New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Movie-Watching Together Strengthens Marriages

Psychologists found that encouraging newlywed couples to watch romance flicks, and then discuss them cut the three-year divorce rate in half. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Keeping a marriage together takes effort. And care. And maybe even watching classic romance movies, like The Way We Were or Husbands and Wives. And this is because of the conversations such movies can start.

That’s the finding from a study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. [Ronald D. Rogge et al., Is skills training necessary for the primary prevention of marital distress and dissolution? A 3-year experimental study of three interventions.

Psychologists found that encouraging couples to watch romance flicks and then discuss them cut the divorce rate in half.

The researchers divided 174 newlywed couples into three programs: active listening, where one spouse listens and then paraphrases back what they heard; or compassion training, doing random acts of kindness for your partner; or watching a movie a week for a month.

The movie-viewing couples discussed each film after watching it, guided by questions about the characters. Questions like: “Were they able to open up and tell each other how they really felt, or did they tend to just snap at each other with anger?”

All three programs worked very well, dropping the divorce rate after three years to 11 percent, versus 24 percent for couples who did no therapy. But the movie program is much more accessible and cheaper than counseling.

The researchers note the magic is not really in the movies, but rather the time that couples take to think about behavior. But hey, maybe sitting together in the dark helped too.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe