Observer-Rated Alexithymia and its Relationship with the Five-Factor-Model of Personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies examining the relationship between alexithymia and personality exclusively employed self-report measures of alexithymia. In the present study, we examined the relationship of both observer-rated and self-reported alexithymia with the Big Five personality dimensions. We administered the Toronto Structured Interview for Alexithymia (TSIA) as an interview-based measure of alexithymia and, in addition, two self-report questionnaires, the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ). Fifty-one university students were interviewed and completed the alexithymia scales and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. In contrast to TAS-20 and BVAQ, the Difficulty identifying feelings (DIF) scale of the TSIA was found to be unrelated to neuroticism, suggesting that the frequently reported association between DIF and neuroticism could be due to the use of self-report scales. In contrast, the affective dimension of alexithymia, measured by the BVAQ, was even negatively related with neuroticism. Thus, a paucity of fantasy and little emotional arousal goes together with increased emotional stability. Furthermore, we revealed negative correlations between interview-based alexithymia scores and openness to experience and agreeableness, which cross-validated the self-report findings. Finally, extraversion and conscientiousness each showed only one negative correlation, namely with subscales of the BVAQ. Taken together, our findings show that on the basis of interviews there is no evidence for a relation of DIF with neuroticism, while associations of alexithymia with low openness to experience and low agreeableness emerged irrespective of assessment approach. The relations of alexithymia with personality are discussed in the light of different measurement approaches.
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".