pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05382 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 💻 cs.HC

SpeakSoftly: Scaffolding Nonviolent Communication in Intimate Relationships through LLM-Powered Just-In-Time Interventions

Ka I Chan , Hongbo Lan , Jun Fang , Yuntao Wang , Yuanchun Shi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords nonviolent communicationLLM interventionsintimate relationshipsconflict resolutionjust-in-time supporttext-based communicationuser studyempathy
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

LLM-powered just-in-time suggestions based on Nonviolent Communication help couples reduce verbal aggression and improve perspective-taking during text conflicts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents SpeakSoftly as a system that applies Nonviolent Communication principles through LLM interventions to scaffold better communication in intimate relationships. It describes two features: one that flags aggressive wording and offers revisions, and another that analyzes dialogues to reveal feelings and needs. A mixed-methods study with 18 couples tested three modes of increasing depth in both simulated and real conflicts. Results indicated that the most empathetic mode drove changes in both actions and thinking during simulations, while the neutral mode supported behavioral improvements and was more practical in everyday use due to lower demands on users. Readers would care because text-based misunderstandings can quickly harm close relationships, and timely support might interrupt escalation before it occurs.

Core claim

Through design informed by couples' interviews and a user study across simulated and real-life settings, the work establishes that LLM interventions following Nonviolent Communication principles can produce measurable shifts in conflict behavior and cognition, with the Empathetic Guide mode yielding both behavioral and cognitive changes in simulations while the Neutral Guide provides behavioral benefits plus lower cognitive load advantages in actual daily conflicts.

What carries the argument

The NVC-Prompt feature that detects verbal aggression and suggests revisions, paired with the NVC-Guide that uncovers feelings and needs, delivered via three progressive modes of intervention depth and tone.

If this is right

  • Empathetic LLM guidance produces both behavioral reductions in aggression and cognitive gains such as better perspective-taking in controlled conflict exercises.
  • Neutral-toned guidance supports behavioral improvements while imposing lower cognitive demands, making it more suitable for ongoing real-life use.
  • Matching intervention depth to context allows systems to balance effectiveness with practicality in high-stakes personal communication.
  • Just-in-time LLM support can operationalize Nonviolent Communication to interrupt escalation at the moment of message composition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same approach could be adapted for other text-heavy emotional exchanges, such as family or workplace disputes, provided the detection remains reliable.
  • Longer deployments might test whether repeated exposure leads to users adopting NVC habits independently without the AI.
  • Error-handling mechanisms, such as easy overrides or transparency about LLM limitations, would be needed to prevent the system from inadvertently escalating sensitive conversations.

Load-bearing premise

The large language model can accurately detect verbal aggression and correctly identify users' feelings and needs from text without bias or errors in intimate relationship contexts.

