Secondary benefits of a brief couples intervention on coparenting through relationship quality and partner conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two-parent households, the interparental relationship and coparenting alliance are central to the well-being of family relationships and young children. The current study examines whether participation in a brief, online, couple-focused relationship intervention has collateral benefits to coparenting indirectly through improvements in couple relationship quality and conflict frequency, respectively. A community sample of couples with young children in Canada (N = 140 couples; 280 participants; 91.4% heterosexual; 61.1% White; 49.3% women) participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The intervention group was taught conflict reappraisal strategies, whereas the control group received an inactive control task. Both members of the couple reported on perceived relationship quality and conflict frequency (at baseline and post-intervention), and coparenting (at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up). Controlling for baseline levels, a longitudinal, parallel mediation analysis including relationship quality and conflict frequency as mediators indicated that the indirect effect of random assignment to the intervention to coparenting via relationship quality was significant, but not through conflict frequency. There are positive cascading effects of a couple-focused intervention onto the relationship between parents, which in turn enhances their ability to work together to raise their child. Findings help to bridge intervention research across relationship, family, and developmental science.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".