Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research · 2026
Couples satisfaction, relationship status, and symptom change after Gottman method couples therapy for infidelity: A dyadic analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peluso Paul R, Irvine Taylor, Marquez Alexandra
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Infidelity is a challenging presenting concern in couples therapy, yet relatively little outcome research has examined treatment effects using analytic approaches that account for interdependence between partners. The present study examined the pre-post changes in relationship, psychological, and infidelity-related outcomes among couples receiving Gottman Method Couples Therapy (GMCT) for infidelity, using a dyadic framework.
METHOD: Data were drawn from 35 couples (n = 70 individuals) who completed GMCT following infidelity. Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) for distinguishable dyads were estimated to examine associations between partners' pre-treatment functioning and post-treatment outcomes, allowing estimation of actor effects, partner effects, and residual covariances.
RESULTS: Statistically significant pre-post improvements were observed for both partners. Partner effects emerged selectively, with IP baseline trust and commitment associated with UP post-treatment trust and commitment. Bidirectional partner effects were observed for conflict-related behaviors, including repair attempts and hostile communication. Significant residual covariances were observed for relationship satisfaction, indicating correlated change across partners.
CONCLUSION: The observed patterns indicate that pre-post change following infidelity treatment includes both shared and partner-specific associations across relational, emotional, and behavioral domains. Dyadic analytic approaches provide a framework for characterizing treatment-associated change in couples therapy while accounting for partner interdependence.
METHOD: Data were drawn from 35 couples (n = 70 individuals) who completed GMCT following infidelity. Actor-Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) for distinguishable dyads were estimated to examine associations between partners' pre-treatment functioning and post-treatment outcomes, allowing estimation of actor effects, partner effects, and residual covariances.
RESULTS: Statistically significant pre-post improvements were observed for both partners. Partner effects emerged selectively, with IP baseline trust and commitment associated with UP post-treatment trust and commitment. Bidirectional partner effects were observed for conflict-related behaviors, including repair attempts and hostile communication. Significant residual covariances were observed for relationship satisfaction, indicating correlated change across partners.
CONCLUSION: The observed patterns indicate that pre-post change following infidelity treatment includes both shared and partner-specific associations across relational, emotional, and behavioral domains. Dyadic analytic approaches provide a framework for characterizing treatment-associated change in couples therapy while accounting for partner interdependence.