Alexithymia Assessment and Relations with Dimensions of Personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This study examines the relationship between alexithymia, impulsiveness, locus of control, irrational beliefs, and both the domain and the facet levels of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality in a sample of 136 undergraduate students by using the 26-Item and the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scales (TAS-26; TAS-20), the Impulsiveness Questionnaire (I7), the Internal, Powerful others, and Chance Scales (IPC), the Malouff and Schutte Belief Scale and the NEO Personality Inventory Revised. The aim of this study is to compare the TAS-26 and the TAS-20, and to explore relations between alexithymia and personality especially regarding aspects that have not been taken into account so far, like impulsiveness and irrational beliefs. As expected, alexithymia overlaps with various dimensions of the FFM, as well as other dimensions like external locus of control and irrational beliefs. Surprisingly, there is no association between alexithymia and impulsiveness. Our results suggest that alexithymia is a cognitive state of externally oriented thinking with an emotional instability associated to the inability to cope with stressful situations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".