What would settle it

A follow-up observation where the LLM consistently mislabels neutral statements as aggressive or produces suggestions that users reject as unhelpful or that increase reported frustration during real conflicts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05382 by Hongbo Lan, Jun Fang, Ka I Chan, Yuanchun Shi, Yuntao Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of SpeakSoftly. During text-based conflicts, the system provides two core features: NVC￾Prompt, which intercepts verbal aggression with just-in-time revision suggestions, and NVC-Guide, which helps users translate mutual feelings and needs. Together, these features scaffold users toward constructive communication. Conflicts are common in text-based communication, particularly in intimate relations… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System Interface of Empathetic Guide mode, illustrated with a simulated conversation between two fictional users (Alice and Bob). The numbered steps indicate the interaction flow: (1) the user sends a message containing verbal aggression; (2) the system detects the aggression and triggers the NVC-Prompt, which provides JIT interception with scaffolding content (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Procedure of User Study. The sequence of the three intervention modes was randomly assigned and counterbalanced. A one-day washout period was scheduled between each session in the simulated conflict phase to minimize the emotional impact and carryover effects of the previous session. order effects, the sequence of intervention conditions was randomly assigned and counterbalanced, maintaining the identical … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Quantitative Results. Box plots comparing scores for the Baseline (no intervention) (gray), Basic Reminder (orange), Neutral Guide (green), and Empathetic Guide (pink) across the five evaluation metrics. Asterisks denote statistical significance (* indicates 𝑝 < 0.05, ** indicates 𝑝 < 0.01, *** indicates 𝑝 < 0.001). that participants consistently rated the Empathetic Guide as significantly more… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Real Interaction Examples of NVC-Prompt Interception. Two representative cases illustrating how the NVC-Prompt operated under the Neutral Guide (left) and Empathetic Guide (right) during simulated conflicts. Each case shows the user’s original message that triggered interception, the system’s tailored suggestion, and the user’s revised message. Messages are paraphrased from actual participant interactions … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Conflicts are common in text-based communication, particularly in intimate relationships, where misunderstandings can easily escalate into verbal aggression. To address this, we present SpeakSoftly, a system that applies Nonviolent Communication (NVC) principles to scaffold couples' conflict communication through LLM-powered just-in-time interventions. Informed by formative interviews with couples and NVC principles, we designed two core features: NVC-Prompt, which detects verbal aggression and suggests revisions to prevent escalation, and NVC-Guide, which analyzes dialogues to uncover users' feelings and needs, fostering self-awareness and perspective-taking. These features were implemented across three progressive intervention modes, each varying in intervention depth and tone: Basic Reminder, Neutral Guide, and Empathetic Guide. We conducted a mixed-methods user study with 18 couples across simulated and real-life conflict settings to evaluate the effectiveness of each mode. Results showed that Empathetic Guide significantly facilitated both behavioral and cognitive changes, while Neutral Guide was effective only for behavioral changes in simulated conflicts. In real-life conflicts, Neutral Guide showed distinct advantages due to lower cognitive load demands. We discuss the mechanisms behind these findings and propose design implications for in-situ interventions in high-stakes communication contexts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents SpeakSoftly, an LLM-powered system that applies Nonviolent Communication (NVC) principles to provide just-in-time interventions during text-based conflicts in intimate relationships. It introduces two features—NVC-Prompt for detecting verbal aggression and suggesting revisions, and NVC-Guide for analyzing dialogues to surface feelings and needs—implemented in three modes (Basic Reminder, Neutral Guide, Empathetic Guide) that vary in depth and tone. A mixed-methods user study with 18 couples evaluated the modes across simulated and real-life conflict settings, reporting that the Empathetic Guide facilitated both behavioral and cognitive changes, the Neutral Guide supported only behavioral changes in simulations, and the Neutral Guide offered advantages in real-life conflicts due to lower cognitive load.

Significance. If the results hold after addressing validation gaps, the work contributes to HCI by showing how LLM scaffolding can support NVC in high-stakes personal communication. It provides empirical comparisons of intervention tone and depth, with practical design implications for in-situ de-escalation tools. The mixed simulated/real evaluation and focus on cognitive vs. behavioral outcomes add value to research on AI-assisted conflict resolution.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and Results section: The headline claims attribute behavioral and cognitive changes to the NVC-Prompt and NVC-Guide features, yet no precision, recall, or bias metrics are reported for the LLM's detection of verbal aggression or extraction of feelings/needs on the actual study dialogues. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as unvalidated LLM performance (e.g., errors on sarcasm or cultural phrasing) could produce inconsistent scaffolding that explains mode differences rather than the intended NVC mechanisms.
  2. User Study section: With only 18 couples, the mixed-methods evaluation lacks reported details on statistical methods, control conditions, sample selection, or handling of LLM errors/hallucinations. These omissions undermine verification of the reported differences between Empathetic and Neutral Guides across simulated vs. real-life settings.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The terms 'behavioral and cognitive changes' are used without brief reference to the specific measures or coding schemes employed in the study.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive review. The feedback highlights important areas for improving transparency and rigor. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and Results section: The headline claims attribute behavioral and cognitive changes to the NVC-Prompt and NVC-Guide features, yet no precision, recall, or bias metrics are reported for the LLM's detection of verbal aggression or extraction of feelings/needs on the actual study dialogues. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as unvalidated LLM performance (e.g., errors on sarcasm or cultural phrasing) could produce inconsistent scaffolding that explains mode differences rather than the intended NVC mechanisms.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation of the LLM components on study data would strengthen the claims. Our primary focus was on user-perceived effectiveness and behavioral/cognitive outcomes across modes, but LLM inaccuracies could indeed confound interpretations. In revision, we will add a dedicated subsection reporting precision, recall, and F1 for verbal aggression detection, plus accuracy for feelings/needs extraction, evaluated on a stratified sample of the collected dialogues. We will also analyze and report observed errors (e.g., sarcasm handling) and discuss their potential impact on mode differences, clarifying that the study isolates effects of intervention tone and depth rather than assuming perfect LLM performance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: User Study section: With only 18 couples, the mixed-methods evaluation lacks reported details on statistical methods, control conditions, sample selection, or handling of LLM errors/hallucinations. These omissions undermine verification of the reported differences between Empathetic and Neutral Guides across simulated vs. real-life settings.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater methodological transparency. The evaluation used a within-subjects design with 18 couples, comparing the three modes in both simulated and real-life scenarios, supported by qualitative interviews and self-reports. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the section to detail: statistical approaches (thematic analysis with inter-rater reliability for qualitative data; descriptive statistics and non-parametric comparisons where applicable for quantitative measures), sample recruitment and selection criteria, the within-subjects control via the Basic Reminder mode, and explicit handling of LLM outputs (participants could disregard suggestions; we logged and reported any hallucinations or errors noted by users). We will also more explicitly frame the small sample as a limitation while emphasizing the value of the mixed simulated/real-life design for ecological validity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical design study with independent user observations

