expectations of one another and new parenthood
(Mitnick, et al., 2009; Cowan & Cowan, 2000), as
Couples that do not have children also experience
well as the psychological make-up of each partner
some decline in relationship quality over time,
and their attachment profile (i.e. how secure they
albeit, it seems, a more gradual decline compared
feel in themselves and in the relationship, Kohn et
with new parents (Doss et al., 2009; Lawrence et
al., 2011).
How we measure relationship quality makes a difference

A recent rigorous statistical analysis of a number of longitudinal studies found differences
in the rate of decline depending on the type of measure of relationship quality used
(Mitnick et al., 2009).
Global satisfaction measures (those described as evaluations in the section on relationship
quality measures) were more sensitive to the transition to parenthood and showed a
greater decline than measures based on relationship adjustment measures, such as the
Marital Adjustment Test and Dyadic Adjustment Scale. The researchers suggest that more
recent, global relationship satisfaction measures (e.g. see Funk & Rogge, 2007; and
Fincham & Rogge, 2010) are more reliable than older adjustment measures (Mitnick et al,
2009) in detecting changes in relationship quality.
Economic strain and work stress

Work stress is another factor Relationships and the recession
associated with poor relationship
quality, particularly where this involves Surveys conducted during this most
work family conflict (Allen et al., 2000; recent recession have found
Greenglass et al., 1988). A recent survey found respondents concerned about the
individuals experiencing work-family conflict were impact of money worries on their
more likely to report poorer relationship quality relationships (see Glenn & Coleman,
as were individuals who felt pressures at home 2009 for a summary):
were affecting life at work (Burnett et al., 2011). • 22% of respondents in a large scale
Too little work or no work can be equally survey reported that they were
detrimental. Poverty is associated with poorer arguing more because of money
relationship quality (Fincham & Beach, 2010). worries, and that 1 in 10 men, and 1 in
This is because poverty is linked with a range of 20 women were worried that money
stressors that exacerbate family conflict and concerns would cause them to break
increase family instability (Conger et al., 2002). up with their partner (Relate, 2009).
One diary study of relationship conflict found • Analysis of calls to a parenting
that, although money was not the most common helpline service run by the Family and
source of conflict, arguments about money were Parenting Institute found half of all
more pervasive, problematic, and recurrent, and callers felt under increased strain
remained unresolved, despite more attempts at because of the recession and 10% felt
problem solving (Papp et al., 2009). that financial pressures were
threatening their relationship. A similar
number said that the recession was
Other stressful circumstances associated increasing the chance of divorce or
with poor relationship quality separation from their partner.
Other factors associated with poor Approximately 20% reported that they
relationship quality include drug and were spending less time with their
alcohol abuse (Floyd et al., 2006); families as a result of having to work
partner ill-health, including depression, longer hours (Press Association, 2009).
and caring for a sick partner (d’Ardenne & • In a poll of 5000 parents, 29% of
Morrod, 2003; Proulx et al., 2007), and caring for respondents reported arguing about
children with disabilities (Berant et al., 2003; family finances (Family and Parenting
Glenn 2007). Institute, 2008).
The stressful life events that are likely to undermine

relationship quality include: the transition to
parenthood, work stress, economic stress, partner
ill-health, and caring for a child with additional needs.
The importance of mutual support

How supportive partners are of one another can help explain why some relationships
succeed and others fail (Fincham, 2003). Having a supportive partner can buffer the
impact of stress on relationship satisfaction (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Support helps
couples to build trust and to interpret their partner’s behaviour in a positive light. For
example, a thoughtless comment is not perceived to be driven by a partners’ malice
but by less harmful factors, such as tiredness or a bad day. Researchers think that
these positives protect the couple so that the less supportive things they do and say do
not have a lasting impact on their relationship happiness (Bradbury & Karney, 2004).
Adaptive processes
is greater than 1 and for unhappy couples less
Partners’ ways of coping and relating, or couples’
than 1 (Fincham & Beach, 2010). Couples in
adaptive processes, refers to the third domain of
unhappy or dissatisfied relationships tend to
the vulnerabilities–stress-adaptation model,
engage in more negative ways of communicating,
in particular: how partners deal with conflict;
such as complaining, criticising, blaming, and
communicate; support each other; and think
denying responsibility, as well as in fewer positive
about the relationship, their partner, and their
ways of communicating, such as agreeing,
partner’s behaviour.
laughing, using humour, and smiling (Bradbury,
Much of the research on relationship quality and 2010; Lavner & Bradbury, 2012). These negative
relationship outcomes focuses on these behaviours tend to be reciprocated leaving
“behavioural” and “interactional” aspects of the couples caught in negative cycles of relating that
relationship. Although it is an extensive and undermine relationship quality over time. A
sometimes contradictory literature, some of the recent study of newly-weds, found couples with
key findings are surprisingly simple. Happy negative communication patterns were more
partnerships can be distinguished from unhappy likely to divorce, despite initially high levels of
partnerships by the ratio of positives to negatives relationship quality and despite having similarly in
in the relationship (Bradbury, 2010). In happy positive ways of relating as couples who remained
couples, the ratio of agreements to disagreements together (Lavner & Bradbury, 2012).
20-25%
of the population are
estimated to be in
relationships of poor
relationship quality.
What makes a good relationship?

