Alexithymia: A Defense of the Original Conceptualization of the Construct and a Critique of the Attention-Appraisal Model.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Our goal was to compare the original conceptualization of the alexithymia construct with the attention-appraisal model, focusing primarily on the removal of the reduced imaginal activity component, a seminal aspect of the construct in the original model. We also examined associations between alexithymia and emotional distress and emotion regulation, attachment, and trauma, and whether alexithymia is a transdiagnostic risk factor. We discuss differences between the models in the treatment of alexithymia and also differences in measurement. Method: We conducted a narrative review of the scientific literature validating the original model of alexithymia and examined the comparatively few empirical studies evaluating the attention-appraisal model. Articles describing contemporary theoretical ideas about the relationship between imagination and emotion were reviewed, as well as studies exploring associations between alexithymia and imaginal activity. Results: The attention-appraisal model of alexithymia is theoretically derived and examined empirically in studies using correlation/measurement-based methods that employed self-report measures with mostly non-clinical samples and conducted primarily by researchers led by developers of the model. The original model of alexithymia is derived from observations of patients in clinical settings; its validity is supported by findings from hundreds of empirical investigations spanning nearly four decades with nonclinical and a variety of clinical samples using both correlation-based and experimental studies and methods of measurement other than self-report, and by independent teams of researchers. The reduced imaginal activity component of the alexithymia construct is mostly supported by these studies. Conclusions: Because of the dearth of studies with clinical samples, the absence of investigations by independent researchers, and the limited range of methods and measurements to evaluate and assess the model, there is insufficient evidence to warrant removal of the imaginal activity component of the alexithymia construct and for replacing the original conceptualization of the construct with the attention-appraisal model.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".