Most theories of marriage suggest that a high level of validating interactions will lead to sustained marital satisfaction. However, we observed no differences between distressed and nondistressed couples on the degree of validation in their premarital interactions. Surprisingly to many who work with couples, levels of premarital invalidation, not validation, strongly differentiated couples who did well in the future from those who did not do well.

Couples who would become distressed or divorced (at some point in time over the 12 years in our research) had higher levels of invalidation in their premarital interaction than couples who remained nondistressed. We highlight such points in our preventive efforts because we think couples need to know that certain negative patterns do far more harm to their relationship than positive patterns can reasonably counteract. In layman's terms, "one zinger erases many positive acts of kindness" (Notarius & Markman, 1993, p. 18).

Thus, our analyses indicate that couples with dysfunctional premarital interaction patterns, especially a tendency to approach discussions of relationship issues with invalidation, negative affect, and withdrawal, are at risk for marital distress and divorce. These studies on premarital couples parallel findings in research that highlight differences between happily married couples and distressed marriages. Taken together, a variety of studies strongly suggest that the negatives of how couples interact are much more salient and more predictive than the positives in predicting the future prospects of the relationship (Gottman, 1993; Markman & Hahlweg, 1993).

In our view, these results highlight the need for partners to learn together how to adequately regulate negative affect arising from relationship conflict. Thus, although the current version of PREP addresses many aspects of healthy marriages, it emphasizes key affect-management skills that enable difficult issues to be handled in a constructive manner (Markman et al., 1994).

 PREP's Focus

The core interventions of PREP take place along both behavioral and cognitive lines. Behaviorally, couples are taught very specific, very structured models for effective communication and problem solving. For example, we teach couples "The Speaker/Listener Technique" in which a couple will use an object to designate who has the floor, and therefore, who is in the "speaker" and "listener" roles at any given point in a conversation. Simple, clear rules are associated with these roles. For example, the speaker is to speak for him or herself and the listener is to paraphrase what has been heard, editing out the tendency to form or express rebuttals while listening.

These simple rules are not unlike what has been taught in many communication models, but in PREP®, we emphasize their importance by highlighting empirically derived danger signs that the basic rules counteract. Couples are also taught to use techniques such as "time out" for stopping escalating interactions and shifting into more positive modes of communicating--like the Speaker/Listener Technique.

Such rules teach partners to structure conflict so that they can control it, rather than be controlled by it. Although structure can be seen as artificial or constricting, we focus on helping couples see the value of having boundaries for interactions that may otherwise be unproductive, frustrating (e.g., because of not being heard), or outright destructive (e.g., yelling, put downs, and the potential to escalate to levels of physical aggression).

The following information is taken from: Stanley, S.M., Blumberg, S.L. & Markman, H.J. (in press).

In PREP, structure is emphasized for helping couples manage the more difficult, volatile, and negative emotions that intimacy and conflict can generate. Structure is defined as agreed upon ground rules for handling differences and conflict well. Since few people have learned how to handle such matters well, very clear rules give couples a road map for getting through discussions that they are otherwise not likely to handle well. The structure of simple rules brings a degree of safety to a conversation that allows for greater openness and less negative affect.
This leads to a crucial theoretical point. We do not teach the Speaker/Listener Technique (and other structured techniques) because we think such skills are necessarily required for a great relationship. In fact, the Speaker/Listener Technique employs active listening skills such as paraphrasing that are clearly not normative for couples. Rather, practicing the skills embodied in the technique helps couples to learn how to counteract the negative patterns of interaction that can bring a marriage to it's knees.

Further, when stressed by conflict, couples can employ the artificial structure to help them communicate more effectively and reduce the tendency toward Danger Signs such as escalation, invalidation, negative interpretations, and withdrawal (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 1994). In fact, following the rules of the technique virtually guarantees that certain negative patterns will not be expressed, but it does not necessarily bring more joy and closeness. Those outcomes are more linked to increasing protective activities such as fun and friendship--experiences that are very vulnerable to the negative patterns.
In summary on this point, we are much more interested in reducing the negative patterns of interaction than in the Speaker/Listener Technique per se. The technique is employed as one means of helping couples achieve this crucial end.

