The use of EMDR therapy for couples considering divorce: theory and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its introduction in 1989, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy (EMDR) has gained a solid body of evidence for its efficacious use in treating trauma and its effects. The process of divorce is likely to activate what is known as “small t” trauma reactions in each individual of the couple. “Small t” traumas are responses to common life difficulties such as divorce or unemployment, and usually bring out irrational cognitions and inadequate ability to cope with certain events. Recent years have seen a surge of interest in investigating how EMDR therapy may be used for these more common traumas that can have a strong impact on individuals and couples. In particular, this article outlines the use of EMDR with an expository case of a couple considering divorce after an affair. The article presents research support for EMDR as a psychotherapy model for both “capital T” and “small t” traumas. The expository case is considered, and clinical decision-making from an EMDR-based approach integrated with body-focused interventions is delineated. Finally, a call for future research is included.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".