Investigation of The Relationship Between Alexithymia, Anxiety Levels and Humor Styles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the relationships between alexithymia, humor styles and anxiety levels and the nature of these relationships.Method: The sample of the study consisted of 254 students from ….. University. In the context of the research, ‘’Toronto Alexithymia Scale’’ (TAS-26) was used to measure alexithymia levels, ‘’Humor Styles Questionnaire” (HSQ) was used to measure humor styles, ‘’State and Trait Anxiety Inventory’’ (STAI) was USED to measure anxiety levels. In addition, the Sociodemographic Data Form, which was prepared by the researchers and included various sociodemographic variables assumed to be associated with these variables, was used.Results: Research findings indicate that different dimensions of alexithymia are associated with both state and trait anxiety. Alexithymic features are negatively associated with the positive use of humor and positively associated with negative use. On the other hand, positive use of humor is negatively correlated with anxiety levels. In addition, alexithymia, humor styles and anxiety levels seem to be related to sociodemographic variables such as age, gender, education levels of parents, parental working status, psychiatric diagnosis in the participant and his/her caregiver, and history of physical illness in the participant. Alexithymia, different dimensions of alexithymia and anxiety levels predict humor.Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the variables of alexithymia, anxiety levels and humor styles are correlated with each other and with various sociodemographic variables in different dimensions. Since the sample of the study consists of students from a private university, it is not possible to generalize the results to the student population representing this age group.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".