Impact of repeating somatic cues on the depth of experiencing for withdrawers and pursuers in emotionally focused couple therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy, an experiential modality, views emotion central to therapeutic change. In this exploratory study, we examined therapists' repetition of somatically focused interventions (therapist verbalizing somatic cues, such as facial expressions) and their impact on clients' emotional experiencing in-session. We also assessed difference for withdrawing versus pursuing partners. The sample included 13 EFT therapists who worked with one couple each for a single session. From transcripts we coded therapists' repetition of somatically focused interventions and clients' depth of experiencing pre-and post-intervention. Multilevel modeling demonstrated that a higher number of repetitions of somatically focused interventions predicted greater increase in depth of experiencing, unlike length of time spent repeating interventions. Somatically focused interventions resulted in greater increase in depth of experiencing for withdrawing as compared to pursuing partners. The results of this exploratory study suggest that such interventions may be a specific technique of EFT therapists that enhances emotional experiencing especially among withdrawing partners.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".