Working with Identity and Self‐soothing in Emotion‐Focused Therapy for Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will outline new developments in Emotion-Focused Therapy for Couples (EFT-C) (Greenberg & Goldman, Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of emotion, love, and power, Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2008). People are seen as primarily motivated by their affective goals and the regulation of emotional states. The three motivational systems of attachment, identity, and attraction/liking, viewed as reflective of the core concerns people bring to therapy, are briefly outlined and elaborated. The five-stage model of EFT-C is briefly described. The paper will then provide two illustrations, one that demonstrates how EFT-C therapists work with core issues related to identity, and the other that shows how therapy can promote self-soothing. In the first example, annotated transcripts taken from therapy sessions illustrate how an EFT therapist addresses issues of identity in a highly distressed couple. The second example demonstrates how to facilitate work with individuals within the couples' context to engender and develop capacities for self-soothing, seen as fundamental for the promotion of healthy emotion regulation and couples' overall health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".