When Words Fail: Investigating Alexithymia And Coping Strategies In Adolescent Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction : Alexithymia, defined by difficulty identifying and verbalizing emotions, has emerged as a significant factor influencing emotional regulation and coping behaviors in youth. Adolescents with high levels of alexithymia may be at greater risk of psychological distress due to maladaptive coping mechanisms and reduced social support engagement. Materials and Methods : This cross-sectional study was conducted among 141 high school students aged 15–18 in Skopje, North Macedonia. Participants completed validated instruments including the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences (COPE-A). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, to examine associations between alexithymia and coping strategies. Results : The mean TAS-20 score suggested a high prevalence of alexithymic traits in the sample. Approximately 44% of adolescents in the sample scored above the clinical threshold for alexithymia (TAS-20 > 61), highlighting the prevalence of emotional processing difficulties in this population. Significant correlations were found between higher alexithymia and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies such as self-blame, rumination, and catastrophizing. Conversely, positive coping strategies like positive reappraisal and acceptance were negatively correlated with alexithymia levels. Participants with high alexithymia reported a greater tendency to engage in maladaptive coping behaviors. Discussion : Findings underscore alexithymia as a trait associated with emotion dysregulation and diminished coping flexibility in adolescents. The results highlight the interplay between poor emotional awareness and a tendency to adopt dysfunctional cognitive responses to stress, which may exacerbate vulnerability to psychological problems. Conclusion : Early identification of alexithymic traits and the promotion of emotional literacy and adaptive coping in adolescence are crucial. Preventive school-based programs focusing on emotional skill development and peer support may buffer the impact of alexithymia and enhance youth mental health outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".