A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Brief Conflict Reappraisal Intervention for Community Couples with Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Love Together, Parent Together (L2P2) program is a brief, online couple’s intervention designed to prevent relationship deterioration by targeting maladaptive psychological processes. Methods: The current study used a parallel-group randomized controlled trial of L2P2 to examine its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness. One-hundred forty couples with young children (<6 years old) were randomly assigned to L2P2 or a control group. In three writing sessions over nine weeks, all couples completed fact-based summaries about recent conflicts; the L2P2 group also responded to three writing prompts eliciting conflict reappraisal. Participants completed baseline, post-intervention, and 1- and 3-month follow-up assessments. Results: Goals related to feasibility and acceptability were met. In addition, the control group, but not the L2P2 group, showed deteriorating relationship quality from baseline to post-intervention. Conclusions: L2P2 shows promise as a brief intervention to attenuate declines in relationship quality in couples.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".