A review of studies on married couples
concluded that healthy relationships were
characterised by the following:
commitment: a long-term view of the
relationship; perseverance in the face of
difficulties; balancing couple and
individual needs; a sense of “we-ness” and
connection through friendship, shared
values, and history;
Good quality relationships
communication: positive and respectful;
contains elements of humour and are associated with
compromise; positive outcomes for
conflict resolution: couples understand
that some conflict is inevitable; they “fight
individuals, children and
fair” and learn to “pick their battles”; families.
however, violence is unacceptable;
interaction and time together: quality and
quantity are both critical, as is the
balance of “couple time” and time spent
on individual pursuits, enjoyment of each
other’s company and of the time
together; and
intimacy and emotional suppport:
physical and, in particular, psychological
intimacy are core aspects of healthy
relationships which are developed and
strengthened over time, especially by
overcoming difficulties. Friendship is also
important, incorporating mutual respect
and enjoyment of each other’s company,
and deep knowledge of each other’s
likes and dislikes, hopes and dreams Poor quality relationships
(Gottman, 1999). Happily married couples
also express their affection for each other can lead to negative
on a daily basis, and in a range of ways. outcomes and put both
Although these studies focused on
married couples, the findings are likely to
couples and their children
apply also to committed relationships at a higher risk of
outside of marriage (Robinson & Parker,
2008). depression and ill health.
What measures could improve

couple relationship quality?
What is relationship support? to relationship issues; informational support
through information or advice giving; and
So far we have seen how relationship quality instrumental support by providing needed
affects the well-being of family members and resources.
how, for some people, relationship quality can
decline to such a low point that the relationship The case for providing relationship support has
breaks down. We have also looked at some of the been growing amongst UK policymakers over the
factors that help to explain why relationship last decade, culminating in a coalition pledge to
quality can start low or deteriorate for some invest in support that expressly targets adult
couples. The question raised by those findings is couple relationships. This follows a growing
what relationship support measures can be put in acceptance, as has long been shown in the
place to improve couple relationship quality or literature, that the relationship between parents
stem its decline? has a significant impact on the wellbeing of their
children (Reynolds et al., forthcoming) and a
Relationship support refers to the range of recognition that traditional forms of support are
support available to people who either wish to limited by barriers of accessibility, acceptability
strengthen or protect their relationships from and availability (Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al.,
difficulties, or people who are experiencing 2011).
problems. The sources of support available
include marriage preparation and marriage Where do people go for
enhancement courses, as well as couple
counselling, telephone helplines, mediation, on-
relationship support?
line and offline self-help resources and a recent Chart 6 depicts responses to a 2007 British Social
wave of more innovative, web-based services. Attitudes survey asking respondents if they had
There is also less formal support provided by sought help from a professional of some type
family, friends and peers. The forms of support because they were “especially worried, stressed or
these sources offer vary and range from emotional down”. Forty per cent of respondents had done so,
support in the form of talking about and listening of these 74% had mentioned relationship
difficulties (see Chart 6).
100%
Chart 6
90% How many people seek
professional emotional
80% or therapeutic support?
70%
(BSA, 2007)
Proportion
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Mentioned
relationship issues
10%
Did not mention
0% relationship issues
Male Female Total
Source: British Social Attitudes Survey, 2007

An e-survey paints a similar picture. Forty-two Attitudes towards and take-up

per cent of those who had separated, all those of support
planning to separate, and 27% of those in intact
relationships had sought some help with their Table 1 presents the responses to a series of
relationship difficulties (Walker et al., 2010). question in the BSA survey (2007) concerning
Doing nothing is also occurring. Approximately counselling or therapy. While just under 60% of
one quarter of respondents said they would not people indicated they would feel comfortable
consider turning to any of the listed options for talking to a GP if they were feeling “worried,
support with their relationship (Gabb et al., 2013). stressed or down” (not the same as having done
But where do respondents turn if they do seek so, in the previous section), only 38% said that
help? they would feel comfortable talking to a therapist
or counsellor. Part of the explanation may relate
to stigma: 43% agreed with the statement “If I had
43%
seen a therapist or counsellor I wouldn’t want
anybody to know” (Anderson et al., 2009).
of respondents in the British

Social Attitudes Survey would
not want anyone to know
if they had seen a counsellor
or therapist.
Table 1. Attitudes towards therapy and counselling 2 Agree % Neither % Disagree %
Would feel comfortable talking to GP if feeling

58 14 25
worried, stressed or down
Would feel comfortable talking to a therapist or

38 23 35
counsellor if feeling worried, stressed or down
Would know how to find counsellor/ therapist

50 12 33
if needed
Counselling or therapy is only for people with really

31 23 42
serious problems
Doesn’t really know anything about counselling

35 19 43
or therapy
Wouldn’t want anyone to know if had seen a

43 27 26
counsellor or therapist
2. Table taken from Anderson et al (2009, p160). Proportions do not add to 100 but there is no note regarding this in the original source.
100%
Chart 7 Attitudes to
90% talking about feelings
in the British Social
80%
Attitudes Survey
70%
Proportion
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% Agree
10% Neither
0% Disagree
I find it easy People spend too It’s important for I grew up in the People nowadays
to talk about much time talking me to be able to sort of household spend more time
my feelings about their feelings; talk about my feelings where people talking about their
they should just didn’t really talk feelings than
get on with things about their feelings in the past
Source: Anderson et al (2009, p157).
How comfortable are people talking Attitudes towards different

about their feelings? types of support
Chart 7 depicts responses to five statements The BSA survey (Anderson et al., 2009) also asked
relating to BSA participants’ feelings about general respondents if they had actually ever talked to any
emotional support. Overall, the majority of professionals at a time when they felt “especially
respondents found it easy to talk about their own worried, stressed or down”. One third of
feelings, although a significant minority felt respondents in the BSA who had ever sought help
otherwise. Around two thirds agreed with the (see Table 2) had talked to their GP. Similar
statement, “It’s important to me to be able to talk proportions were found in a recent e-survey
about my feelings,” while a similar proportion (Walker et al., 2010), although respondents were
agreed that they found it “easy” to do so. mixed in their views on how helpful their GP had
Those least comfortable talking about their been (Walker et al., 2010). Some respondents had
feelings tended to be at the younger or older age been signposted to counselling or specialised
spectrum (Anderson et al., 2009). support, while others had received medication
only.
30-40%
of people have
approached their GP
about relationship
difficulties.
Table 2. Percentage of respondents in the BSA 2007 survey who

had ever actually talked to any of the following when they had % contact in
felt especially worried, stressed or down. % contact ever
last year
GP 31 19
Psychologist 2 1
Psychiatrist 4 2
Therapist or counsellor (in person) 13 4
Therapist or counsellor (by telephone) 2 1

Someone form a support service who is trained to help
people or to listen 3 1
Social worker or care worker 2 2
Minister /priest / other religious leader 4 2
Some other kind of profession 2 1
Any of the above 40 25

Source: Anderson et al (2009, p164).
Relatively few respondents in this same study had not people found counselling helpful vary (Chang
discussed the relationship with a health visitor, and Barrett, 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Gabb et al.,
echoing the interim findings of the Enduring Love 2013). Overall, evaluations of couple counselling
survey (Gabb et al., 2013), and even fewer had services find counselling rarely enhances
found the conversation helpful (Walker et al., relationship quality or saves the relationship, most
2010). In contrast, other studies have found that probably because counselling is often seen as a
health visitors can provide a welcome source of last resort, when couples have reached the end of
support to parents experiencing relationship the relationship (Barrett et al., 2011).
difficulties, particularly where health visitors have
been specially trained to do so (Elkan et al., 2000;
Simons et al., 2003). Helplines
Helplines are another source of support, although
people appear to be more positive about them in
Counselling theory rather than in practice. The majority of
What about counselling? Twenty one percent of people who completed an e-survey said they
respondents in the BSA study had talked to some would be prepared to use telephone helplines to
kind of therapeutic professional, 13% of whom talk about their relationships, however few had
had talked to a counsellor. This finding is echoed done so (Walker et al., 2010). In a trial of
elsewhere where studies have found that relatively relationship support with a dedicated helpline
few people make use of couple counselling none of the parents eligible to contact it did so
services (Chang and Barrett, 2009; Walker et al., (Simons et al., 2003).
2010; Ramm et al., 2011). Accounts of whether or
Peer support Relationship enhancement

Attitudes towards peer support are complex. The provision of support that aims to strengthen
While support from someone familiar, such as relationships is relatively limited. Despite that,
friends, peers or a relative, is usually seen as more attitudes towards these options are positive,
acceptable than seeking professional support whether or not people would take advantage of
(Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al., 2011). Informal this provision in practice. Respondents to an
emotional support plays an important role in e-survey were interested in courses, for example
many people’s lives (Anderson et al., 2009). For on problem-solving and conflict management,
example, in the BSA, the proportion who said they and would like help to improve couple
had talked to close friends or family about an communication. They would also consider
emotional problem “in the last month”, was higher involvement in relationship preparation courses
than the proportion that had used any form of (Walker et al., 2010).
formal emotional support ever (47% compared
with 40%). Differences vary notably for men and
women. Only 10% of women said they had never
Differences in attitudes
sought support from a close friend or relative
compared with a quarter of men (Anderson et al.,
towards support
2009). On the other hand, particularly when it In general women are more positive about and
comes to discussing relationship issues, people are more likely to make use of formal support than
also wary of burdening friends or relatives and men (Anderson et al., 2009; Chang & Barrett,
conscious of how those close to them may 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Gabb et al., 2013). For
respond to the disclosure (Anderson et al., 2009; example, in the recent “Enduring Love” e-survey,
Ramm et al., 2011). out of a list of options of what they would do in
the face of relationship difficulties, the most
commonly chosen option amongst men was not
Websites and Online Services to consult anyone (23%). There is also a
Websites and on-line services offer an alternative, perception among men that support services are
and seemingly popular, form of support (Walker geared towards and focused on the needs of
et al., 2010; Gabb et al., 2013) to traditional face- women, particularly those available in the
to-face support. A survey of users of postnatal period when relationships are
OnePlusOne’s online service, particularly vulnerable (Walker et al., 2010).
theCoupleConnection.net found user’s Differences in preferences for support are also
value its anonymity (77%); support at any time apparent between peple with and without
(68%); and free access (67%). Fifty per cent of children. Most notably fathers are more likely to
respondents said they would never use face-to- consider some form of support than childless men
face services (Coleman & Houston, 2011). Nearly (Gabb et al., 2013).
40% of respondents in Walker and colleague’s Differences are also apparent across different age
(2010) study had browsed websites and another groups. In the BSA study, for example, those aged
40% said they would definitely try this method of 25-44 were most aware and most positive about
seeking help. Making use of a website was also the professional forms of therapeutic support, while
fourth most popular choice for men and women the youngest and oldest age groups were least so
in the recent “Enduring Love” survey, which asked (Anderson et al., 2009). A similar pattern was
respondents what they would do if they needed apparent in those comfortable talking about their
relationship support (Gabb et al., 2013). Of course, feelings.
as both surveys used web-based technology,
respondents are likely to be representative of
people more comfortable with and keen to use
online resources and services.
Barriers to utilising support Where next? Relationship

