How Do Self‐Assessment of Alexithymia and Sensitivity to Bodily Sensations Relate to Alcohol Consumption?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alexithymia describes an abnormality of emotional experience that is commonly expressed among individuals with addiction and alcohol abuse disorders. Alexithymic individuals are characterized by difficulties in identifying and describing their emotions. This impairment is linked to the development and maintenance of addiction. Moreover, an emergent theory suggests alexithymia is itself secondary to a failure of interoception (sensitivity to internal bodily signals, including physiological arousal states). METHODS: This study tested for hypothesized contributory roles of alexithymia and dysfunctional interoception in the expression of social drinking. Alexithymia, subjective sensitivity to bodily sensations, and alcohol consumption scores were quantified using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Body Perception Questionnaire, and the Alcohol Use Questionnaire, respectively, in a normative sample (N = 600). Regression and bootstrapping mediation analyses were used to test the hypothesis that alexithymia mediated the association between sensitivity to bodily sensations and alcohol consumption. RESULTS: Alexithymia was positively correlated with sensitivity to bodily sensations and with alcohol consumption. Mediation analysis revealed that alexithymia, and more precisely, difficulty in identifying feelings, mediated the relationship between sensitivity to bodily sensations and alcohol consumption, such that the predictive effect of sensitivity to bodily sensations on alcohol intake became nonsignificant when controlling for alexithymia. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that alexithymia is associated with subjective hypersensitivity to bodily sensations. Moreover, our findings support the theoretical proposal that alexithymia is an expression of impaired processing of bodily sensations including physiological arousal, which underpin the development of maladaptive coping strategies, including alcohol use disorders. Our observations extend a growing literature emphasizing the importance of interoception and alexithymia in addiction, which can inform the development of new therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".