What, why, and for whom: couples interventions: a deconstruction approach

This paper provides a commentary on the special series on universal processes and common factors in couple therapy (Halford & Snyder, this issue). The authors in this section share their insights, from varying perspectives, about what it is in couples therapy and relationship education programs that work, why they work, and for whom they work best. In so doing, these articles address specific elements of couples interventions--in effect, taking a couples approach apart in order to understand it better. However, as a collection, this section takes this approach to understanding one step further. It puts the elements back together again, making the process of couples therapy/relationship education more accessible and easier to customize based upon the couple, the presenting complaints, the therapist, and the context. The term "deconstruction" is used to describe how the specific elements of couples interventions are understood and reassembled in new, theoretical, and empirically validated ways. It is argued here that once it is understood that a couples intervention works, why it works, and for whom it works, we are able to individualize our approach to specific couples in an effort to make couples therapy better at improving relationships and keeping them improved.     

The Partners for Life Program: A Couples Approach to Cardiac Risk Reduction

Morbidity and mortality are reliably lower for the married compared with the unmarried across a variety of illnesses. What is less well understood is how a couple uses their relationship for recommended lifestyle changes associated with decreased risk for illness. Partners for Life compared a patient and partner approach to behavior change with a patient only approach on such factors as exercise, nutrition, and medication adherence. Ninety‐three patients and their spouses/partners consented to participate (26% of those eligible) and were randomized into either the individual or couples condition. However, only 80 couples, distributed across conditions, contributed data to the analyses, due to missing data and missing data points. For exercise, there was a significant effect of couples treatment on the increase in activity and a significant effect of couples treatment on the acceleration of treatment over time. In addition, there was an interaction between marital satisfaction and treatment condition such that patients who reported higher levels of marital distress in the individuals condition did not maintain their physical activity gains by the end of treatment, while both distressed and nondistressed patients in the couples treatment exhibited accelerating gains throughout treatment. In terms of medication adherence, patients in the couples treatment exhibited virtually no change in medication adherence over time, while patients in the individuals treatment showed a 9% relative decrease across time. There were no condition or time effects for nutritional outcomes. Finally, there was an interaction between baseline marital satisfaction and treatment condition such that patients in the individuals condition who reported lower levels of initial marital satisfaction showed deterioration in marital satisfaction, while non satisfied patients in the couples treatment showed improvement over time.     

Epistemic Friction: Reflections on Knowledge, Truth, and Logic

Knowledge requires both freedom and friction. Freedom to set up our epistemic goals, choose the subject matter of our investigations, espouse cognitive norms, design research programs, etc., and friction (constraint) coming from two directions: the object or target of our investigation, i.e., the world in a broad sense, and our mind as the sum total of constraints involving the knower. My goal is to investigate the problem of epistemic friction, the relation between epistemic friction and freedom, the viability of foundationalism as a solution to the problem of friction, an alternative solution in the form of a neo-Quinean model, and the possibility of solving the problem of friction as it applies to logic and the philosophy of logic within that model.     

Eating Disorders in an Israeli Women’s Prison: Correlates of the Risk

Extensive rates of child abuse and neglect (CAN), substance abuse disorders (SUDs), and mental health problems have been reported among incarcerated women. The link between CAN, SUDs, and eating disorders is well-documented, but little is known about the eating-disorder behaviors of incarcerated women. The purpose of this study was (a) to explore eating-disorder behaviors among incarcerated women in Israel; (b) to examine whether certain types of CAN are associated with eating disorders; and (c) to study the link between CAN, SUDs, mental health problems, and eating disorders. This cross-sectional study investigated eating-disorder behaviors in a sample of 62 incarcerated women in Israel. The findings indicated a high prevalence of eating disorders among incarcerated women; almost 70% exhibited the drive for thinness, which is considered a central feature of eating disorders. In addition, the findings revealed a high prevalence of CAN (84.2%), especially emotional abuse (57.9%) and emotional neglect (73.7%). I also found a high rate of co-occurrence of CAN, SUDs, mental health problems, and eating disorders. Bulimia nervosa, ineffectiveness, and low impulse regulation were found to be associated with SUDs and mental health problems (p?=?0.006, p?=?0.032, and p?<?0.001, respectively). The findings highlight the intersection of trauma with self-destructive behaviors, including co-occurrences of SUDs, eating disorders, and severe mental health problems as a result of negative childhood experiences, suggesting a need for simultaneous treatment interventions.     

Is logic in the mind or in the world?

The paper presents an outline of a unified answer to five questions concerning logic: (1) Is logic in the mind or in the world? (2) Does logic need a foundation? What is the main obstacle to a foundation for logic? Can it be overcome? (3) How does logic work? What does logical form represent? Are logical constants referential? (4) Is there a criterion of logicality? (5) What is the relation between logic and mathematics?     

Distinguishing manifestations of anxiety: how do personality traits of compulsive checkers differ from other anxious individuals?

To better understand relations between personality and anxiety in general, and personality differences between compulsive checkers and nonchecking anxious individuals in particular, the current study was conducted. Participants included a nonclinical undergraduate sample of 36 compulsive checkers, 33 nonchecking anxious controls and 33 nonchecking nonanxious controls who were compared on five basic personality dimensions: emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and intellect (Goldberg, 1992). Results indicated that a combined group of all anxious individuals was less extraverted and less emotionally stable than nonchecking/nonanxious controls. Results further indicated that compulsive checkers were less emotionally stable and more conscientious than nonchecking anxious controls. The implications of these findings, as well as the impact of the order of personality item presentation, are considered and discussed.     

Differences in Emotion Regulation Difficulties Across Types of Eating Disorders During Adolescence

Emotion regulation appears to play a key role in eating disorders. However, prior attempts to associate specific emotion regulation abilities with specific types of eating disorders resulted in inconsistent findings. Moreover, far less is known about emotion regulation in eating disorders during adolescence, a critical period of emotional development. The current study addresses this gap, comparing emotion regulation characteristics between adolescents with restrictive types of eating disorders and those with binge eating or purging types of eating disorders. Ninety-eight adolescents with eating disorders (49 with restrictive and 49 with binge eating/purging eating disorders) completed a set of questionnaires including the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). The results revealed that binge eating/purging types of eating disorders were associated with greater difficulties in a variety of emotion regulation dimensions including impulse control, goal-directed behavior and access to effective emotion regulation strategies. Awareness and clarity of emotions were also worse in the binge eating/purging types of eating disorders, but this difference did not remain when comorbid psychopathology measures were controlled for. Moreover, the emotion regulation profile of adolescents with anorexia nervosa-binging/purging type was more similar to that of adolescents with bulimia nervosa than to that of adolescents with anorexia nervosa-restrictive type. While both restrictive and binge eating/purging eating disorders have been associated with emotion regulation difficulties, the current study shows that the presence of binge eating or purging episodes is linked with greater severity of emotion regulation deficits among adolescents with eating disorders.