Despite some seemingly positive attitudes support for the future
towards different types of support, a range of Bringing together our understanding of
sources provide evidence of both the perceived relationships and the insight provided by research
and actual barriers to seeking help for relationship into attitudes and experiences of relationship
difficulties. A recurring theme in studies is the support, it is clear that there can be no “one-size
belief that relationships are essentially private and fits all” model of support. Couple relationships
that seeking support is not “the done thing” are diverse and complex, they follow different
(Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al., 2011). As Chang pathways. For some groups of couples these
and Barrett (2009) Page 2 conclude: pathways are more predictable and easier to
explain than for others. For example, we are only
just beginning to understand why couples
Forming good, intimate satisfied with their relationships at the start and
couple relationships is still who possess the positive skills important to
sustaining a happy relationship, fail to do so
commonly believed to be a (Lavner & Bradbury, 2012).
private and personal Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter, we
are also still learning about what support is most
matter despite a growing effective with whom and when (e.g. see Chang &
demand for couple support Barrett, 2009; Bradbury & Lavner, 2011; Reynolds
et al., forthcoming). Again, one size does not fit all
services in the UK. and even if we devised the perfect menu of
interventions, the data on attitudes to support
Other attitudinal barriers include a sense of stigma indicate that the challenge remains of getting
about needing or seeking help; a preference to couples to sign up.
stick it out and cope alone; a failure to recognise As a range of recent studies have suggested, the
the seriousness of difficulties; or reluctance on support of the future needs to be diverse,
one or both partners’ part to admit to having reflecting the diversity of the population, their
troubles. There are also concerns about the different attitudes and needs and addressing the
nature of help, for example that support might be different barriers they face (Chang and Barrett,
intrusive and raise problems or uncomfortable 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Ramm et al., 2011).
issues. People also tend to believe that nothing Support needs to be available to all — a universal
and no one can help (Robinson & Parker, 2008; intervention — and available across a continuum
Anderson et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2010; Ramm from preventive initiatives, such as relationship
et al., 2011). education through to more intensive support for
There are also practical barriers to accessing those grappling with more serious difficulties. That
services. These include the time required to attend also means services need to be more accessible
appointments or courses, the limited access to or and available; addressing issues such as location,
non-availability of services (such as waiting lists, opening times, and cost (within an emerging
restricted appointment times) the financial costs, culture of relationship enhancement seen as a
transport issues, distance, clash with other care “normal” thing to do).
commitments, lack of disabled access, and the Couple support also needs to be available during
presence of other health problems (Robinson & and targeted at the challenging transitions and
Parker, 2008; Walker et al, 2010; Barrett et al., situations that couples, such as becoming parents,
2011; Ramm et al., 2011). Other barriers include partner ill-health, unemployment or bereavement.
the lack of awareness of services or lack of
understanding of what is available.
That might mean providing courses or networks, such as Netmums, mean that a literal
programmes targeting these times or issues “web” of support can be provided, comprising a
(See Reynolds et al., forthcoming, for a review of seamless provision of support ranging from self-
support). It also means training those who work help to assistance from trained counsellors.
on the front-line of family support, e.g. health Innovative and evidence-based internet support
visitors, GPs, Sure Start workers, and many others services provide a way of bypassing some of the
who engage with families and who are frequently significant barriers that people face when seeking
turned to by them when things are tough. The relationship support. They are also one vehicle for
Brief Encounters® course has been especially delivering courses or modules on those aspects of
designed to do this. Courses are available in a relationships that may help to sustain a healthy
mixed delivery format, combining on-line and partnership (Bradbury & Lavner, 2011).
face-to-face learning, to maximise their impact
The workplace, a potential source of stress on the
and minimise the time required for practitioners
relationship, also has the potential to be a source
to attend. Training can also result in much
of support (Walker et al., 2010). Work has already
needed improvements in signposting by
begun on joining with employers to enhance
practitioners to relationship services and
support for individuals, grounded in the evidence
resources available to couples (Ayles & Reynolds,
that happy homes contribute to productive
2001; Simons et al., 2003) and developing skills
workplaces (Burnett et al., 2012).
in holding appropriate conversations about
relationship support with clients (Coleman et al., Finally, delivering effective relationship support
2013). means initiating a culture change that breaks
down attitudinal barriers to support and enhances
There is also a role for specially trained peer
people’s understanding of relationships, such as
supporters who can provide “informed” informal
what makes relationships work, that good
support, as in the case of two recent, innovative
relationships take work, and all relationships go
projects trialling training in peer-led relationship
through difficult times. This has started on a small
support within two community volunteer
scale through a recent Government funded
schemes: Peer Supporters in Pregnancy, Birth, and
project involving a network of partners to
Beyond (PBB), and Healthy Relationship
disseminate targeted messages to key groups,
Champions (HRCs). The preliminary results are
such as young people. If the outcome is positive,
encouraging (Casey et al., 2013). Rather than a
a review of attitudes to and take-up of support in
generic approach, it seems important to target the
years to come might have a different story to tell.
peer support provision to the relational needs of
particular groups. Taking the time to build up a
trusting relationship between peer supporters and
those receiving support is also crucial.
Developing support also means looking at more
innovative models of support including interactive
web-based approaches, such as the
theCoupleConnection.net, where users can
engage with a range of resources either alone, in
company with other users through the forum, or
with the help of a trained guide. These kinds of
approaches are more than repositories of
information but are designed to mirror and lead
users through the helping process (Braun et al.,
