The Relation of Alexithymic Traits to Affective Theory of Mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has focused on the contributors to adult theory of mind (ToM) even though there is reason to suspect individual differences in performance in neurotypical samples. Alexithymia, a term that references an impaired ability to attend to and verbally label emotions via ongoing introspection, is a useful construct through which to explore how socially relevant dimensions of emotion processing enable ToM. As 1 study has explored alexithymia vis-à-vis cognitive ToM, this study examined the relationships between facets of alexithymia and affective ToM while controlling for the potential confounds of empathy, verbal ability, and negative affect. A nonclinical sample of adults (N = 86) completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, the Mehrabian and Epstein Scale of Emotional Empathy, the Profile of Mood States, and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that externally oriented thinking contributed unique variance to affective ToM, confirming an inverse relationship between alexithymia and affective ToM but highlighting the need to parse alexithymia into discrete facets when exploring its relevance to social cognition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".