400 word Discussion and 3-5 Page Paper

Article

Protecting the Marriage Relationship During the Doctoral Journey: Strategies for Students and Partners Based on the Strong Marital House Concept

Amanda J. Rockinson-Szpakiw 1 , Lucinda S. Spaulding

1 ,

and Anita Knight 1

Abstract With doctoral programs across disciplines experiencing perennially high attrition rates, in-depth examination of factors associated with doctoral persistence is necessary. A strong marital relationship is one factor found to be central to persistence in doctoral students. Thus, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the literature on marital satisfaction, quality, and stability in order to provide doctoral students and their partners strategies for nurturing and sustaining a solid marriage throughout the stress-inducing doctoral process. Recommendations are framed by the following four factors of the Sound Marital House: (a) marital friendship, (b) creating positive sentiment override, (c) regulating conflict, and (d) creating shared symbolic meaning.

Keywords doctoral persistence, marital relationship, Sound Marital House

Doctoral persistence, defined as ‘‘the continuance of a

student’s progress toward the completion of a doctoral degree’’

(Bair, 1999, p. 8), continues to be a concern as only 40–60% of doctoral students across disciplines complete their doctoral

programs (Council of Graduate Schools PhD Completion Proj-

ect, 2007). To date, researchers have identified factors, both on

a student and institutional level, that contribute to doctoral per-

sistence (Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-

Szapkiw, 2012), and a strong marital relationship is one factor

central to persistence in a doctoral program (Lott, Gardner, &

Powers, 2009; Price, 2006). Specifically, a supportive partner

contributes to the emotional stability of the doctoral student

and ultimately his or her ability to complete the program

(Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Consistent with the

literature devoted to understanding marital satisfaction and

quality, Hyun (2009) found that a solid marriage and partner

support assisted female counseling doctoral students in balan-

cing their personal lives and school in a successful manner.

Marital satisfaction and quality have been correlated with

positive outcomes for individuals and families. A meta-

analysis of 93 studies demonstrated a strong, positive relation-

ship between individual well-being and marital quality (Proulx,

Helms, & Buehler, 2007). Other researchers have reported that

level of marital satisfaction and quality are related to physical

health (South & Krueger, 2013; Whisman & Uebelacker, 2003)

and productivity (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997). Alterna-

tively, poor familial relationships are associated with stress and

distress (Bodenmann, 2005; Himsel & Goldberg, 2003) and

contribute to doctoral students’ decision to leave a doctoral

program (Lovitts, 2001). Often entrance of one partner into a

doctoral program results in marital distress and negatively

influences the marital relationship as areas of concern such

as financial difficulties, lack of time, poor communication, and

change in roles and lifestyle (Bergen & Bergen, 1978; Cao,

2001; Giles, 1983; Middleton, 2001; Norton, Thomas, Morgan,

Tilley, & Dickins, 1998; Williams, 1977).

Based on the premise that understanding how to maintain

marital satisfaction, quality, and stability is essential to doc-

toral persistence, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate

how doctoral students and their partners can sustain a healthy

marriage through the doctoral process by applying Gottman’s

(1999) Sound Marital House concepts that purport that a satis-

fying and stable marriage is determined by the following four

factors: (a) marital friendship, (b) creating positive sentiment

override (PSO), (c) regulating conflict, and (d) creating shared

symbolic meaning.

1 Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Amanda J. Rockinson-Szpakiw, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA 24503, USA.

Email: [email protected]

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 2015, Vol. 23(2) 141-146 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1066480714565106 tfj.sagepub.com

Marital Satisfaction, Quality, and Stability

Longitudinal research has established that marital satisfaction

is not static but rather a phenomenon in ‘‘flux’’ (Bradbury,

Fincham, & Beach, 2000). In other words, marital quality

and satisfaction are fluid and multidimensional constructs

(Gottman & Notarius, 2002; Gottman, Ryan, Carrère, & Erley,

2002). One theory for explaining this fluid and multidimen-

sional concept of marital satisfaction and quality is the complex

dynamical systems theory. Since marital satisfaction and

stability are not considered static variables but are ‘‘moving

targets,’’ complex dynamical systems theory suggests focusing

on process is critical. The concept of the Sound Marital House

(Gottman, 1999; Gottman & Notarius, 2002) provides insight

into process-oriented variables that have been used to success-

fully predict outcome variables, thus, providing implications

for doctoral students who are in an environment that may influ-

ence or threaten the marriage stability.

