Mediating Role of Cognitive Emotion Regulation Strategies on the Relationship Between Attachment Styles and Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the present study was to investigate the mediating role of cognitive emotion regulation strategies on the relationship between attachment styles and alexithymia. Five hundred and thirty six undergraduate students (282 girls, 254 boys) from public universities in Tehran participated in this study. Participants were asked to complete the Adult Attachment Inventory (AAI), the Farsi version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (FTAS-20), and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). The results illustrated a significant negative correlation between secure attachment style and alexithymia. Moreover, the results revealed a significant positive correlation between avoidant and ambivalent attachment styles with alexithymia. Regression analysis showed that both adaptive and maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies, have a mediating role on the relationship between attachment styles and alexithymia. Secure and insecure attachment styles predicted changes in alexithymia through adaptive and maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies in opposite directions. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the mediating role of cognitive emotion regulation strategies on the relationship between attachment styles and alexithymia is partial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".