The Effectiveness of Gottman's Systemic Cognitive Couple Therapy on Marital Conflicts, Communication Patterns, and Alexithymia in Couples with Marital Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The increasing prevalence of marital conflicts in contemporary society, the risk of separation, and its negative impact on the mental health of couples and their children is one of the most significant issues, sometimes affecting even three generations of a family. The effectiveness of Gottman's Systemic Cognitive Couple Therapy on marital conflicts, communication patterns, and alexithymia in couples with marital conflict was examined. Methods and Materials: This study utilized an applied and quasi-experimental design with a pre-test, post-test, and follow-up, accompanied by a control group. The statistical population of this study included all couples who referred to counseling clinics in District 1 of Tehran from June to September 2023. Among them, 30 couples were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The interventions included seven sessions of Gottman's Systemic Cognitive Couple Therapy (2008) administered to the experimental group. Data were collected using the Christensen and Sullaway (1984) Communication Patterns Questionnaire, the Bagby, Parker, and Taylor (1994) Alexithymia Scale, and the Barati and Sanai (1996) Marital Conflict Questionnaire. The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and SPSS-22 software. Findings: The results of data analysis indicated that systemic cognitive couple therapy was effective on marital conflicts (F=40.30, P<0.001), communication patterns (F=13.53, P<0.001), and alexithymia (F=3.59, P=0.036) in couples with marital conflict (P<0.01). Conclusion: It can be concluded that couple therapy can be utilized to improve marital conflicts, communication patterns, and alexithymia in couples experiencing marital conflict.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".