full rationale

The paper is a design-oriented HCI contribution that describes formative interviews, NVC-informed feature design (NVC-Prompt and NVC-Guide), LLM implementation, and a mixed-methods evaluation with 18 couples across simulated and real-life conflicts. Central claims about behavioral/cognitive changes for Empathetic Guide vs. Neutral Guide rest on participant-reported outcomes and observations, not on any equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations that bear the load of uniqueness, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work. No derivation chain reduces results to inputs by construction; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks of user study data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the established effectiveness of Nonviolent Communication principles and the assumption that LLMs can reliably apply them to personal text dialogues; these are drawn from prior literature and design choices rather than new evidence generated here.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Nonviolent Communication principles effectively reduce verbal aggression when applied via AI interventions in intimate conflicts
    The entire system is built on NVC as the core framework, with no new validation of its efficacy provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5529 in / 1446 out tokens · 94373 ms · 2026-05-10T19:43:09.640857+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Klein and Robert M Milardo

    Renate C A. Klein and Robert M Milardo. 2000. The social context of couple conflict: Support and criticism from informal third parties.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships17, 4-5 (2000), 618–637

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    David Obafemi Adebayo, Ifeoluwa Blessing Michael, and Faysol Aderibigbe Abisoye. 2024. Role of Third Party Interference in Marital Stability among Married adults in Nigeria.Buletin Konseling Inovatif4, 3 (2024), 214–222

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    standards for openness hypothesis

    Tamara D Afifi, Andrea Joseph, and Desiree Aldeis. 2012. The “standards for openness hypothesis” why women find (conflict) avoidance more dissatisfying than men.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships29, 1 (2012), 102–125. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026. 26 Chan et al

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Gail J Ames and Frank B Murray. 1982. When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology18, 6 (1982), 894

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    Elizabeth Bales, Kevin A Li, and William Griwsold. 2011. CoupleVIBE: mobile implicit communication to improve awareness for (long-distance) couples. InProceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 65–74

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Amanda Baughan, Larry Tian, Pranav Shekar, Amy Zhang, and Alexis Hiniker. 2024. Supporting hard conversations in close relationships through design.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–22

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Wei-Chi Chien, Sarah Diefenbach, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2013. The whisper pillow: a study of technology-mediated emotional expression in close relationships. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces. 51–59

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Jiwon Chun, Gefei Zhang, and Meng Xia. 2025. Conflictlens: Llm-based conflict resolution training in romantic relationship. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–3

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Cox, Sandy J.J

    Anna L. Cox, Sandy J.J. Gould, Marta E. Cecchinato, Ioanna Iacovides, and Ian Renfree. 2016. Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA)(CHI EA ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    work page doi:10.1145/2851581.2892410 2016

  10. [10]

    I luv u:)!

