The Mediating Role of Psychological Flexibility in Explaining Authenticity and Life Satisfaction with Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the scope of this study, the relationships among alexithymia, psychological flexibility, authenticity and life satisfaction of individuals were investigated. In addition, the possible meditating role of psychological flexibility on the relationships among alexithymia, authenticity and life satisfaction were investigated. The research model is the relational screening model, which is one of the descriptive models that aims to examine the mediating role of psychological flexibility in the relationships among individuals' alexithymia, authenticity and life satisfaction. As the data collection tools, "Personal Information Form", "Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)", "Authenticity Scale", "Psychological Flexibility Scale" and "Life Satisfaction Scale" were used. The sampling group of the study was composed of 702 adult individuals between the ages of 18 and 67Whilst analysing the data, SPSS 22 Package Program was used to highlight the relationships between variables (Pearson correlation coefficient) and mediation test. In the study, Bootstrap analysis and Sobel test were used to measure the statistical significance of the mediating effects of the model. According to the research findings, while there was a significant negative relationship between alexithymia and psychological flexibility variables and authenticity and life satisfaction variables, a positive significant relationship was found among psychological flexibility, authenticity and life satisfaction. According to the mediation test, psychological flexibility had a partial mediating role in the relationships among alexithymia, life satisfaction and authenticity. Alexithymia explained 52% of authenticity and 21% of life satisfaction through psychological flexibility. The present article discusses the abovementioned research results within the framework of the relevant literature, and suggestions are made accordingly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".