Changes in Relationship‐Specific Attachment in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotionally focused couple therapy (EFT; Johnson, The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy (1st/2nd edition). Brunner-Routledge, New York, 2004) is an effective treatment of relationship distress (Johnson et al., Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 1999; 6, 67). However, less is known about EFT's impact on couples' relationship-specific attachment bond. Using hierarchical linear modeling with a sample of 32 couples, we examined session-by-session changes in couples' relationship-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance and pre- to posttherapy changes in their relationship-specific attachment behaviors. Couples significantly decreased in relationship-specific attachment avoidance, and those who completed a blamer softening significantly decreased in relationship-specific attachment anxiety. Couples' attachment behavior significantly increased toward security. Finally, session-by-session decreases in relationship-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance were significant associated with increases in relationship satisfaction across sessions. These results provide empirical support for the attachment-based assumptions of EFT. Video abstract accessible by clicking here.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it