The Doctoral Process

Engaging in doctoral study can affect the homeostasis of the

marriage relationship. While there are many stress-inducing

factors associated with pursing a doctorate (e.g., statistics anxi-

ety, financial pressure, etc.), surveying doctoral students (N ¼ 619) across programs, Wasburn-Moses (2008) found that ‘‘doc-

toral students felt least satisfied [italics added] with their ability

to juggle work and family with their overall workload’’

(p. 265). Doctoral students consistently report that enrollment

in a doctoral program induces feeling of guilt, worry, and anxi-

ety due to time away from the family (Smith, Maroney, Nelson,

Abel, & Abel, 2006) and sacrificing time with spouses was a

significant theme in one study investigating the experiences

of individuals who had persisted and earned their doctorate

in the field of education (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw,

2012). These findings reinforce Wellington and Sikes’ (2006)

conclusion that ‘‘family and personal relationships are some-

times strained and can even break down as a result of a stu-

dent’s involvement in their studies’’ (p. 731). Quite simply,

introducing doctoral studies to the marriage or family unit often

requires a significant social adjustment as spouses may need to

assume different roles and responsibilities than they are accus-

tomed, the family’s financial situation may change, and the

doctoral student may begin to differentiate from the family

(e.g., seek the council of doctoral faculty or peers rather than

the spouse).

The Sound Marital House

The Holmes-Rahe Stress Inventory (Holmes & Rahe, 1967)

that evaluates social adjustments lists transition in work, work

hours, living conditions, and other items associated with doc-

toral study as significant stressors. Gottman’s (1999) Sound

Marital House concept is consistent with a complex dynami-

cal systems approach and may provide protective strategies to

buffer doctoral students from the stress of ‘‘major changes in

the number of arguments with spouse’’ (rated a 35 on the

Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory). The Sound Marital

House purports that a satisfying and stable marriage is deter-

mined by the following four factors: (a) marital friendship, (b)

creating PSO, (c) regulating conflict, and (d) creating shared

symbolic meaning.

The foundation to a strong marriage needs to be marital

friendship as friendship is usually characterized by behaviors

that promote positive affect. Cognitive room, fondness and

admiration, and actions of turning toward one’s partner are

the three components that make up friendship. PSO refers to

each partner’s ability to accept feedback as constructive

rather than negative and critical. This approach is different

than active listening. Active listening may have led to a

decrease in negative interaction but was not coupled with an

increase in positive interaction necessary to maintain a 5:1

ratio (Gottman et al., 2002). PSO involves attributing a posi-

tive meaning to a neutral stimuli. When the doctoral student

exhibits a negative affect in the form of yelling, his or her

partner is able to interpret the negativity as the partner being

upset about a grade received on a paper rather than a personal

attack, this neutral interpretation may be associated with a

lack of negative reciprocity (Gottman et al. 2002). In the ver-

nacular of doctoral students, this may be referred to as the

‘‘quit taking it personally’’ approach.

The next Sound Marital House factor, conflict regulation,

allows the couple to navigate the terrain of irresolvable prob-

lems (perpetual problems, which even couples who have high

levels of stability and satisfaction face) and physiologically

sooth one another to avoid escalation in conflict. Finally, by

creating shared symbolic meaning couples support each other’s

life dreams and establish rituals, roles, goals, and symbols for

the purpose of connecting (Gottman, 1999).

Entrance of one partner into a doctoral program has the

potential to undermine the process of cultivating a Sound Mar-

ital House as the four factors may become difficult to maintain.

When time is limited, communication is sporadic, and stress

levels increase. Friendship can be harder to maintain; PSO

difficult to create; conflicts can be ignored and escalate; and

rituals, roles, goals, and symbols may be put on hold. If doc-

toral students and their partners can understand and be inten-

tional about implementing strategies related to increasing the

four Sound Marital House factors, they can increase the likeli-

hood that they maintain a satisfied, quality, stable relationship

through the doctoral journey. And, as a result of a stronger mar-

riage relationship, the doctoral student may be more likely to

persist in this program.

