Type D Personality and Alexithymia: Common Characteristics of Two Different Constructs. Implications for Research and Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few decades, particular attention has been paid to the role of personality specific traits that can affect the loss of health, i.e., Type D personality and Alexithymia. They have been conceptualized in a different period, this means that they are different both for their theoretical positions and their empirical studies. Some authors have speculated that there is a potential conceptual overlap between Type D personality and alexithymia constructs but there is a shortcoming in the literature. The aim of the study was to examine the potential overlap between the constructs of type D personality and alexithymia, replicating previous two studies, to extend these findings to Italian population. The participants were 247 Italian adults (males = 43%), recruited in primary health care practices of Palermo. All participants did not have chronic diseases during tests administration. They ranged in age from 35 to 69 years old (M = 52.34 years, SD = 9.76). Participants were administered Type D Personality Scale (DS-14) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). A series of confirmatory factor analyses was performed to evaluate the factorial structure underlying the TAS-20 and DS-14 items. Globally results showed that alexithymia and type D personality are distinct constructs, but they are also strictly positively related with each other. Negative affectivity was highly correlated with Difficulties in identifying feelings and Difficulties in describing feelings, while Social inhibition was highly correlated with Difficulties in describing feelings. These results are consistent with those of other studies conducted in this area. Future research should consider evaluating the relationship between a deficit of affect regulation and type D personality to improve the effectiveness of interventions of health cure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".