2006). The developing links between these
specialist sites and the far-reaching social media
Summary
Relationship quality refers to how happy or satisfied partners are in a
relationship and how well they get on. Relationship quality is an increasingly
important concept as the composition of family life has become more
diverse. Good relationship quality is linked with a range of positive outcomes
for couples and their children, including better health, well-being and life
satisfaction. There exist a number of different measures of relationship quality
that could be useful for work with families, both as diagnostic tools and as
tools to assess the outcome of family-focused interventions. Relationship
quality may be affected by a number of factors including: the experiences
and personalities partners bring to the relationship, the stressful life events
couples encounter, and couples’ patterns of coping and relating. Particularly
difficult life events include becoming parents, economic pressures, and ill-
health. Although surveys report that people are fairly positive about
relationship support, relatively few people have made use of relationship
support services. Where they have sought help it is often from a GP or from the
internet. In general, there remains a prevailing belief that relationships are a
private matter. In view of the attitudinal and practical barriers to seeking
support, relationship support for the future needs to develop a spectrum of
services, making use of innovative methods of delivery and recognising
people’s preferences for informal and self-directed help alongside more
traditional, therapeutic approaches.
References
Acevedo, B., Aron, A., Fisher, H. & Brown, L., 2012. Neural Bradbury, T. & Karney B., 2004. Understanding and altering the
correlates of marital satisfaction and well-being: reward, longitudinal course of marriage. Journal of Marriage and
empathy, and affect. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(1) 20-31. Family, 66(4), 862–879.
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E., Bruck, C.S. & Sutton, M., 2000. Bradbury, Y. & Lavner, J., 2011. How can we improve
Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A preventive and education interventions for intimate
review agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational relationships? Behaviour Therapy, 43, 113-122.
Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308.
Brannen, J. & Collard, J., 1982. Marriages in trouble: The process
Amato, P. & Booth, A., 1997. A generation at risk: Growing up in of seeking help. London: Tavistock.
an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Braun, D., Davis, H. & Mansfield, P.,2006. How helping works:
Press.
Towards a shared model of process. London: Parentline Plus.
Amato, P. Johnson, D., Booth, A. & Rogers S., 2003. Continuity
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Guzman, L., Jekielek, S., Moore, K. A., Ryan,
and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000. Journal
S., Redd, Z., Carrano. & Matthews, G., 2004. Conceptualizing
of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 1–22.
and Measuring “Healthy Marriage” For Empirical Research and
Amato, P., & Booth, A., 2001. The legacy of parents’ marital Evaluation Studies: A Review of the Literature and Annotated
discord: Consequences for children’s marital quality. Journal of Bibliography. Washington D.C: Child Trends, Inc.
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 627-638. http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-
2004_01_01_FR_HMFullLitReview.pdf
Amato, P., Booth, A., Johnson, D. & Rogers, S., 2007. Alone
together: How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge, Brown, S. & Kawamura S., 2010. Relationship quality among
MA: Harvard University Press. cohabitors and marrieds in older adulthood. Social Science
Research, 39(5), 777-786.
Anderson, S., Brownlie, J. & Given, L., 2009. Therapy culture.
Attitudes towards emotional support in Britain, in A. Parks Burnett, S., Coleman, L., Houlston, C. & Reynolds, J., 2012.
(Eds.) British Social Attitudes Survey 25th Report. London: Sage Happy homes and productive workplaces. London:
OnePlusOne.
Ayles, C. & Reynolds, J., 2001. Identifying and managing
patients’ relationship problems in primary care: The perspective Carlson, M. & McLanahan, S., 2005. Do good partners make
of health professionals and counsellors. London: OnePlusOne. good parents? Centre for Research on Child Well-being.
Working Paper, No. 02-16-FF. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Barrett, H., Chang, Y-S. & Walker J., 2011. Improving children’s
University.
outcomes by supporting couple relationships, reducing family
conflict and addressing domestic violence. London: Centre for Carlson, M. & McLanahan, S., 2006. Strengthening unmarried
Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s families: Could enhancing couple relationships also improve
Services. parenting? Social Service Review, 80(2), 297-321.
http://www.c4eo.org.uk/themes/families/reducingconflict/file
Casey, P., Coleman, L. & Houlston, C., 2013. Peer supporters in
s/reducing_conflict_full_knowledge_review.pdf
“Pregnancy, Birth, and Beyond”, and “Healthy Relationship
Beach, S. (Ed). 2001. Marital and family processes in depression. Champions”: A formative evaluation. London: OnePlusOne.
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Chang, Y-S. & Barrett, H., 2009. Couple relationships: A review
Beach, S., Fincham, F., Amir, N. & Leonard, K., 2005. The of the nature and effectiveness of support services. London:
taxometrics of marriage: is marital discord categorical? Family and Parenting Institute.
Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 276-85.
Christiano, K., 2000. Religion and the family in modern
Berant, E. Mikulincer, M. & Florian, V., 2003. Marital American culture. In S. Houseknecht & J. Pankhurst. (Eds.)
satisfaction among mothers of infants with congenital hear Family, religion, and social change in diverse societies. New
disease: The contribution of illness severity, attachment style, York: Oxford. pp. 73-8.
and the coping process. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(4), 397-415.
Coleman, L. & Glenn, F., 2009. When couples part:
Birditt, K., Hope, S., Brown, E. & Orbuch T., 2012. Understanding the consequences for adults and children.
Developmental trajectories of marital happiness over 16 Years. London: OnePlusOne.
Research in Human Development, 9(2), 126–144.
Coleman, L. & Houlston, C., 2011. TheCoupleConnection.net:
Booth, A., Johnson, D., Amato, P. & Rogers, S., 2003. Marital Evaluation evidence from August 2008 (launch) to February
instability over the life course: A six-wave panel study, 1980, 2011. London: OnePlusOne
1983, 1988, 1992-1994, 1997, 2000. (Version 1) [Data file]. Ann
Coleman, L., Houlston, C., Casey, P., Bryson, C. & Purdon, S.,
Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
2013. An evaluation of a training programme “Relationship
Research.
Support: An Early Intervention” for frontline practitioners to help
Bradbury, T., 2010. Intimate Relationships. New York, NY: their clients find ways to improve their relationship. London:
Norton. OnePlusOne.
Conger , R., Rueter, M. & Elder G. Jr., 2002. Couple resilience to Funk, J. & Rogge, R., 2007. Testing the ruler with item response