Strategies to Create and Maintain a Sound Marital House

A variety of strategies have been linked to building a satisfying,

quality, stable marriage that may help doctoral students and their

partners build a sound marital house while enrolled in a doctoral

program. Following are some strategies from the literature

(Gottman, 1999; Gottman et al., 2002; Gottman & Silver, 1999)

142 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(2)

that are congruent with the Sound Marital House concept that

doctoral students can use for implementing and operationaliz-

ing the concepts.

Factor 1: Marital Friendship

The foundation to a strong marriage needs to be marital friend-

ship, as friendship is usually characterized by behaviors that

promote positive affect (Gottman, 1999; Gottman, Gottman,

& Declaire, 2006). Fondness, admiration, and actions of turn-

ing toward one’s partner are the three components that consti-

tute friendship. Couples may increase fondness and admiration

for one another by making a list of attributes that they value

about one another and placing this list in a visible location.

Then as couples make an effort to express gratitude to one

another on a daily basis, they are able to increase fondness and

admiration while also increasing authentic happiness as an

additional benefit (Seligman, 2003). In addition to meditating

on valued characteristics to increase fondness and admiration

to increase marital friendship, couples can also create a love

map. A love map involves a mental map that includes an

awareness of one’s partner’s activities (Gottman & Silver,

1999). Love maps increase knowledge about each other’s space

(work, family, school, and self) and track with one another’s

daily and/or weekly activities to increase intimacy. Couples

may find it helpful to schedule a time, once a week or once a

month, to talk about stresses, worries, and hopes, especially

as they relate to the doctoral program. The following questions

have been adapted from ‘‘The Love Map Questionnaire’’ spe-

cifically for couples completing doctoral work and are modi-

fied to be conversation questions to be answered over dinner

or another time the couple schedules (see Gottman & Silver,

1999, for more details):

� Who are my partner’s three closest classmates? � What are the school and work stressors my partner is

facing right now?

� What are my partner’s life dreams and goals related to education and work?

� Share my top three stressors with my partner. � What is my partner most grateful for currently?

In addition to completing Gottman’s Love Map exercise,

couples may also find ‘‘The 5 As’’ (Tirabassi & Tirabassi,

2011) helpful. Adapted for doctoral students, The 5 As are

(a) affirmation, (b) affection, (c) apology, (d) ask, and (e)

amen.

Affirmation. This includes the identification of things about the partner that the other partner appreciates (e.g., I am thankful for

your __________). For the couple in the midst of the doctoral

journey, this should include a list of things directly related to

the doctoral process (e.g., I am thankful that you are doing the

laundry and taking care of household responsibilities so I can

study. I am thankful you are pursuing a terminal degree and

setting a good example for our children).

Affection. This includes physical touch, sharing a comforting touch such as a hug or a kiss, and words of affection (e.g., I love

you). While in a doctoral program, expressions of affection are

often neglected and replaced with the business of school and

life. For the couple in the midst of the doctoral journey, it is

important to create habits of affection (e.g., a kiss before each

partner leaves for work in the morning).

Apology. Often during the doctoral process, feelings can get hurt as one partner neglects another partner’s needs. It is important

that couples check in with each other weekly and apologize for

anything that has bothered or hurt the other partner.

Ask. This includes volunteering to do a small act of service for a partner (e.g., I know this is a stressful time for you. What can I

do to take something off your plate right now?).

Amen. This includes encouraging a partner through words and actions (e.g., I know you had to stay up late finishing your

paper because you took time to go to [our child’s] soccer game.

Thank-you for prioritizing this and for the personal sacrifices

you are making for our family).

Applying The 5 As is also a creative way to create love

maps and may be especially helpful to doctoral students and

their partners as it is a brief and efficient way to promote the

5:1 ratio, meaning there are five positive interactions mani-

fested for every one negative, contributing to an overall pos-

itive emotional atmosphere typically found among stable/

satisfied couples.

