Unpacking Cultural Differences in Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study provides a cultural examination of alexithymia, a multifaceted personality construct that refers to a general deficit in the ability to identify and describe emotional states, and that has been linked to a number of psychiatric illnesses. Though this construct has been critiqued as heavily rooted in “Western” norms of emotional expression, it has not received much empirical attention from a cultural perspective. Recently, Ryder et al. (2008) found that higher levels of alexithymia among Chinese versus Euro-Canadian outpatients were explained by group differences in one component of alexithymia, externally oriented thinking (EOT); they proposed that Chinese cultural contexts may encourage EOT due to a greater emphasis on social relationships and interpersonal harmony rather than inner emotional experience. The current study examined the hypothesis that EOT is more strongly shaped by cultural values than are two other components of alexithymia, difficulty identifying feelings (DIF) and difficulty describing feelings (DDF). Euro-Canadian ( n = 271) and Chinese-Canadian ( n = 237) undergraduates completed measures of alexithymia and cultural values. Chinese-Canadians showed higher levels of EOT than Euro-Canadians ( p < .001). EOT, and not DIF or DDF, was predicted by Modernization and Euro-American values in both groups. Furthermore, cultural values mediated the effect of group membership on levels of EOT. These results suggest that cultural differences in alexithymia may be explained by culturally based variations in the importance placed on emotions, rather than deficits in emotional processing. The study also raises questions about the measurement and meaning of EOT, particularly from a cross-cultural perspective.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".