The Relationship between Difficulty in Emotion Regulation and Alexithymia with Hostile attribution bias and Anger in in adolescent boys with high bullying: A Path Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Adolescence is one of the critical stages and the period of evolution of human physical and mental development that occurs between childhood and youth. Successful completion of this course plays a role in mental health and personality. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of Difficulty in Emotion Regulation and Alexithymia with Hostile attribution bias and Anger in adolescent boys with bullying, which plays an important role in developmental outcomes in adolescents. Methods: This research was conducted by cross-sectional method. 345 adolescent boys with high bullying living in Zanjan, Iran participated in the study. To measure self-reporting tools, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Questionnaire of Hostile attribution bias and State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory tools were used to collect data. Path analysis method was used to analyze the causal model. The results show a good fit of the model with the experimental data. Results: The results also showed a direct and significant effect between anger with Difficulty in Emotion Regulation (β =0.19, p <0.05), with Alexithymia (β = 0.17, p <0.05) and with Hostile attribution bias (β =0.32, p<0.05) in male adolescents high bullying. As well the mediating role of Hostile attribution bias in the relationship between Difficulties in emotion regulation with anger is significant (β = 0.32). Moreover the mediating role of Hostile attribution bias in the relationship between Alexithymia with anger is significant (β = 0.20). Conclusion: These results contribute to the theoretical knowledge of how Alexithymia and hostile attribution bias affect anger in adolescent populations. The findings supported the mediating role of hostile attribution bias in the relationship between Difficulty in Emotion Regulation and Alexithymia with anger in adolescents. All three predictor variables are trainable and can be used in anger reduction and bullying interventions in adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".