Is alexithymia linked with marital satisfaction or attachment to the partner? A study in a pregnancy cohort of parents-to-be
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To investigate possible associations of alexithymia with marital satisfaction and mutual attachment between the partners in a group of parents-to-be during pregnancy. Methods The present study was conducted in a pregnancy cohort. Cross-sectional data were available for 151 mothers and 106 fathers, and altogether 102 couples. The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) was used to assess alexithymia, the Index of Marital Satisfaction (IMS) to assess romantic relationship satisfaction and the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR) to evaluate attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. Kruskal–Wallis test was used for categorized variable comparisons. For continuous variables, Spearman correlation analyses and linear regression analyses were conducted. Results The TAS-20 total score, as well as, two of its dimensions, difficulties in identifying and describing feelings, were significantly correlated ( p p =0.004). The subjects' own TAS-20 scores explained the ECR anxiety and avoidance scores to a significant extent, but the fathers' TAS-20 factor 3 scores were also associated with the mothers' avoidance scores ( p =0.037). Conclusion Alexithymia was not directly related to marital satisfaction. However, alexithymia appears to have a significant effect on relationship-related anxiety and avoidance. This association should be further studied in parents and their offspring in a longitudinal setting.
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".