Alexithymia and interpersonal problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigates the relation between alexithymia and interpersonal problems in psychiatric patients. In line with previous literature, we hypothesize that alexithymia is positively related to a cold and withdrawn interpersonal style. Method: Alexithymia is measured with the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS). Interpersonal variables are measured by means of the ‘Cold,’ ‘Socially Inhibited,’ and ‘Non-Assertive’ subscales of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64). Fifty-three psychiatric inpatients filled out the TAS-20, the IIP-64, and gave demographic information (sex, age, and level of education); the treating psychologist completed the OAS for each patient. Multivariate analyses of variance were carried out. Results: No significant effects were found for the demographic variables and the TAS-20 or the OAS. The multivariate TAS-20 score and the TAS-20 subscale score for ‘Difficulties Identifying Feelings,’ are significantly related to the IIP-64 ‘Socially Inhibited’ subscale score. No other significant relations were found for the TAS-20. For the OAS, no significant relations with the IIP-64 were found. Conclusions: In line with our hypothesis, self-reported alexithymia, and particularly the ‘difficulty identifying feelings’ dimension, is related to social inhibition. Contrary to what we expected, relations with cold and non-assertive functioning are absent. Contrary to our hypothesis, clinically-assessed alexithymia was not related to specific interpersonal problems. Future research should explore whether this indicates a difference in perspective between patient and psychologist, or whether it can be attributed to the use of different measurement methods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".