Effects of Gestalt Therapy Two-Chair Dialogue on Divorce Decision Making
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
Abstract Using Q-methodology, Mackay's (1995) study sought to find empirical support for the three-stage model of the Gestalt two-chair technique and the theory put forth by Greenberg (1979, 1983) and Greenberg, Rice, and Elliot (1993). A structured Q-sort was constructed using the factors of conflict resolution (CR) and the Gestalt concept of contact (C) in a 2×2 factorial design. Each factor was divided into two levels: CR—resolved versus unresolved and C—contact versus interruption of contact. The factors of CR and C were expected to interact before and after successful and unsuccessful therapy for decision making. Eight participants who were ambivalent about staying married performed the Q-sort before and after six sessions of therapy in which the two-chair technique was used as the primary intervention to facilitate their pre-decision making regarding their marriage. Moderate support was found for the three stages of the model: opposition, merging, and integration. When therapy was successful, the factors of CR and C interacted as predicted. When therapy was not successful, the factors of CR and C did not interact as predicted. The factors of CR and C did not interact for individuals who were experiencing a great deal of interruption of contact, indicating there is a possible prestage to the model.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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