    Sarah M Coyne, Laura Stockdale, Dean Busby, Bethany Iverson, and David M Grant. 2011. “I luv u:)!”: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships.Family Relations60, 2 (2011), 150–162

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Mary J Culnan. 1987. Information technologies.Handbook of Organizational Communication-An Interdisciplinary Perspective-(1987)

    work page 1987

  12. [12]

    2012.The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business

    Charles Duhigg. 2012.The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. Vol. 34. Random House

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Elaine D Eaker, Lisa M Sullivan, Margaret Kelly-Hayes, Ralph B D’Agostino Sr, and Emelia J Benjamin. 2007. Mar- ital status, marital strain, and risk of coronary heart disease or total mortality: the Framingham Offspring Study. Psychosomatic medicine69, 6 (2007), 509–513

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    Rebecca J Erickson. 1993. Reconceptualizing family work: The effect of emotion work on perceptions of marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family(1993), 888–900

    work page 1993

  15. [15]

    Rebecca J Erickson. 2005. Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor.Journal of marriage and family67, 2 (2005), 337–351

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    Adrian B Kelly Frank D Fincham and Steven RH Beach. 2003. Communication skills in couples: A review and discussion of emerging perspectives.Handbook of communication and social interaction skills(2003), 741–770

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Blaine J Fowers. 2001. The limits of a techinical concept of a good marriage: Exploring the role of virtue in communi- cation skills.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy27, 3 (2001), 327–340

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    Yue Fu, Sami Foell, Xuhai Xu, and Alexis Hiniker. 2024. From text to self: Users’ perception of AIMC tools on interpersonal communication and self. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Nan Gao, Yibin Liu, Xin Tang, Yanyan Liu, Chun Yu, Yun Huang, Yuntao Wang, Flora D Salim, Xuhai Xu, Jun Wei, et al

    work page

  20. [20]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies9, 3 (2025), 1–37

    The Homework Wars: Exploring Emotions, Behaviours, and Conflicts in Parent-Child Homework Interactions. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies9, 3 (2025), 1–37

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    2023.What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes

    John Gottman. 2023.What predicts divorce?: The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Routledge

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    John M Gottman, Janice Driver, and Amber Tabares. 2015. Repair during marital conflict in newlyweds: How couples move from attack–defend to collaboration.Journal of Family Psychotherapy26, 2 (2015), 85–108

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    2007.Why marriages succeed or fail

    John Mordechai Gottman and John Gottman. 2007.Why marriages succeed or fail. A&C Black

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    Anthony M Grant, John Franklin, and Peter Langford. 2002. The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness.Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal30, 8 (2002), 821–835

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    Carla F Griggio, Midas Nouwens, Joanna McGrenere, and Wendy E Mackay. 2019. Augmenting couples’ communication with lifelines: Shared timelines of mixed contextual information. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    James J Gross. 2002. Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.Psychophysiology39, 3 (2002), 281–291

    work page 2002

  27. [27]

    Adam J Hampton, Jessica Rawlings, Stanislav Treger, and Susan Sprecher. 2017. Channels of computer-mediated communication and satisfaction in long-distance relationships.Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships11, 2 (2017), 171–187

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Jeffrey T Hancock and Philip J Dunham. 2001. Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions.Communication research28, 3 (2001), 325–347

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25, 1 (2020), 89–100

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    2000.Close relationships: A sourcebook

    Clyde Hendrick and Susan S Hendrick. 2000.Close relationships: A sourcebook. Sage publications. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026. SpeakSoftly 27

    work page 2000

  31. [31]

    Kristen E Holm, Ronald J Werner-Wilson, Alicia S Cook, and Peggy S Berger. 2001. The association between emotion work balance and relationship satisfaction of couples seeking therapy.American Journal of Family Therapy29, 3 (2001), 193–205

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    AJ Johnson, E Bostwick, C Anderson, E Gilchrist-Petty, and S Long. 2016. How do computer-mediated channels negatively impact existing interpersonal relationships.Contexts of the dark side of communication(2016), 241–252

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Janet R Johnston. 1994. High-conflict divorce.The future of children(1994), 165–182

    work page 1994

  34. [34]

    Adam C Jones, Rebecca Lucero Jones, and Neli Morris. 2018. Development and validation of the couple communication satisfaction scale.The American Journal of Family Therapy46, 5 (2018), 505–524

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    It’s the American lifestyle!

