Stability of Alexithymia and Its Relationships with the ‘Big Five’ Factors, Temperament, Character, and Attachment Style
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy still exists concerning the stability of the alexithymia construct. Also, although alexithymia has been found to be related in a theoretically meaningful way to other personality constructs such as the 'Big Five' factors, few studies have investigated its relationship with influential constructs such as temperament and character, and attachment security. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-one undergraduate and graduate students were administered the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Zung Depression Scale (ZDS), the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI-125), the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), and the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) questionnaire. After 1 month, 115 participants completed again the TAS-20, STAI, and ZDS. RESULTS: Alexithymia was only moderately correlated with depression and anxiety. Both the absolute and relative stability of TAS-20 total and subscale scores was high, and a negligible portion of their change over time was accounted for by changes in depression or anxiety. In separate multiple regression models including also gender, age, depression and anxiety, TAS-20 total and subscale scores were correlated with low energy/extraversion, low emotional stability, openness, low friendliness/agreeableness; harm avoidance, low self-directedness, low cooperativeness, low reward dependence; attachment-related avoidance and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings lend support for both absolute and relative stability of alexithymia, corroborate an association between alexithymia and insecure attachment, and contribute to a coherent placing of alexithymia in the broader theoretical network of personality constructs.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it