MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413230483 · doi:10.71000/kd3sk862

ALEXITHYMIA AND EMOTIONAL EATING: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF IMPULSIVITY AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF MINDFULNESS

2025· article· en· W4413230483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pulwasha Anwar, A Snehalatha Rani, Hadeeqa Anmol, A. Ijaz, Sayeda Iqra Geelani

Bibliographic record

VenueInsights-Journal of Life and Social Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaImpulsivityMindfulnessPsychologyEmotional eatingToronto Alexithymia ScaleMediationModerationEmotional intelligenceClinical psychologyBarratt Impulsiveness ScaleDevelopmental psychologyEating behaviorObesityMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Alexithymia, a trait marked by difficulties in identifying and expressing emotions, has been linked to various maladaptive behaviors, including emotional eating. However, there is limited research examining the underlying psychological mechanisms such as impulsivity and mindfulness, particularly in culturally distinct student populations. This study addresses the gap by exploring the mediating role of impulsivity and the moderating role of mindfulness in the relationship between alexithymia and emotional eating among university students in Pakistan and Turkey. Objective: To investigate how impulsivity mediates and mindfulness moderates the relationship between alexithymia and emotional eating in young adults. Methods: A cross-sectional correlational design was employed, and data were collected using purposive sampling from 280 university students (aged 18–25) in Pakistan and Turkey. The Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale, and Emotional Eating Scale were administered. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 26 and Hayes' PROCESS Macro Version 4.2. Pearson’s correlations, mediation (Model 4), and moderation (Model 1) analyses were conducted. Results: Alexithymia was significantly and positively correlated with impulsivity (r = .84, p < .01) and emotional eating (r = .95, p < .01), while negatively and non-significantly correlated with mindfulness (r = –.05, p > .05). Impulsivity was positively related to emotional eating (r = .92, p < .01). Mediation analysis revealed a significant direct effect of alexithymia on impulsivity (β = .50, SE = .01, p < .001) and of impulsivity on emotional eating (β = .53, SE = .03, p < .001). Mindfulness did not significantly moderate the relationship between alexithymia and emotional eating (β = .001, SE = .000, p > .05). Conclusion: Findings highlight impulsivity as a key mediator in the link between alexithymia and emotional eating. However, mindfulness did not demonstrate a moderating effect. These insights underline the need for targeted interventions to improve emotional regulation and reduce maladaptive coping strategies in university populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsights-Journal of Life and Social SciencesSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207