Assessments like the Love Map Questionnaire may be

helpful in fostering the process of increasing positive inter-

action in addition to decreasing negative interaction. This

two-pronged approach has a greater impact on process

(Gottman et al., 2002). While doctoral students can integrate

these assessments on their own, faculty can also use these

assessments as experiential activities in class or as reflective

homework assignments, serving a 2-fold process of self-

awareness and buffering against the stress of marital tension.

Factor 2: PSO

PSO refers to each partner’s ability to accept feedback as con-

structive rather than negative and critical. For example, when

the doctoral student receives a low grade on an assignment

and shortly after exhibits a negative effect in the form of being

short or yelling, his or her partner is able to interpret the nega-

tivity as the partner being upset about the grade rather than a

personal attack.

There are several strategies that can be helpful in increasing

PSO. ‘‘Pack away your radar system’’ is an example of one. If

one’s radar is going off and a partner is interpreting his or her

partner’s behavior as originating from negative intentions (or

negative sentiment override), in order to activate PSO partners

can ‘‘pack away their radar system’’ by taking a break from the

conversation and the partner.

Rockinson-Szpakiw et al. 143

Another method consistent with promoting PSO is the idea

of making ‘‘deposits’’ in a partner’s metaphorical emotional

bank account. This process is referred to as ‘‘padding the emo-

tional bank account’’ (Harley, 2001). Each time a partner meets

the needs of his or her partner, he or she makes a deposit in the

emotional bank account; conversely, each negative interaction

is a withdrawal from the emotional bank account. In order to

maintain a positive relationship, or in Harley’s terms, an affair

proof marriage, it is important to make enough deposits to sus-

tain a withdrawal. A negative interaction, complaint, or other

relationship problem may make a withdrawal from the emo-

tional bank account. According to Gottman (1999), in stable

marriages, the ratio of positive to negative interactions is 5:1

(though it is even higher in happy marriages). So, to maintain

a positive emotional atmosphere in the relationship and promote

PSO, it is important to strive to make significantly more deposits

than withdrawals. Harley suggests husbands and wives can make

deposits by meeting the needs for husbands and wives.

Husbands can (a) provide affection (e.g., give a hug and kiss

when she comes home at night from class), (b) initiate mean-

ingful conversation (e.g., What was the best part of your day

today? How did class tonight inform your dissertation plans?),

(c) be honest (e.g., I am calling because this work on this paper

is going to take longer than I thought and I will have to forego

the movie and work long into the night after dinner in order to

complete this group project.), and (d) provide family commit-

ment (e.g., set aside a family night each week).

Wives can (a) be sensitive to her husband’s sexual needs

(e.g., make time for sex even when the stress of course work

and dissertation makes it difficult), (b) provide recreational

companionship (e.g., find and share mutual interests and plan

at least 1 day a month away from course work and the disserta-

tion to have fun together), and (c) admire (e.g., express appre-

ciation for what he does, Thank-you for doing the laundry

while I was working on my paper tonight).

Factor 3: Conflict Regulation

Conflict regulation allows the couple to navigate the terrain of

irreconcilable problems and to physiologically sooth one

another to avoid escalation in conflict. Gottman (1999) sug-

gests it is not conflict that threatens marriages, but the way the

conflict is dealt with. It is important to recognize that it is okay

to fight but recovery after fighting is needed. To recover, Gott-

man (1999) suggests implementing the following basic skills:

First, practice soft start-ups to bring up problem areas. For

example, rather than starting the conversation by stating, ‘‘I

have asked you a dozen times to help me set up an office, and

I cannot believe you haven’t done anything to help me!’’ a spouse could ask, ‘‘Honey, do you have some time to talk about

where we can create an office space for me to work so I do not

have to use the kitchen table to complete my schoolwork?’’ It is

important to start-up conflicts in a gentle way without blaming

one another. After starting the discussion regarding the source

of conflict softly, couples can also use and recognize repair

attempts. These repair attempts may come in the form of humor,

nonverbal communication, or physical touch. For example, a

light kiss, a smile, or a joke. All of these gestures serve to

de-escalate the conflict and restore affection for one another.

