Interpersonal Forgiveness in <scp>E</scp>motion‐Focused Couples' Therapy: Relating Process to Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to relate the in-session processes involved in interpersonal forgiveness to outcome. The sample consisted of 33 couples who received 10-12 sessions of Emotion-focused couple therapy with the aim of resolving various forms of emotional injuries (i.e., transgression that violates the expectations of a close relationship, which leaves one partner feeling hurt and angry). The results of the present study were based on the analyses of 205 video-taped segments from 33 couples' therapies. Hypotheses relating the role of three in-session components of resolution, the injurer's "expression of shame"; the injured partner's "accepting response" to the shame, and the injured partner's "in-session expression of forgiveness", to outcome were tested using hierarchical linear regression analyses. Outcome measures included the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (The Enright Forgiveness Inventory user's manual. Madison: The International Forgiveness Institute, 2000), the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Journal of Marriage and Family, 1976; 13: 723) and the The Interpersonal Trust Scale (Trust; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985; 49: 95).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".