Alexithymia and interpersonal functioning:an extension of empirical research by using a dimensional approach for interpersonal style and the structured interview for alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The concept of alexithymia refers to problems in experiencing and regulating affects; clinical study as well as empirical research suggests that alexithymia is related to cold and socially inhibited interpersonal functioning. However, empirical studies frequently use only self report questionnaires. Objectives/aims This study investigates the relation between alexithymia and self-reported interpersonal problems. By using an interview measure of alexithymia next to a questionnaire, we want to avoid artificially high correlations due to shared method variance and thus get a clearer picture of the link between alexithymia and interpersonal style. We hypothesize that alexithymia will be related to a cold, but not to a dominant or submissive interpersonal style. Method The Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA) was administered by a trained researcher to 74 psychiatric inpatients, who also filled out the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64). Dimensional affiliation and dominance scores of the IIP-64 were computed and Pearson correlations between TSIA, TAS-20 and IIP-64 dimensional scores were calculated. Results As hypothesized, we observed no significant correlation between TSIA, TAS-20 and the dominance dimension of the IIP-64 and a significant correlation between the affiliation dimension and TSIA and TAS-20. Conclusions Our results support previous research and confirm that alexithymia is related to a cold interpersonal style. Since our findings converge for both measurements of alexithymia, the link between alexithymia and interpersonal style can not be explained by shared method variance. The measurement of only self-reported interpersonal problems is a limitation of this study.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".