    Lynne Kelly, James A Keaten, Bonnie Becker, Jodi Cole, Lea Littleford, and Barrett Rothe. 2012. “It’s the American lifestyle!”: An investigation of text messaging by college students.Qualitative Research Reports in Communication13, 1 (2012), 1–9

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    Lynne Kelly and Aimee E Miller-Ott. 2018. Perceived miscommunication in friends’ and romantic partners’ texted conversations.Southern Communication Journal83, 4 (2018), 267–280

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Karanmeet Khatra, Jaisie Sin, Anastasia Kuzminykh, and Khalad Hasan. 2024. Agent-based mediation on smartphone usage among co-located couples.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, MHCI (2024), 1–20

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Yi-Chieh Lee, Naomi Yamashita, and Yun Huang. 2020. Designing a chatbot as a mediator for promoting deep self- disclosure to a real mental health professional.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW1 (2020), 1–27

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Hong Li, Jonna Häkkilä, and Kaisa Väänänen. 2018. Review of unconventional user interfaces for emotional com- munication between long-distance partners. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 1–10

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    2008.Total honesty/total heart: Fostering empathy development and conflict resolution skills

    Marion Little. 2008.Total honesty/total heart: Fostering empathy development and conflict resolution skills. A violence prevention strategy. Ph. D. Dissertation

    work page 2008

  41. [41]

    Howard J Markman, Mari Jo Renick, Frank J Floyd, Scott M Stanley, and Mari Clements. 1993. Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4-and 5-year follow-up.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology61, 1 (1993), 70

    work page 1993

  42. [42]

    Dixie Meyer and Renata Sledge. 2022. The relationship between conflict topics and romantic relationship dynamics. Journal of Family Issues43, 2 (2022), 306–323

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Humza Naveed, Asad Ullah Khan, Shi Qiu, Muhammad Saqib, Saeed Anwar, Muhammad Usman, Naveed Akhtar, Nick Barnes, and Ajmal Mian. 2025. A comprehensive overview of large language models.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology16, 5 (2025), 1–72

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Carman Neustaedter and Saul Greenberg. 2012. Intimacy in long-distance relationships over video chat. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 753–762

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    Per Nilsen, Kerstin Roback, Anders Broström, and Per-Erik Ellström. 2012. Creatures of habit: accounting for the role of habit in implementation research on clinical behaviour change.Implementation Science7, 1 (2012), 53

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Anna-Marie Ortloff, Florin Martius, Mischa Meier, Theo Raimbault, Lisa Geierhaas, and Matthew Smith. 2025. Small, Medium, Large? A Meta-Study of Effect Sizes at CHI to Aid Interpretation of Effect Sizes and Power Calculation. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–28

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Young-Woo Park, Seok-Hyung Bae, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2012. How do couples use CheekTouch over phone calls?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems. 763–766

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Young-Woo Park, Kyoung-Min Baek, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2013. The roles of touch during phone conversations: long- distance couples’ use of POKE in their homes. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1679–1688

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    Katherine Péloquin and Marie-France Lafontaine. 2010. Measuring empathy in couples: Validity and reliability of the interpersonal reactivity index for couples.Journal of personality assessment92, 2 (2010), 146–157

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    Martha S Perry and Ronald J Werner-Wilson. 2011. Couples and computer-mediated communication: A closer look at the affordances and use of the channel.Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal40, 2 (2011), 120–134

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    Charlie Pinder, Jo Vermeulen, Benjamin R Cowan, and Russell Beale. 2018. Digital behaviour change interventions to break and form habits.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)25, 3 (2018), 1–66

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    Jan L Plass and Slava Kalyuga. 2019. Four ways of considering emotion in cognitive load theory.Educational psychology review31, 2 (2019), 339–359

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    Michael K Rabby and Joseph B Walther. 2003. Computer-mediated communication effects on relationship formation and maintenance. InMaintaining relationships through communication. Routledge, 141–162

    work page 2003

  54. [54]

    Michael E Roloff and Gerald R Miller. 1987. Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research. (1987)

    work page 1987

  55. [55]

    George F Ronan, Laura E Dreer, Katherine M Dollard, and Donna W Ronan. 2004. Violent couples: coping and communication skills.Journal of family violence19, 2 (2004), 131–137. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026. 28 Chan et al

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    2004.We can work it out: Resolving conflicts peacefully and powerfully

    Marshall B Rosenberg. 2004.We can work it out: Resolving conflicts peacefully and powerfully. PuddleDancer Press

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    Rosenberg

    Marshall B. Rosenberg. 2015.Nonviolent communication: a language of life(third edition. ed.). Encinitas, Calif: PuddleDancer Press

