Somatic Interventions and Depth of Experiencing in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFT), an attachment-based couple therapy, views emotion as being central to the process of therapeutic change. As affect arousal of emotion is a somatic reaction, the purpose of this study was to focus on therapists’ interventions classified as noting and commenting on clients’ somatic cue of emotional experience, such as their facial expression or posture, in relation to depth of emotional experiencing demonstrated by clients in EFT couple therapy sessions. The sample included 13 therapists, each treating one couple during a single EFT training demonstration session. We coded therapists’ interventions (i.e., commenting on one partner’s somatic cue of emotion). Immediately prior to and following such therapist interventions, we rated the partner’s depth of emotional experiencing. The results of multilevel modeling demonstrated a significant linear increase in terms of depth of partner’s experiencing throughout the session. Furthermore, partners demonstrated a significant immediate increase in the depth of experiencing following somatically focused interventions. These findings suggest that interventions focusing on somatic experience of emotion may facilitate deeper experiencing for clients in EFT sessions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".