The Mediating Role of Defensive Mechanisms in the Relationship between Social Phobia and Alexithymia in University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Psychological factors play a key role in people's emotional responses to different social situations. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the mediating role of defense mechanisms in the relationship between social phobia and alexithymia, in the students of Farhangian University, Sari City, Iran. Materials and Methods: This was an analytical, correlational study that specifically used structural equation modeling. The statistical population included all students of the Farhangian University of Sari city, Iran, in the academic year of 2019-2020. A sample of 234 people was recruited with the available sampling method. The social phobia inventory, defense mechanism questionnaire, and Toronto alexithymia scale were used to measure the research variables. Finally, the proposed model was evaluated using structural equation modeling. Results: The results showed that social phobia variables, undeveloped defensive mechanisms, and psychotic defensive mechanisms are positively correlated with alexithymia. Also, there is a significant negative correlation between developed defensive style and alexithymia (P = 0.001). The results indicated significant correlations of social phobia (r = 0.28), undeveloped defensive style (r = 0.31), psychotic defensive style (r = 0.28), and developed defensive style (r = -0.30) with alexithymia (P = 0.001). Moreover, the research model was approved: defensive mechanisms mediate the relationship between social phobia and alexithymia in the students. The defensive mechanisms and social phobia affect 48% of the alexithymia variable. Conclusion: The students with adaptive defensive mechanisms experience lower social phobia and alexithymia symptoms. Also, social phobia indirectly affects alexithymia through the mediating role of defense mechanisms.
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".