Another basic skill Gottman (1999) recommends is compro-

mise. Since disagreements are inevitable, especially when one

partner is pursuing a degree that requires significant investment

of time and resources, compromise is an important tool for

resolving conflict. For example, a husband and wife may need

to sit down prior to the wife entering the doctoral program and

decide what their ‘‘negotiable’’ and ‘‘nonnegotiables’’ are

related to household responsibilities. The husband may agree

to taking care of all of the household cleaning chores so his

wife can use the extra time to study but with the agreement that

she will continue to cook dinner every night.

Another tool Gottman (1999) suggests for conflict regulation

is implementing relaxation techniques and sooth physiological

arousal during a conflict. This idea of self-soothing is consistent

with the fourth branch of emotional intelligence (Mayer,

Salovey, Caruso, & Cherkasskiy, 2011) that requires the ability

to identify emotions in facial expressions, to use emotional infor-

mation to facilitate thought, and to regulate emotion. For exam-

ple, doing deep breathing exercises for several minutes or taking

a time out during a conflict can help one to modify the state of

physiological arousal. Gottman (1999) also emphasizes the

importance of self-soothing in addition to accepting influence

(Gottman et al., 2006; Madhyastha, Hamaker, & Gottman,

2011; i.e., respecting and valuing what one’s partner has to say

and taking it into consideration when deciding upon or taking an

action) in conflict regulation and compromise.

Applying the aforementioned strategies can facilitate the

regulation of conflict. However, in addition to implementing

strategies, it is also important to identify and eliminate some

process. The four horsemen of the apocalypse are behaviors

that predict a marriage is likely to end (Gottman, 2009) and

they include the following: (a) criticism: statements that imply

something is globally wrong with the partner (e.g., You are

always so lazy!), (b) contempt: statements that imply superior- ity (e.g., You are not capable of amounting to anything!), (c) defensiveness: statements that claim innocence (e.g., This is

not in any way my fault), and (d) stonewalling: withdrawing

from the discussion (e.g., I’m done talking about this). It is

important for partners to identify these confrontational stances

in their relationship and replace with a listening stance exem-

plified by the prayer of peace commonly attributed to Saint

Francis of Assisi, ‘‘Grant that I may not so much seek . . . to be understood as to understand.’’ In sum, spouses should look

for opportunities to understand and see the issue from their

partner’s perspective, recognizing that showing understanding

is not necessarily agreeing.

Factor 4: Symbolic Meaning

By creating shared symbolic meaning or creating meaningful,

shared experiences, couples support each other’s life dreams

and establish rituals, roles, goals, and symbols for the purpose

of connecting. They also reduce the likelihood on negative

144 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(2)

martial interactions and increase the chances of staying in

their marital relationship (Bradley & Gottman, 2012). There

are some practical strategies for increasing a couple’s shared

meaning. Couples need to schedule and implement daily,

weekly, or monthly rituals to connect with one another and

bond (see The 5 As; Tirabassi & Tirabassi, 2011). For

example, some couples plan monthly weekend getaways, a

biweekly date, or simply a 30-min shared breakfast every

morning to ensure that despite the busyness they have at least

one event to share together daily in order to maintain connec-

tion while one spouse is in a doctoral program.

Conclusion

Promoting marital satisfaction, quality, and ultimately, stabi-

lity, through the stress of a doctoral program is essential to

doctoral persistence. Partners can promote marital satisfac-

tion, quality, and stability by understanding the concept of

the Strong Marital House and implementing strategies for pro-

moting marital friendship, creating PSO, regulating conflict,

and creating shared symbolic meaning.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bair, C. R. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-

synthesis (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, 1999).

Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI Microform 9917754)

Bergen, G., & Bergen, M. B. (1978). Quality of marriage of university

students in relation to sources of financial support and demo-

graphic characteristics. The Family Coordinator, 27, 245–250.

Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital

functioning. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser & G. Bodenmann (Eds.),

Emerging perspectives on couples coping with stress (pp.

33–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research

on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in

review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 964–980.

Bradley, R. P., & Gottman, J. M. (2012). Reducing situational vio-

lence in low-income couples by fostering healthy relationships.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 187–198.

Cao, W. (2001). How male and female doctoral students experience

their doctoral programs similarly and differently. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-

ciation, Seattle, WA.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Ph.D. completion and attrition:

Analysis of baseline program data from the Ph.D. completion

project. Washington, DC: Author.

Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and

testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.

