Sexism and alexithymia: Correlations and differences as a function of gender, age, and educational level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of the study were to analyze differences as a function of gender, age, and educational level in sexism and alexithymia in a nonclinical and in a clinical sample, and to explore the relation between these constructs. A descriptive and correlational cross-sectional methodology was used. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Parker et al. 1993) were administered. The sample comprised 989 participants from the Basque Country, aged between 18 and 65 years. The results revealed: 1) Significantly higher scores in the males in sexism (hostile, benevolent, and ambivalent) and in alexithymia (difficulties to express emotions and external-oriented thinking) in both samples; in the total alexithymia score, the males had significantly higher scores only in the nonclinical sample; 2) As of 55 years of age, a significant increase in benevolent and ambivalent sexism, and in difficulties to identify emotions, external-oriented thinking, and in the total alexithymia score were observed (only in the nonclinical sample); however, no changes with age were observed in hostile sexism and in difficulties to express emotions; 3) A decrease in sexism and alexithymia as the educational level increased; and 4) Significant positive correlations between sexism and alexithymia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".