The Effectiveness of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) on Feelings of Rejection and Alexithymia in Women with Marital Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The present study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) on feelings of rejection and alexithymia in women experiencing marital conflict. Methods and Materials: The research method was a semi-experimental extended design of pre-test–post-test with follow-up and a control group. The statistical population included all women with marital conflict who referred to psychological service clinics in districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Tehran in 2021. A total of 30 participants were selected using purposive sampling and randomly assigned to experimental (15 participants) and control groups (15 participants). Data collection instruments included the Kansas Marital Conflict Scale (KMCS; Egman et al., 1990), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby, 1994), the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (Downey & Feldman, 1996), and Ellis’s Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy protocol (1962), administered over eight 50-minute sessions. For data analysis, multivariate covariance analysis (MANCOVA) and SPSS version 22 software were used. Findings: The results of covariance analysis indicated a significant difference between the scores of the control and experimental groups (P < .001). Specifically, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy led to a reduction in overall scores of feelings of rejection and alexithymia among women with marital conflict. Conclusion: The findings showed that Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy improves feelings of rejection and alexithymia in women experiencing marital conflict. Therefore, REBT can be applied alongside pharmacological and cognitive therapies as an auxiliary and supportive intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".