MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DIFFERENCES IN PREFERRED REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEMS AS A FACTOR OF CONFLICT IN A MARRIED COUPLE

2024· article· ru· W4399441230 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ирина Васильевна Герасимова, А.П. Чёлышкина

Bibliographic record

VenueВестник МГУТУ. Серия прикладных научных дисциплин. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHierarchyInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyMatching (statistics)Conflict resolutionQuarter (Canadian coin)Developmental psychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

В среде практикующих психологов (нейролингвистическое программирование) в результате наблюдений сложилось представление о том, что несовпадение предпочитаемых репрезентативных систем в семейной паре может приводить к конфликтам. Что неудивительно, так как представители именно этого направления в психотерапии для установления эффективной коммуникации придают большое значение применению подстройки, присоединению к модели мира клиента, особенностям его языка, специфике убеждений, иерархии ценностей, актуальным переживаниям и т. д. Некоторые современные авторы относят несовпадение предпочитаемых репрезентативных систем к числу самых распространенных причин конфликтов в межличностных отношениях. Однако эмпирических исследований, подтверждающих или опровергающих этот тезис, нами не найдено. В связи с этим было проведено пилотажное исследование с целью изучения различий в предпочитаемых репрезентативных системах в семейных парах как фактора конфликтности. Выборку составили 25 молодых пар с семейным стажем более года. Предмет исследования — уровень конфликтности в молодых семейных парах с совпадающими/несовпадающими предпочитаемыми репрезентативными системами. Оказалось, что у супругов с совпадающими и частично совпадающими предпочтениями репрезентативных систем существенно уровень конфликтности низкий или очень низкий, и только примерно в девятой части подгруппы уровень конфликтности оценен как средний. Тогда как в подгруппе пар с различающимися системами оценки охватывают весь диапазон от очень низких до очень высоких. Четверть респондентов подгруппы оценили уровень конфликтности в своей паре как высокий и очень высокий, и более трети — как низкий и очень низкий. Вторая выявленная тенденция свидетельствует о том, что наличие конфликтов в молодых парах для них вовсе не означает неудовлетворенность браком и не принципиально для оценки уровня согласия. На основе полученных результатов авторы соотносятся с существующими определениями конфликтности и ведущими подходами для ее изучения. Among practicing psychologists (neurolinguistic programming), as a result of observations, there was an idea that a discrepancy between the preferred representative systems in a married couple can lead to conflicts. This is not surprising, since representatives of this particular direction in psychotherapy, in order to establish effective communication, attach great importance to the use of adjustment, joining the client’s model of the world, the peculiarities of his language, the specifics of beliefs, the hierarchy of values, actual experiences, etc. There are modern authors who classify the discrepancy between the preferred representative systems in a couple as one of the most common causes of conflicts in interpersonal relationships. However, we have not found any empirical studies confirming or refuting such a thesis. In this regard, a pilot study was conducted to study differences in preferred representational systems in married couples as a factor in conflict. The sample consisted of 25 young couples with marital experience of more than a year. Subject of research: the level of conflict in young married couples with matching/non-matching preferred representative systems. It turned out that among spouses with coinciding and partially coinciding representative systems, assessments of the level of conflict as very low and low significantly prevail; only about a ninth part of the total subgroup assessed the level of conflict as average. Moreover, in a subgroup of couples with different systems, ratings cover the entire range from very low to very high. A quarter of the respondents in the subgroup rated the level of conflict in the couple as very high and high, and more than a third as very low and low. The second identified trend indicates that the presence of conflicts in young couples for them does not at all mean dissatisfaction with the marriage and is not important for assessing the level of agreement. Based on the results, the authors relate to existing definitions of conflict and leading approaches for studying it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueВестник МГУТУ. Серия прикладных научных дисциплин.Same topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207