‘Somebody Watching You’: Impact of Reflecting Teams on Hope in Couple Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflecting teams (RTs) represent both an epistemological stance and a therapeutic technique. Most commonly associated with narrative and systemic approaches to therapy, RTs offer an outsider perspective that can bring hope and alternative narratives and perspectives for therapists and clients to explore. Relational hope is a little researched concept in the field of couple therapy research. This study explores the experience of RTs in couple relationships and the aspects of the experience that couples describe as connected to a sense of hope for their relationship. The study also considers whether difference in attachment style shows any relationship with hope in couple relationships before and after the clients’ session with a reflecting team. Couples completed questionnaires about their attachment style, demographics, and relational hope and were given the option to complete an interview about their experience with the reflecting team within 1 month of their therapy session. Our findings suggest that RTs contribute positively to hope in couple relationships particularly for clients who present with an anxious attachment style. This direction for research is important because there is very little research about hope in couple relationships despite its importance (Merolla, 2014; Snyder, 2002) and there is no research about what aspects of a reflecting team contribute to hope in couple relationships. Analysis of interviews indicates a number of features of the reflecting team feedback that were valued by clients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".