Giles, F. (1983). The effects of doctoral study on marriage and family:

An ethnographic study. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of

the American College Personnel Association. Houston, TX.

Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in

doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The

Journal of Higher Education, 76, 669–700.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic. New York, NY: Norton.

Gottman, J. M., Gottman, J. S., & Declaire, J. (2006). Ten lessons to

transform your marriage: America’s love lab experts share their

strategies for strengthening your relationship. New York, NY:

Crown Publishing.

Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2002). Marital research in the

20th century and a research agenda for the 21st century. Family

Process, 41, 159–197.

Gottman, J. M., Ryan, K. D., Carrère, S., & Erley, A. M. (2002).

Toward a scientifically based marital therapy. In H. A. Liddle,

D. A. Santisteban, R. F. Levant & J. H. Bray, (Eds.), Family

psychology: Science-based interventions (pp. 147–174). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10438-008.

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making

marriage work. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

Harley, W. F. (2001). His needs, her needs: Building an affair-proof

marriage. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell.

Himsel, A. J., & Goldberg, W. A. (2003). Social comparisons and

satisfaction with the division of housework: Implications for men’s

and women’s role strain. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 843–866.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating

scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213–218.

Hyun, J. H. (2009). An exploration of the coping strategies in female

counseling doctoral students’ marriages. Dissertations. Paper 37.

Retrieved from http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cps_diss/37

Lott, J., Gardner, S. K., & Powers, D. A. (2009). Doctoral student

attrition in the STEM fields: An exploration of event history anal-

ysis. The Journal of College Student Retention, 11, 247–266.

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and con-

sequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, England:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Madhyastha, T. M., Hamaker, E. L., & Gottman, J. M. (2011). Inves-

tigating spousal influence using moment-to-moment affect data

from marital conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 292–300.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Cherkasskiy, L. (2011). What

is emotional intelligence and why does it matter? In R. J. Sternberg

& J. Kaufman (Eds.), The handbook of intelligence (3rd ed., pp.

528–549). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Middleton, S. (2001). Making room: The place of academic study.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Norton, L. S., Thomas, S., Morgan, K., Tilley, A., & Dickins, T. E.

(1998). Full-time studying and long-term relationships: Make or

break for mature students? British Journal of Guidance and Coun-

seling, 26, 75–88.

Price, J. (2006). Does a spouse slow you down?: Marriage and

graduate student outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.

Rockinson-Szpakiw et al. 145

Proulx, C., Helms, H., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and

personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 69, 576–593.

Seligman, M. (2003). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive

psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New

York, NY: Atria Books.

Smith, R. L., Maroney, K., Nelson, K. W., Abel, A. L., & Abel, H. S.

(2006). Doctoral programs: Changing high rates of attrition.

Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development, 45, 17–31.

South, S., & Krueger, R. (2013). Marital satisfaction and physical health

evidence for an orchid effect. Psychological Science, 24, 373–378.

Spaulding, L. S., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Hearing their

voices: Factors doctoral candidates attribute to their persistence.

International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 199–219. Retrieved

from http://ijds.org/Volume7/IJDSv7p199-219Spaulding334.pdf

Tirabassi, R., & Tirabassi, B. (2011). Little changes big results for

crazy busy couples. Newport Beach, CA: Little Changes Big

Results LLC.

Wasburn-Moses, L. (2008). Satisfaction among current doctoral

students in special education. Remedial and Special Education,

29, 259–268.

Wellington, J., & Sikes, P. (2006). ‘‘A doctorate in a tight compart-

ment’’: Why do students choose a profes-sional doctorate and

what impact does it have on their personal and professional

lives? Studies in Higher Education, 31, 723–734. doi:10.1080/

03075070601004358

Whisman, M. A., & Uebelacker, L. A. (2003). Comorbidity of

relationship distress and mental and physical health problems.

In D. K. Snyder & M. A. Whisman (Eds.), Treating difficult

couples: Helping clients with coexisting mental and relation-

ship disorders (pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Williams, R. E. (1977). The perception of the impact of a doctoral

program upon the marriage relation-ships of doctoral students

at the University of Northern Colorado (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Northern Colorado, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 38, 132.

146 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 23(2)