The following information is taken from: Stanley (in press)

Research Studies

A number of studies specifically on PREP® and it's variations have shown very encouraging results. Behrens and Halford (1994) found that the communication skills of those coming from divorced homes could be brought up to the level of those not having this risk factor (parental divorce). Blumberg (1991) compared PREP with Engaged Encounter, finding at post assessment that PREP couples communicated more positively and less negatively as judged by trained coders.

In the United States, the longest term evaluation of the skills-based, premarital training ever conducted has been a study comparing PREP to matched control couples (Markman, Floyd, Stanley, & Storaasli, 1988; Markman et al., 1993; Stanley et al., 1995). PREP couples have been shown to have about half the likelihood of breaking up or divorcing, have demonstrated greater relationship satisfaction, and have shown lower problem intensity than the control couples, up to five years following training. 

For years following training, PREP couples have shown better communication than controls, as assessed on such dimensions as communication skills usage, positive affect, problem-solving skill, and support/validation. PREP couples have also shown less withdrawal, less denial, less dominance, less negative affect, and less overall negative communication than controls. Lastly, PREP couples reported significantly fewer instances of physical violence.

In Germany, a version of PREP® has been in use by the Catholic Church, where PREP couples (compared to a mixed control group, with about half of the couples choosing other premarital programs offered by the Church and about half receiving no premarital program) have shown significant gains in communication and conflict management skills from pre to post-test, and have maintained these gains at the 1 and 3-year follow-ups compared to their pre-test scores and to controls. Moreover, PREP couples were significantly more satisfied at the 3 year follow-up and more stable as compared to controls (Thurmaier et al.. 1993). Perhaps most importantly, the latest data show that the PREP couples have a lower divorce rate (1.6% vs. 12.5%) than the control couples (Hahlweg et al., 1996).

A recent study on another variation of PREP in the Netherlands did not show the same kinds of promising results as other PREP studies have (Van Widenfelt, Hosman, Schaap, & van der Staak, 1996). However, interpretation of results from this study is problematic for various reasons. First, PREP couples had been together an average of three years longer than controls at the beginning of the study, making group comparisons difficult. Second, since the PREP couples averaged nine years together prior to intervention, inferences to premarital "prevention" seem limited. Third, control couples were significantly more likely to drop out of this longitudinal study, which can produce a control group that is increasingly select (biased) for couples doing relatively well (Van Widenfelt et al., 1996) at 5 year follow-up.

Such methodological problems are very difficult to overcome in longitudinal, intervention outcome research, and studies on PREP® are affected by such complicated methodological concerns in varying degrees. At the University of Denver we are currently beginning a large scale outcome study of premarital training with the support of the National Institute of Mental Health. This new study will address some of the design concerns raised by other outcome studies on premarital training.
Methodological problems in long term studies make it increasingly difficult to detect differences between groups many years later.

It is important to note that the beneficial effects of a program like PREP appear to be clear as long as 4 or 5 years after the training. Beyond that, the effects probably weaken over time, and therefore it is important for couples who benefit from such material to periodically review it. Taken as a whole, we are quite encouraged by the data from a variety of studies suggesting that couples can learn skills, attitudes, and strategies that can make a real difference.

Brief Publication List

[See other documents on this site.  Especially the ones entitled "Key references . . ." for most up-to-date references.]

Key Text:

Markman, H., Stanley, S., & Blumberg, S.L. (2001) Fighting for Your Marriage. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc.

Sampling of Journal Articles:

Markman, H. J., & Hahlweg, K. (1993). The prediction and prevention of marital distress: An international perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 29-43.

Markman, H.J., Floyd, F., Stanley, S.M., & Lewis, H. (1986) Prevention. In N. Jacobson & A. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Marital Therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Markman, H.J., Floyd, F.J., Stanley, S.M., & Storaasli, R.D. (1988) Prevention of marital distress: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 210-217.

Markman, H.J., Renick, M.J., Floyd, F.J., Stanley, S.M., & Clements, M. (1993) Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 001-008.

Notarius, C., & Markman, H. J. (1993). We can work it out: Making sense of marital conflict. New York: Putnam.
Stanley, S.M., & Markman, H.J. (1992) Assessing Commitment in Personal Relationships. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 54, 595-608.

Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J., St. Peters, M., & Leber, D. (1995) Strengthening Marriages and Preventing Divorce: New Directions in Prevention Research. Family Relations, 44, 392- 401.

Stanley, S.M., & Trathen, D. (1994) Christian PREP: An Empirically Based Model For Marital and Premarital Intervention. The Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 13, 158-165.

General References