Alexithymia and Sociocultural Factors in a Japanese Sample: A Study with the Rorschach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reexamined the Japanese version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale, a self-report sc ale for measuring alexithymic characteristics, by comparing the scores on three factors and the total scores with variables of the Rorschach in a sample of 40 (originally 48) Japanese college students. Based on prior studies, our aims were to further validate the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale by comparing its scores with those on a projective technique. We also investigated whether sociocultural factors, such as repression of hostility. are associated with scores on the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (especially Factor 3). None of the seven Rorschach Alexithymia Variables were significantly related to the factors and total scores of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. However, scores for Factor 1 (difficulty identifying feelings) of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale correlated positively with scores on Sum C' (reserved responses to emotional stimuli) and Adj es (stimulus demand), suggesting that individuals who score high for Factor 1 experience gloomy, depressive feelings but in constricted ways. Scores for Factor 3 (externally oriented thinking) correlated positively with the D scores (stress tolerance) and negatively with m (situational stress) responses, suggesting that Factor 3 may reflect a psychological defense that enhances stress tolerance. There was a nonsignificant negative correlation between Factor 1 and Factor 3 scores, but, unlike our hypothesis. Factor 3 was neither related to AG (aggression) nor S (space responses reflecting oppositional tendency), indices of aggression or hostility in the Rorschach Comprehensive System. It may be that the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale and the Rorschach measure quite different aspects of personality, but further research is necessary.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".