MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1080048208

Duet for life: Is alexithymia a key note in couples’ empathy, emotional connection, relationship dissatisfaction, and therapy outcomes?

2015· article· en· W1080048208 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pamela D. McNeill

Notice bibliographique

RevueAustralasian Journal of Paramedicine · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAlexithymiaEmpathyPsychologyConnection (principal bundle)PsychotherapistKey (lock)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Alexithymia is an emotion-related construct involving difficulties identifying, describing, and processing emotion, which hinder the capacity to provide empathy, and the development of emotionally connected intimate relationships. To date, there has been minimal investigation of the impact of alexithymia on community couples’ relationships, no associated examination of clinical couples, and no consideration of therapists’ knowledge of alexithymia as a source of influence in couple therapy outcomes. Studies 1 and 2 investigated alexithymia in 170 community couples and 17 therapy couples, respectively, in association with their empathy provided, empathy received, emotional connection components (i.e., turn toward, turn away, turn against, positive emotional connection), and relationship dissatisfaction. Study 3 examined 61 couple therapists’ knowledge and experience of alexithymia. Alexithymia was assessed with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), which generates a total alexithymia score, and three subscale scores of difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF), and externally oriented thinking (EOT) (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994). Empathy provided and empathy received were measured with the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI MO and OS; Barrett-Lennard, 1986). A scale was developed to assess the emotional connection components. Relationship dissatisfaction was measured with the revised Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI-R; Snyder, 1997). Therapists’ data were gathered via personal interviews. Findings for the community couples indicate that husbands’ and wives’ own TAS-20, DIF, and DDF predicted all of their own outcome variables in the expected positive and negative directions; their EOT predicted decreased empathy provided and increased turn against. Relationally, husbands’ and wives’ TAS-20 and DDF predicted lower empathy provided and empathy received in each other, and DDF also predicted higher partner relationship dissatisfaction. Clinical husbands’ TAS-20, DDF, and EOT were associated with decreases in their own empathy provided. These variables, plus DIF, were related to lower turn away in their wives. Clinical wives’ DIF was associated with their own decreased empathy provided and increased relationship dissatisfaction, and EOT was associated with increased turn away. Wives’ DDF was related to higher turn away in their husbands. Discrepancy analyses with the community couples found that husbands’ outcomes were predicted by discrepancies in TAS-20, DIF, DDF, and EOT, and wives’ outcomes were predicted by TAS-20 partner differences. The discrepancies between the partners predicted their empathy and emotional connection, and the effects varied for husbands and wives. Mediation analyses with the community couples indicate that for husbands, two pathways fully mediated the association between alexithymia and relationship dissatisfaction. One pathway was through lower empathy received, leading to higher turn away. The second pathway was through lower empathy received, leading to lower positive emotional connection. Two partial mediation pathways were found for wives. Comparisons between the community and clinical couples found no significant betweengroup differences on the alexithymia variables; however, a greater proportion of clinical husbands and wives had a high level of total alexithymia. Clinical partners were also significantly lower than community partners on empathy provided, empathy received, turn toward, and positive emotional connection, and higher on turn against, and relationship dissatisfaction. Additionally, clinical partners had significantly greater TAS-20 and DDF discrepancies when wives’ scores were higher than their husbands’ scores. Interviews with couple therapists found that, although therapists recognised the emotionrelated features of alexithymia, the majority of therapists had minimal awareness, or understanding, of the alexithymia construct. The findings are discussed in relational terms and with a focus on their potential to advance therapeutic practise and treatment outcomes for couples. Therapists’ low awareness of alexithymia is emphasised, as is the need to disseminate clinically based education about alexithymia.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,553

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,351
Écart entre enseignants0,291 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAustralasian Journal of ParamedicineMême sujetPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207