economic pressure. In P. Boss (Ed.) Family stress: Classic and theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship
contemporary readings. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of
pp.292-319 Family Psychology, 21(4), 572-583.
Cooke G. & Muir R., 2012. The possibilities and politics of the Gabb J., Klett-Davies, M. Fink J. & Thomae, M., 2013. Enduring
relational state. In: Muir R. & Cooke G. (Eds.) The relational love? Couple relationships in the 21st Century. Survey Findings.
state: How recognising the importance of human relationships An Interim Report.
could revolutionise the role of the state. London: IPPR.
Garriga, A. & Kiernan, K. (2013) Parents’ relationship quality,
Cowan, C. & Cowan, P., 2000. When partners become parents. mother-child relations and children’s behaviour problems:
The big life change for couples. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Working Paper.
Associates. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/spsw/documents/research-and-
publications/Garriga-and-Kiernan-WP2013.pdf
Cummings E.M. & Davies, P.T., 2010. Marital conflict and
children: An emotional security perspective. New York: The Glenn, N., 1990. Quantitative research on marital quality in
Guilford Press. the 1980s: A critical review. Journal of Marriage and Family,
52(4), 818-831.
Cunningham, M. & Thorton, A., 2006. The influence of
parents’ marital quality on adult children’s attitudes toward Glenn, F., 2007. Growing together or drifting apart? Children
marriage and its alternatives: Main and moderating effects. with disabilities and their parents’ relationships. London:
Demography, 43(13), 659-673. OnePlusOne.
d’Ardenne, P. & Morrod, D., 2003 The counselling of couples in Glenn, F. & Coleman, L., 2009. Relationships and the
healthcare settings: A handbook for clinicians. London: Whurr Recession. London: OnePlusOne
Publishers.
Gottman, J., 1998. Toward a process model of men in
Doss, B., Rhoades, G., Stanley, S. & Markman, H., 2009. The marriages and families. In A. Booth & A. Crouter (Eds.) Men in
effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social
Gottman, J., 1999. The seven principles to making marriage
Psychology, 96(3), 601–619.
work. New York: Crown Publishers.
Elkan R., Kendrick D., Hewitt M., Robinson J., Tolley K. & Blair
GreengIass, E., Pantony, K. & Burke, R., 1988. A gender-role
M., 2000. The effectiveness of domiciliary health visiting: a
perspective on role conflict, work stress, and social support.
systematic review of international studies and a selective
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3(4), 317-328.
review of the British literature. Health Technology Assessment
4(13). Hirschberger, G., Srivastava, S., Marsh, P., Cowan C. & Cowan,
P., 2009. Attachment, marital satisfaction, and divorce during
Family and Parenting Institute, 2008. Money worries are
the first fifteen years of parenthood. Personal Relationships
depriving parents of sleep. Retrieved 10th June 2009 from
16(3), pp. 401–420.
http://www.familyandparenting.org/item/1933.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., & Jones B., 2008. Is there
Fincham, F., 2003. Marital conflict: correlates, structure, and
something unique about marriage? The relative impact of
context. Current Directors in Psychological Science, 12(1), 23-27.
marital status, relationship quality, and network social support
Fincham, F. & Beach, S., 2006. Relationship satisfaction. In D. on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Annals of
Perlman & A. Vangelisti (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Behavioural Medicine, 35(2), 239-44.
Personal Relationships Cambridge: Cambridge University
Hunsley. J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M. & Vito, D., 2001. The seven-
Press, 579-594.
item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: further
Fincham, F, & Beach, S., 2010. Marriage in the new evidence for construct validity. American Journal of Family
millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Therapy, 29(4), 325-335.
Family, 72(3), 630-649.
Ireland, J., Sanders, M. & Markie-Dadds, C., 2003. The impact
Fincham, F. & Rogge, R., 2010. Understanding relationship of parent training on marital functioning: A comparison of
quality: Theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment. two group versions of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program
Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2(4), 227-242. for parents of children with early-onset conduct problems.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31(2), 127-142.
Floyd, F. Klotz Daugherty, M., Fitzgerald, H., Cranford, J. &
Zucker, R., 2006. Marital interaction in alcoholic and non- Johnson, D., 1995. Assessing marital quality in longitudinal
alcoholic couples: Alcoholic subtype variations and wives’ and life course studies. In J. Close Conoley & E. Buterick (Eds.)
alcoholism stats. Abnormal Psychology, 115(1), 121-130. Werth, Family Assessment. Lincoln, NE, Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Freeston, M. & Plechaty, M., 1997. Reconsideration of the
Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test: Is it still relevant for Jose A., O’Leary, D. & Moyer, A., 2010. Does premarital
the 1990s. Psychological Reports, 81(2), 419-434. cohabitation predict subsequent marital stability and marital
quality? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family,
72(1), 105-116.
Kamp Dush, C., Taylor, M. & Kroeger, R., 2008. Marital Lloyd, G. & Lacey, R., 2012. Understanding 21st Century
happiness and psychological well-being across the life course. Relationships: A Compendium of Key Data. London:
Family Relations, 57(2), 211–226. OnePlusOne.
Karney, B., 2001. Depressive symptoms and marital Mead, E., 2002. Marital distress, co-occurring depression and
satisfaction in the early years of marriage: Narrowing the gap marital therapy. A review. Journal of Marital And Family
between theory and research. In S. Beach (Ed.), Marital and Therapy, 28(3), 299-314.
family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical
Mitnick, D., Heyman, R. & Smith Slep, A., 2009. Changes in
practice . Washington, DC: American Psychological
relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: A
Association. (pp. 45 – 68)
meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(6), 848–852.
Karney, B. & Bradbury, T., 1995. The longitudinal course of
Moore, K. A., Kinghorn, A. & Bandy, T., 2011. Parental
marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and
Relationship Quality and Child Outcomes across Subgroups.
research. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (1), 3-34.
Child Trends: Research Brief.
Keizer R. & Schenk N., 2012. Becoming a parent and
Neff, L. & Karney, B., 2004. How does context affect intimate
relationship satisfaction: A longitudinal dyadic perspective.
relationships? Linking external stress and cognitive processes
Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 759-773.
within marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30
Kohn, J., Rholes, W., Simpson, J., McLeish Martin A., Tran, S. & (2), 134-148.
Wilson, C., 2012. Changes in marital satisfaction across the
Neff, L. & Karney, B., 2009. Stress and reactivity to daily
