Traits linked to sensory processing sensitivity mediate the relationship between externally oriented thinking and fantasizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Alexithymia is characterized by difficulties identifying and describing feelings but expression of externally oriented thinking (EOT) and difficulty fantasizing is more variable. In two studies, we investigated whether links between EOT and fantasizing are mediated by sensory processing sensitivity (SPS). Methods University students completed measures of alexithymia, SPS, and fantasizing. Results In Study 1 (N = 700) we identified two clusters of SPS traits: a positive facet (sensitivity to subtle stimuli) and a negative facet (sensitivity to uncomfortable stimuli). In the 499 participants who completed the fantasy measure, low EOT scores predicted stronger SPS positive and negative traits, which predicted a stronger tendency to mentally project oneself into the lives of characters in books, movies, and plays. In Study 2 (N = 600), the link between EOT and this same fantasizing tendency was again mediated by features of SPS—in this case fantasy proneness and emotional reactivity. Discussion We suggest that, whereas individuals who score high on EOT have an impoverished fantasy life, those who score relatively low on EOT and turn their attention inward are able to maintain stronger representations of imagined events in working memory (enhancing the likelihood that they will be recalled) and react more strongly to these events (enhancing their salience). Stronger expression of these features of SPS, in turn, increases the likelihood that one will develop a cognitive style that involves the application of imagery-based strategies to support deep processing of the thoughts and feelings of characters depicted in narratives.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".