The Relationship Between Alexithymia and Coping Styles: The Mediator Roles of Anger and Anger Expression Styles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of alexithymia basically points to the various problems that individuals experience in defining and expressing their feelings. A review of the literature shows that alexithymic characteristics may cause various difficulties in anger and its expression. Furthermore, it is seen that alexithymia, anger and anger expression styles are important variables to predict coping styles. From this point of view, the aim of this study is to investigate the mediator roles of anger and anger expression styles in the relationship between alexithymia and coping styles in the university sample. The present study included 434 college students (244 women, 190 men). In addition to the Demographic Information Form, participants were administered the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) and the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ). The mediation analysis was conducted via using PROCESS macro model with 5000 bootstrapping samples (Hayes, 2013)The mediation analyses showed that the anger-in and anger-control mediated the relationship between alexithymia and problem-focused/emotion-focused coping styles. It is concluded that the relationship between alexithymia and coping styles is mediated by anger and anger expression styles. Therefore, current study emphasizes the benefit of addressing alexithymic characteristics, the frequency of anger experience, and healthy ways of anger expression simultaneously and as a whole rather than individually in psychotherapies aiming to strengthen the ways of coping with stress.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it