Cited by 48Reproductive Health and TechnologiesMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Experiential avoidance, self-compassion, self-judgment and coping styles in infertility

Open access
Cunha, Marina, Galhardo, Ana, Pinto-Gouveia, José·2016·Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare

Abstract

Objectives This study sought out to explore the existence of differences regarding emotion regulation processes (psychological inflexibility/experiential avoidance, self-judgment and self-compassion) and coping styles (emotional/detached, avoidant and rational) in three different groups of couples: 120 fertile couples (FG), 147 couples with an infertility diagnosis who were pursuing medical treatment for their fertility problem(s) (IG), and 59 couples with infertility applying for adoption (AG).Study design Cross-sectional survey, using the couple as unit of analysis.Main outcome measures Participants filled in paper-pencil questionnaires assessing coping styles, psychological inflexibility/experiential avoidance, self-judgment and self-compassion.Results IG couples, and particularly women, tend to use more experiential avoidance and self-judgment mechanisms and less emotional/detached coping style. When compared to FG couples, IG and AG couples tend to apply more avoidant coping strategies. AG couples showed higher self-compassion.Conclusions Findings suggest that emotion regulation processes may be an important target in psychological interventions for patients dealing with infertility and with the demands of medical treatment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.srhc.2016.04.001

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The literature suggests that ACT is a potentially suitable approach and an effective treatment for patients dealing with infertility.

    “Thus, the literature suggests that ACT is a potentially suitable approach and an effective treatment for patients dealing with infertility (Pinto-Gouveia etal., 2012; Cunha etal., 2016; Rahimi etal., 2019; Hosseinpanahi etal., 2020).”

    From Mapping acceptance and commitment therapy outcomes in the context of infertility: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Cunha et al., 2016

    The Conclusions (page not provided) say that Acceptance and Commitment Therapy may be adequate for patients dealing with infertility, supporting its potential suitability. They say contextual therapies may expand treatment effectiveness, but do not establish that ACT is an effective treatment. The study’s cross-sectional design also does not test ACT treatment outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Individuals confronted with fertility problems tend to display maladaptive coping strategies, avoiding thoughts, emotions, and situations related to pregnancy or parenting as a way of dealing with infertility (Cunha et al., 2016; Galhardo et al., 2019).

    “Therefore, individuals confronted with fertility problems tend to display maladaptive coping strategies as they tend to avoid thought, emotions, and situations that are somehow related to pregnancy or parenting as a way of dealing with the painful experience of infertility (Cunha etal., 2016; Galhardo etal., 2019).”

    From Mapping acceptance and commitment therapy outcomes in the context of infertility: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Cunha et al., 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Couples diagnosed with infertility tend to have higher experiential avoidance scores (Cunha et al., 2016).

    “In fact, couples diagnosed with infertility tend to have higher experiential avoidance scores (Cunha etal., 2016).”
  • Couples with an infertility diagnosis pursuing medical treatment presented significantly higher scores of experiential avoidance compared to fertile couples and couples applying for adoption.

    “Studies addressing experiential avoidance in people dealing with infertility are scarce but couples with an infertility diagnosis pursuing medical treatment presented signi fi cantly higher scores of experiential avoidance when compared to fertile couples and couples applying for adoption (Cunha, Galhardo, & Pinto-Gouveia, 2016).”

    From Infertility-related stress and depressive symptoms – the role of experiential avoidance: a cross-sectional study. (2020) · cites this paper as Cunha, Galhardo, & Pinto-Gouveia, 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [14]14. Gyurak A, Gross JJ, Etkin A. Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: a dualprocess framework. Cogn Emot. 2011;25(3):400-12. Epub 2011/03/25.
  2. [35]35. Dana S, Narimani M, Mikaeili N. Comparison of emotion regulation and emotion control in fertile and infertile women. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research. 2013;2(5):250-4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
  3. [40]40. Dinis A, Pinto-Gouveia J, Duarte C. Contributos para a validação do Questionário de Estilos de Coping. Psychologica. 2011;52(4):35-62.
  4. [41]41. Dinis A, Pinto-Gouveia J, Duarte C. Contributos para a validação do Questionário de Estilos de Coping. Psychologica. 2011;52(4):0-. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
  5. [43]43. Pinto-Gouveia J, Gregório S, Dinis A, Xavier A. Experiential avoidance in clinical and non clinical samples. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 2012;12(2):139-56.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cunha, M., Galhardo, A., & Pinto-Gouveia, J.
Affiliations
Instituto Superior Miguel Torga (PT)
Corresponding author
Galhardo, Ana
Venue
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
10
Pages
41-47
ISSN
1877-5756 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2331644535
Cited by
48
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
5.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/68392/2010)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
infertility, experiential avoidance, psychological inflexibility, self-compassion, self-judgment, coping styles, emotion regulation, couples, infertility treatment, adoption, avoidance coping, rational coping
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Empathy, Female, Humans, Infertility, Male, Quality of Life, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review