Alexithymia: Its prevalence and correlates in a British undergraduate sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alexithymia is characterized by a difficulty identifying and describing emotional states, as well as an externally oriented thinking style. This study investigated the prevalence of alexithymia in a British undergraduate sample and assesses its relationship to both parental bonding and dissociation. METHOD: The Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20), the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI), and the Dissociative Experience Scale (DES) were administered to a sample of 181 male and 190 female undergraduate students from both arts and science subjects. RESULTS: Rates of alexithymia were comparable with those observed in some other countries. Contrary to predictions, females were found to have higher rates than males, and the highest presence of alexithymia was in female science students. As in previous studies, alexithymia was linked to both dissociation and perceptions of a lack of maternal care, though the degree of association to the latter was small. Dissociative experiences were predicted by both maternal overprotection and difficulties identifying feelings. DISCUSSION: Some qualified support was found for the relevance of early maternal bonding to later difficulties processing emotions. The presence of greater alexithymia in females, and female science students in particular, was discussed in reference to similar observations elsewhere. There was also an understandable relationship between 'difficulty identifying feelings' (TAS) and both depersonalization/derealization and absorption (DES).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".