Role of Alexithymia in Coping Strategies and Attachment Style Among Middle-Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between alexithymia, coping strategies, and attachment styles in middle-aged adults. Alexithymia, characterized by difficulties in identifying and expressing emotions, is often linked to maladaptive coping mechanisms and insecure attachment patterns. The study involved 207 participants aged 40-60 who completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), BRIEF Cope Scale, and Adult Attachment Scale (AAS). The analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between alexithymia and avoidant coping strategies, indicating that individuals with higher levels of alexithymia tend to avoid dealing with stress. Additionally, alexithymia was negatively correlated with secure attachment, suggesting that those with emotional processing difficulties are less likely to form secure emotional bonds. No significant gender differences were found in alexithymia, coping strategies, or attachment styles, implying that these emotional challenges are experienced similarly across genders in middle adulthood. The study underscores the importance of therapeutic interventions aimed at improving emotional awareness and expression to promote healthier coping mechanisms and stronger attachment patterns. The findings of the current study contribute to the understanding of how alexithymia impacts emotional regulation and relationships in middle adulthood and suggest pathways for future research and clinical applications.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".