The effect of therapists’ enactment interventions in promoting vulnerability sharing in emotion focused couple therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary purported change process in emotion-focused therapy for couples (EFT-C) involves partners accessing and revealing their underlying vulnerable emotions and responding empathically when their partners disclose their vulnerable emotions. One main intervention to facilitate vulnerability sharing is enactment - guiding partners to interact directly with each other. The objective of the current study was to identify interventions therapists can use to help partners share vulnerability in the context of enactment. The primary hypothesis of this study was that promoting these interventions would lead to more vulnerability expressions during enactments. METHOD: One hundred and five vulnerability enactment events were identified from videod therapy sessions of 33 couples dealing with a significant emotional injury who received 12 sessions of EFT-C. Four therapists' interventions were coded: setting a meaningful systemic context, promoting the revealing partner's emotional engagement, preparing the revealing partner for enactment, and promoting the listening partner's emotional engagement in the enactment. In addition, vulnerability expression was coded. RESULTS: Multilevel regression models showed that two interventions were significantly associated with greater levels of expressed vulnerability: setting a meaningful systemic context, and preparing the revealing partner for enactment. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that therapists can facilitated vulnerability sharing using specific preparatory interventions.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".