Evidence of Contrasting Patterns for Suppression and Reappraisal Emotion Regulation Strategies in Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia generally refers to difficulties in identifying and describing emotions. In this paper, two studies explored whether the emotion deficits observed in alexithymia may be related to the use of emotion regulation strategies. Relations with various sociodemographic variables were also explored. In the first study, 255 students completed the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20. For the second study, 1107 participants from the general population completed the ERQ and the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire. Results demonstrated that alexithymia was related to the use of a suppression strategy and in particular to difficulties verbalizing emotions, suggesting that the capacity to communicate and name one's emotion is a central aspect in alexithymia. Concerning sociodemographic variables, alexithymia and the use of a suppression strategy were found to be related to age and to be higher in males. The results of these studies and their clinical implications for treatment are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".