transition to parenthood: The role of adult attachment
relationship experiences: How stress hinders adaptive
orientations. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin,
processes in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social
38(11) pp.1506-1522.
Psychology, 97(3), 435–450.
Kovacs, L., 1988. Couple therapy: an integrated and
Papp, L., Cummings, E. & Goeke-Morey, M., 2009. For richer,
developmental family systems model. Family Therapy, 15(2),
for poorer: Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home.
133-155.
Family Relations, 58(1), 91-103.
Kurdek, L., 1998. The nature and predictors of the trajectory
Perren, S., von Wyl, A., Burgin, D., Simoni, H. & von Klitzing, K.,
of change in marital quality over the first 4 years of marriage
2005. Intergenerational transmission of marital quality across
for first-married husbands and wives. Journal of Family
the transition to parenthood. Family Process, 44(4), 441-459.
Psychology, 12, pp. 494–510.
Press Association, 2009. Parents “feel the strain of crunch”.
Kurdek, L., 1999. The nature and predictors of the trajectory
Retrieved 10th June 2009 from
of change in marital quality for husbands and wives over the
www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jdgPOj
first 10 years of marriage. Developmental Psychology, 35(5),
KG4eitbdtGpMOQAVEWwbMA
1283-1296.
Preveti D. & Amato P., 2003. Why stay married? Rewards,
Lambert, N.M., Fincham, F. D. & Stanley, S. (2012). Prayer and
barriers, and marital stability, Journal of Marriage and Family,
satisfaction with sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of
65(3), 561–57
Social and Personal Relationships, 29(8), 1058-1070.
Proulx, C., Helms, H. & Buehler, C., 2007. Marital quality and
Lambert, N.M., Fincham, F. D., LaVallee, D.C., & Brantly, C.,
personal well-being: A meta- analysis. Journal of Marriage and
2012. Praying together and staying together: Couple prayer
Family, 69(3), 576-593.
and trust. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(1), 1-9.
Ramm, J., Coleman, L., Glenn, F. & Mansfield, P., 2010.
Lauer, R. & Lauer, J., 1986. Factors in long-term marriages.
Relationship difficulties and help-seeking behaviour – Secondary
Journal of Family Issues 7(4), 382-90.
analysis of an existing data-set. London: OnePlusOne.
Lavner, J. & Bradbury, T., 2010. Patterns of change in marital
Relate, 2009. A quarter of families arguing more because of the
satisfaction over the newlywed years. Journal of Marriage and
recession. Retrieved 8th June 2009 from
Family, 72(5), 1171–1187.
http://www.relate.org.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/PressRele
Lavner, J. & Bradbury, T., 2012. Why do even satisfied ase_SXA734-A78005D3. Html
newlyweds eventually go on to divorce? Journal of Family
Reynolds, J. & OnePlusOne, 2008. Supporting couple
Psychology, 26(1), 1-10.
relationships: A sourcebook for practitioners. London:
Lawrence, E., Rothman, A., Cobb, R., Rothman, M. & Bradbury, OnePlusOne.
T., 2008. Marital satisfaction across the transition to
Reynolds , J., Houston, C., Harold, G. & Coleman, L.
parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 41–50.
forthcoming. Parental conflict: outcomes and interventions
Lichter, D. & Carmalt, J., 2009. Religion and marital quality for children and families. London: Policy Press.
among low-income couples. Social Science Research, 38(1),
Robinson, E. & Parker, R., 2008. Prevention and early
168-187.
intervention in strengthening families and relationships:
challenges and implications. Australian Family Relationships
Clearing house, Volume 2.
Robles, R., Slatcher, R., Tombello, J. & McGinn, M., in press. Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M. & Markman, H. J.
2013, Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. 2008. Effects of parental divorce on marital commitment and
Psychological Bulletin, DOI:10.1037/a0031859. confidence. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(5), 789-793.
Rogers S. & Amato P., 1997. Is marital quality declining? Wilcox, B., 2004. Soft patriarchs, new men: How Christianity
The evidence from two generations, Social Forces, 75(3), shapes fathers and husbands. Chicago: University of Chicago
1089-1100. Press.
Rust, J. & Golombok, S., 1986. The GRISS: A psychometric Wolfinger, N. & Wilcox, B., 2008. Happily ever after? Religion,
instrument for the assessment of sexual dysfunction. Archives marital status, gender, and relationship quality in urban
of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 153-161. families. Social Forces, 86(3), 1311-1337.
Rust, J., Bennun, I., Crowe, M. & Golombok, S., 1986. The Zubrick, S.R., Ward, K.A., Silburn, S.R., Lawrence, D., Williams,
construction and validation of the Golombok Rust Inventory A.A., Blair, E., Robertson, D. & Sanders, M.R., 2005. Prevention
of Marital State, Sexual and Marital Therapy, 1(1), 34-40. of child behaviour problems through universal
implementation of a group behavioral family intervention.
Sharpley, C.F, & Cross, D.G., 1982. A psychometric evaluation
Prevention Science, 6(4), 287-304.
of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Marriage
and the Family; 44(3), 739-747.
Sharpley, C.F. & Rogers, R.J., 1984. Preliminary validation of
the abbreviated Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Some
psychometric data regarding a screening test of marital
adjustment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(4),
1045–1049.
Simons, J., Reynolds, J. & Morison, L., 2001. Randomised
controlled trial of training health visitors to identify and help
couples with relationship problems following a birth. British
Journal of General Practice, 51(471), 793-799.
Simons, J., Reynolds, J., Mannion, J. & Morison, L., 2003. How
the health visitor can help when problems between parents
add to postnatal stress. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44(4),
400-411.
Smith, T., 2011. Trends in well-being, 1972-2010NORC/
University of Chicago. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Spanier, G. & Lewis R., 1980. Marital quality: A review of the
seventies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42(4), 825-839
Twenge, J., Campbell, W. & Foster, C., 2003. Parenthood and
marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 65(3), 574-583.
Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, A., Chen, M. & Campbell.
A., 2005. As good as it gets? A life course perspective on
marital quality. Social Forces, 84(1), 493–511.
Vaillant, G. E., 2012. Triumphs of Experience; The Men of the
Harvard Grant Study. London: Belknap Press.
Van Laningham, J., Johnson, D. & P. Amato, 2001. Marital
happiness, marital duration, and the u-shaped curve: Evidence
from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces, 79(4), 1313–1341.
Waite, L. & Gallagher M., 2000. The case for marriage. New
York: Doubleday.
Walker, J., Barrett, H., Wilson, G. & Chang, Y-S, 2010.
Relationships matter: understanding the needs of adults
(particularly parents) regarding relationship support. London:
DCSF. http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/
DCSF-RR233.pdf
OnePlusOne strengthens relationships by creating resources that help
families and frontline workers tackle relationship issues early.
Understanding relationship quality is a resource from OnePlusOne,

