Experience of Joy and Sadness in Alexithymic Emotional Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexithymia is a personality trait characterized by difficulties identifying and describing emotions. Suffering from a deficit in the cognitive processing of emotions, alexithymic individuals are unable to symbolize their emotions. Even though emotional elaboration is one of the core aspects of alexithymia, it has not been thoroughly investigated. Few studies have reported quantitative features of alexithymic’s discourse. However, the qualitative properties of alexithymic emotional discourse and the difference in symbolization between positive and negative emotions remain to be investigated. This study aims to examine how individuals with alexithymia symbolize their subjective emotional experiences by defining the characteristics of their discourse related to positive and negative emotions. A sample of 9 clinically alexithymic individuals rated on the TAS-20 was interviewed about a typical experience of joy and sadness. Data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Themes associated with sadness revealed that alexithymic individuals tend to avoid contact with sadness. They also perceived sadness as an imposed state by external events. Themes associated with joy revealed that this emotion seemed easier to share with peers. Moreover, joy seemed easier to express and symbolize for alexithymic individuals than sadness. This comprehensive description of alexithymic emotional discourse allows to better understand the symbolization of emotions according to their valence and to better recognize alexithymic ways of expressing emotions.
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".