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    2015.Nonviolent communication: A language of life: Life-changing tools for healthy relationships

    Marshall B Rosenberg and Deepak Chopra. 2015.Nonviolent communication: A language of life: Life-changing tools for healthy relationships. PuddleDancer Press

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    Jeffrey Z Rubin. 1985. Third party intervention in family conflict.Negotiation Journal1, 3 (1985), 269–281

    work page 1985

  60. [60]

    Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2024. Self-determination theory. InEncyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer, 6229–6235

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Lauren Scissors and Darren Gergle. 2016. On the bias: Self-esteem biases across communication channels during romantic couple conflict. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 383–393

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    Back and forth, back and forth

    Lauren E Scissors and Darren Gergle. 2013. " Back and forth, back and forth" channel switching in romantic couple conflict. InProceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 237–248

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Bernstein

    Omar Shaikh, Valentino Emil Chai, Michele Gelfand, Diyi Yang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2024. Rehearsal: Simulating Conflict to Teach Conflict Resolution. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 920, 20 pages. https://doi.or...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642159 2024

  64. [64]

    It happened to be the perfect thing

    Steven Siddals, John Torous, and Astrid Coxon. 2024. “It happened to be the perfect thing”: experiences of generative AI chatbots for mental health.Npj mental health research3, 1 (2024), 48

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Ari Oldwin Sitorus and Lahmuddin Lubis. 2025. Language ambiguity and emotional barriers: Semantic and psychological approaches in interpersonal communication.LITERACY: International Scientific Journals of Social, Education, Humanities 4, 2 (2025), 179–188

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Burrhus F Skinner. 1963. Operant behavior.American psychologist18, 8 (1963), 503

    work page 1963

  67. [67]

    Wafaa Sowan. 2024. A conflict escalation comparison: Couples from the general population and couples engaged in high-intensity conflict.Family Relations73, 2 (2024), 858–873

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler. 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management science32, 11 (1986), 1492–1512

    work page 1986

  69. [69]

    Stephanie Tom Tong1 and Joseph B Walther. 2011. Relational maintenance and CMC.Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships(2011), 98

    work page 2011

  70. [70]

    Maarten Vansteenkiste, Richard M Ryan, and Bart Soenens. 2020. Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions.Motivation and emotion44, 1 (2020), 1–31

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    Joshy Jacob Vazhappilly and Marc Eric S Reyes. 2017. Non-violent communication and marital relationship: efficacy of ‘emotion-focused couples’ communication program among filipino couples.Psychological Studies62, 3 (2017), 275–283

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Nadine Wagener, Daniel Christian Albensoeder, Leon Reicherts, Paweł W Woźniak, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess. 2025. TogetherReflect: Supporting Emotional Expression in Couples Through a Collaborative Virtual Reality Experience. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    Joseph B Walther. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication research23, 1 (1996), 3–43

    work page 1996

  74. [74]

    Joseph B Walther. 2007. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition.Computers in human behavior23, 5 (2007), 2538–2557

    work page 2007

  75. [75]

    Helen Weingarten and Speed Leas. 1987. Levels of marital conflict model: A guide to assessment and intervention in troubled marriages.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry57, 3 (1987), 407–417

    work page 1987

  76. [76]

    Jason B Whiting and Jaclyn D Cravens. 2016. Escalating, accusing, and rationalizing: A model of distortion and interaction in couple conflict.Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy15, 4 (2016), 251–273

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    Hannah C Williamson, Noemi Altman, JoAnn Hsueh, and Thomas N Bradbury. 2016. Effects of relationship education on couple communication and satisfaction: A randomized controlled trial with low-income couples.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology84, 2 (2016), 156

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    2012.Partner violence: A new paradigm for understanding conflict escalation

    Zeev Winstok. 2012.Partner violence: A new paradigm for understanding conflict escalation. Springer science & Business media

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    Robert Wolfe, Aayushi Dangol, JaeWon Kim, and Alexis Hiniker. 2025. Toward Nonviolent Design: Co-Designing a Human-Centered Framework for AI-Mediated Communication. InProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol. 8. 2718–2729

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Lillian Yang, Carman Neustaedter, and Thecla Schiphorst. 2017. Communicating through a telepresence robot: A study of long distance relationships. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. 3027–3033

    work page 2017

Showing first 80 references.