which offers a timely review of the research evidence concerning
relationship quality. The scope of this review is deliberately broad and
is intended for “front-line” family workers, as well as policy makers and
commissioners. Students, researchers and those interested in families
and relationships are also likely to find this a starting place for
Design and print: Creative Media Colour Ltd www.cmcolour.co.uk

understanding more about relationship quality. This report will allow
you to understand why good relationships matter for the health and
well-being of partners and, if present, children. It will also show how
relationship quality is a useful indicator of a populations’ well being.
OnePlusOne
Strengthening relationships
1 Benjamin Street, London EC1M 5QG

www.OnePlusOne.org.uk
T: +44(0)207 553 9530
F: +44(0)207 553 9550
Powering theCoupleConnection.net
and theParentConnection.org.uk
Registered charity no. 1087994. Company no. 4133340. 9 781874 207245

Understanding Relationship-Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Relationship-Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Relationship-Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding Authors

Everything we do is based on the latest research evidence. Our research builds

OnePlusOne Understanding Relationship Quality © 2014

What is relationship quality and why does it matter? 6

How do we measure relationship quality? 8

Trends in relationship quality 13

What affects relationship quality? 18

What measures could improve couple relationship quality? 24

This publication offers a timely review of the research evidence concerning

Relationship quality is Good quality

What is relationship quality

Relationship quality and depression: chicken or egg?

Single statement responses rating

Data on the participants is collected at regular

Measuring relationship quality usually consists of

Trends in relationship quality

How are relationship quality and stability linked?

30% Strongly agree

Source: Millennium Cohort Study (2001/2002)

Has relationship happiness in whether their marriage is “very happy, pretty

The course of relationship The NCDS findings point to a possible decline in

40% Very happy

Variations in relationship their marriages than men (Van Laningham et al.,

As well as varying with the length of the

What affects relationship quality?

Figure 1: Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model of Relationships

Adaptive Marital Marital

Stressful life events al., 2008). However, a recent meta-analysis which

How we measure relationship quality makes a difference

Economic strain and work stress

The stressful life events that are likely to undermine

The importance of mutual support

What makes a good relationship?

What measures could improve

Male Female Total

Source: British Social Attitudes Survey, 2007

An e-survey paints a similar picture. Forty-two Attitudes towards and take-up

of respondents in the British

Table 1. Attitudes towards therapy and counselling 2 Agree % Neither % Disagree %

Would feel comfortable talking to GP if feeling

Would feel comfortable talking to a therapist or

Would know how to find counsellor/ therapist

Counselling or therapy is only for people with really

Doesn’t really know anything about counselling

Wouldn’t want anyone to know if had seen a

Source: Anderson et al (2009, p157).

How comfortable are people talking Attitudes towards different

Table 2. Percentage of respondents in the BSA 2007 survey who

Therapist or counsellor (in person) 13 4

Therapist or counsellor (by telephone) 2 1

Social worker or care worker 2 2

Minister /priest / other religious leader 4 2

Some other kind of profession 2 1

Any of the above 40 25

Peer support Relationship enhancement

Barriers to utilising support Where next? Relationship

Understanding relationship quality is a resource from OnePlusOne,

Design and print: Creative Media Colour Ltd www.cmcolour.co.uk

1 Benjamin Street, London EC1M 5QG

Registered charity no. 1087994. Company no. 4133340. 9 781874 207245