Modeling the Relationship Between Psychological Capital and Alexithymia with Emotional Divorce Through the Mediation of Spiritual Intelligence in Couples Seeking Divorce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to determine the fit of the model examining the relationship between psychological capital and alexithymia with emotional divorce through the mediation of spiritual intelligence in couples seeking divorce. This research employed a descriptive-correlational design. The statistical population included all couples seeking divorce who referred to counseling centers in Babol in 2023 (N = 780). Using a simple random sampling method, 271 women were selected (n = 271) and responded to the following instruments: the Psychological Capital Questionnaire by Luthans et al. (2007), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale by Bagby et al. (1994), the Emotional Divorce Scale by Gottman et al. (1995), and the Spiritual Intelligence Questionnaire by Abdollahzadeh et al. (2008). Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling and path analysis. The findings revealed a significant negative correlation between psychological capital and emotional divorce (r = -0.476; p < .01), and a significant positive correlation between alexithymia and emotional divorce (r = 0.380; p < .01). Psychological capital had an indirect and negative effect on emotional divorce through the mediation of spiritual intelligence (β = -0.460; p < .01), and alexithymia had an indirect and negative effect on emotional divorce through the mediation of spiritual intelligence (β = -0.461; p < .01). The model of the relationship between psychological capital and alexithymia with emotional divorce mediated by spiritual intelligence demonstrated an adequate fit. From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the enrichment of psychological concepts and marital relationships. From a practical standpoint, it may serve as an effective tool for family counselors, couple therapists, and social policymakers to reduce emotional divorce and enhance the quality of family life.
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".