Affective Behavior in Parent Couples Undergoing Couple Therapy: Contrasting Case Studies.

affective behavior coparental satisfaction couple interactions couple therapy observational coding romantic relationship

Journal

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 27 11 2020
accepted: 19 02 2021
entrez: 5 4 2021
pubmed: 6 4 2021
medline: 6 4 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Being in a romantic relationship is characterized by a high degree of intimacy and affective involvement. Affective behavior indicates the emotional content in couple interactions and therefore promotes an understanding of the evolution of romantic relationships. When couples are also parents, their affective behavior reflects their romantic and coparental bonds. In this paper, we present an observation of parent couples' affective behavior during a coparenting conflict discussion task to document whether and how much it improved during couple therapy. Two contrasting cases of affective behavior change are included. Observational coding of affective behavior within pre- and post-intervention coparenting conflict discussion tasks was carried out to compute means and CIs for each partner in both cases. In addition, the partners' coparental and romantic satisfaction were evaluated through validated self-report questionnaires in pre- and post-intervention assessments; this helped document whether the partners' coparental and romantic satisfaction were dissimilar between the two cases. Finally, a clinical analysis of both cases was realized with the contribution of the therapists to investigate possible differences within therapy sessions. Statistical analyses revealed negative means of affective behavior for couple A in the pre-intervention assessment and positive means in the post-intervention assessment. Partners from couple B had negative means of affective behavior in the pre- and post-intervention assessments. Results concerning coparental and romantic satisfaction differed: Couple A's coparental satisfaction slightly increased and the romantic satisfaction somewhat decreased, whereas couple B's coparental satisfaction remained stable and the romantic satisfaction slightly increased between the pre- and post-intervention assessments. The clinical analysis revealed that the interactional quality of couple A slightly improved within therapy sessions and that both partners succeeded in working together as coparents, notwithstanding their romantic distress. Couple B conveyed coparental distress and exhibited poor interactional quality throughout therapy sessions (e.g., repeated criticism and contempt). This study contributes to enriching the more traditional empirical research methods in the field of couple psychotherapy, as it takes into account microlevel affective changes within parent couples' interactions in addition to self-reported data. Furthermore, the analysis of therapy sessions supports the importance of working with affective behavior in couple therapy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33815220
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634276
pmc: PMC8015940
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

634276

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Liekmeier, Darwiche, Pinna, Repond and Antonietti.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Psychol Assess. 2002 Dec;14(4):423-38
pubmed: 12501568
J Fam Psychol. 2006 Mar;20(1):156-9
pubmed: 16569100
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992 Aug;63(2):221-33
pubmed: 1403613
Psychol Aging. 2007 Dec;22(4):719-27
pubmed: 18179292
J Fam Psychol. 2016 Dec;30(8):918-926
pubmed: 27183188
J Marital Fam Ther. 2003 Jul;29(3):385-406
pubmed: 12870411
Fam Process. 2015 Mar;54(1):138-59
pubmed: 25308547
Emotion. 2013 Jun;13(3):506-19
pubmed: 23398585
J Marital Fam Ther. 2011 Apr;37(2):200-8
pubmed: 21457284
J Marriage Fam. 2007 Feb;69(1):55-72
pubmed: 17372624
Parent Sci Pract. 2003 Jan 1;3(2):95-131
pubmed: 21980259
J Fam Psychol. 2012 Aug;26(4):479-87
pubmed: 22888781
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989 Feb;57(1):47-52
pubmed: 2487031
J Fam Psychol. 2013 Feb;27(1):117-26
pubmed: 23421839
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2014 Aug;82(4):580-91
pubmed: 24660673
J Fam Psychol. 2010 Jun;24(3):289-98
pubmed: 20545402
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1993 Feb;61(1):61-9
pubmed: 8450109
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9
pubmed: 2002127
Front Psychol. 2015 Aug 19;6:1177
pubmed: 26347674
Fam Relat. 2007 Dec;56(5):467-478
pubmed: 19081835
Dev Psychopathol. 2004 Summer;16(3):609-30
pubmed: 15605628
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015 Aug;109(2):262-75
pubmed: 26098586
Curr Opin Psychol. 2017 Feb;13:142-147
pubmed: 28813285
Assessment. 2001 Mar;8(1):47-65
pubmed: 11310726
Fam Process. 2010 Jun;49(2):165-84
pubmed: 20594205
Emotion. 2014 Feb;14(1):130-44
pubmed: 24188061
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Feb;83(1):103-14
pubmed: 25265544

Auteurs

Esther Liekmeier (E)

Family and Development Research Center (FADO), Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Joëlle Darwiche (J)

Family and Development Research Center (FADO), Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Lara Pinna (L)

PROFA Foundation, Couples and Sexology Counseling Service, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Anne-Sylvie Repond (AS)

PROFA Foundation, Couples and Sexology Counseling Service, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Jean-Philippe Antonietti (JP)

Family and Development Research Center (FADO), Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH