The relationship between alexithymia and counterproductive behaviors in the workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. The concept of alexithymia which is expressed as individuals having difficulty defining, regulating, and expressing their emotions, is believed to be on the rise in organizational life. It is argued that it is not possible for employees who have difficulty defining their emotions to build positive relationships in the workplace. Therefore, this study aims to investigate whether alexithymia has an impact on counterproductive work behaviors. Study design. Data were collected through the convenience sampling method from 334 employees working in public and private sector organizations in Turkey. The mean age of the participants is 34.1 years, the mean seniority in the profession is seven years, and the mean seniority in their organizations is three years. The data was collected through asurvey form. The Counterproductive Work Behaviors Scale (CWB) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) were used in the data collection tool. Findings. The study revealed that alexithymia has a significant contribution to counterproductive work behaviors. Moreover, it was found that alexithymia has a stronger contribution to organizational deviance (Cwb-O) than employee deviance (Cwb-P). As a result of the simple regression analysis carried out to determine to what extent the sub-dimension of alexithymia predicts counterproductive work behaviors in the workplace. “Having difficulty recognizingand verbalizing emotions” significantly predicted counterproductive work behaviors towards the organization (β = .65, t = 15.7, p = .00) and counterproductive work behaviors towards the employee (β = .42, t = 8.52, p = .00). Value of results. The findings of the study will provide a new perspective on counterproductive work behaviors in organizations and contribute to the industrial and organizational psychology literature as it is the first study in Turkey regarding the relationship between alexithymia and counterproductive work behaviors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".