Impact of Neuroticism on Alexithymia and Marital Satisfaction Among Married Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The present study focused on three variables namely Neuroticism, Alexithymia and Marital Satisfaction.Neuroticism is a general tendency to experience negative affect, and people high in Neuroticism are prone to have irrational ideas, be less able to control their impulses, and to cope more poorly than others with stress.Alexithymia, on the other hand, is seen as a cluster of deficits in the experiencing, expression and regulation of emotions.Marital Satisfaction is often defined as the attitude an individual has toward his or her marital relationship.The aim of the present study was to study the impact of Neuroticism on Alexithymia and Marital Satisfaction among Married Men and Women.In addition, the study also explored the relationship between Alexithymia and Marital Satisfaction.Methods: The study was conducted on fifty married heterosexual couples (50 Males, 50 Females) to examine the impact of Neuroticism on Alexithymia and Marital Satisfaction.A convenient, snowball sampling method was used to get responses from 100 participants.The three variables were studied using three tests, one for each variable.These consisted of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, 20 item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and Enrich Marital Satisfaction Scale.Results: All the three statistical analyses were found to be significant and in line with the results.The results supported the hypotheses and thus implicated that Neuroticism does have an impact on Alexithymia and Marital Satisfaction among married couples.Conclusion: Further studies in larger samples are need to establish and corroborate the findings of the study.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".