Emotional charactristics of personality, cognitive problems, emotional regulation strategies and marital adjustment: a comparative study in women with high and low fear of infidility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the complexities and high prevalence of marital infidelity and its detrimental consequences in addition to its emotional load in marital relationships, particularly in women, not much research has been conducted because the taboo nature of this issue.Aims: As such, the purpose of this study was to compare the emotional characteristics of personality, cognitive problems, emotional regulation strategies and marital adjustment in women with high fear and low fear of marital infidelity. Methods:The present research is a causal comparative research.The sample consists of 89 women from the city of Karaj who referred to counseling centers for marital problems and met the entry and exit criteria and agreed to participate in the study and were selected by available method.The research instrument consisted of the Montreal Cognitive Function Questionnaire, the Emotional Characteristics of Cloninger Personality Questionnaire, the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), the Marital Adjustment Scale (DAS), and a single question assessing fear of infidelity based on a 9-degree likert type.Data were analyzed by SPSS 23 software and factor analysis using independent t-test and non-parametric Mann-Whitney test.Results: There was a significant difference between emotional characteristics of personality, the rate of re-evaluation strategy and the degree of marital adjustment of women with high fear and low fear of marital infidelity (P<0.05).Also, there was no significant difference between cognitive performance and emotional rejection strategies in women with high fear and low fear of marital infidelity (P>0.05).Conclusion: Given the present findings with differences in variables in two groups of women with high and low fear of infidelity, it can have practical implications for family and couple councilors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".