ArticlePsyCh journal2026
Defensive Strategies and Handling Paths in Intimate Relationship Conflicts: A Dynamic Game Model From the Perspective of Emotional Regulation.
Article in PsyCh journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study develops a dynamic game model of intimate relationship conflicts that incorporates emotion regulation mechanisms, translating cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression into strategic parameters. The model simulates the dynamic evolution of defensive strategies and intervention paths, capturing the continuous interplay between emotional states and conflict behavior choices in realistic relational contexts. Using longitudinal tracking data from 320 couples and agent-based simulations, we validate the core mechanisms and demonstrate that flexibility in emotion regulation significantly reduces conflict intensity and shortens conflict cycles. When one partner's emotion regulation capacity is limited, power asymmetry intensifies defensive rigidity, highlighting the combined influence of neural coordination, relational fluidity, and micro-level cultural practices on conflict dynamics. By operationalizing emotion regulation as a computable variable within a formalized game-theoretic framework, this research bridges theoretical constructs and observable behavior, revealing how neural synchrony and relational context shape the selection and effectiveness of defensive strategies. The findings offer both theoretical and practical contributions: theoretically, the study provides a more integrated understanding of intimate relationship conflicts, emphasizing the joint roles of emotional, relational, and cultural factors in conflict evolution; practically, the model equips clinicians and family intervention practitioners with a structured, quantifiable tool for diagnosing conflict patterns and designing evidence-based strategies to reduce destructive behaviors and foster cooperative problem-solving. Overall, this study presents a concise yet comprehensive framework that advances both the conceptualization and empirical analysis of intimate relationship conflicts, offering actionable insights for intervention while highlighting the importance of integrating emotional, neural, and cultural dimensions in research and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.