Alexithymia profiles and depression, anxiety, and stress.

BACKGROUND: Alexithymia is a multidimensional trait comprised of difficulties identifying feelings, difficulties describing feelings, and externally orientated thinking. It is regarded as an important risk factor for emotional disorders, but there are presently limited data on each specific facet of alexithymia, or the extent to which deficits in processing negative emotions, positive emotions, or both, are important. In this study, we address these gaps by using the Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ) to comprehensively examine the relationships between alexithymia and depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. METHODS: University students (N = 1250) completed the PAQ and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21. Pearson correlations, hierarchical regressions, and latent profile analysis were conducted. RESULTS: All facets of alexithymia, across both valence domains, were significantly correlated with depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms (r = 0.27-0.40). Regression analyses indicated that the alexithymia facets, together, could account for a significant 14.6 %-16.4 % of the variance in depression, anxiety, and stress. Difficulties identifying negative feelings and difficulties identifying positive feelings were the strongest unique predictors across all symptom categories. Our latent profile analysis extracted eight profiles, comprising different combinations of alexithymia facets and psychopathology symptoms, collectively highlighting the transdiagnostic relevance of alexithymia facets. LIMITATIONS: Our study involved a student sample, and further work in clinical samples will be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that all facets of alexithymia, across both valence domains, are relevant for understanding depression, anxiety, and stress. These findings demonstrate the value of facet-level and valence-specific alexithymia assessments, informing more comprehensive understanding and more targeted treatments of emotional disorder symptoms.

Profiling ambivalence in the context of nonsuicidal self-injury.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify profiles of ambivalence among individuals with a history of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) and tested whether profiles differed across various theoretically informed constructs: NSSI-related characteristics, cognitive (outcome expectancies, self-efficacy to resist NSSI), emotional (psychological distress, difficulties in emotion regulation), personality, and incentives to engage/not engage in NSSI. METHODS: Individuals with a lifetime history of NSSI (n = 224) reported the extent to which they wanted to and did not want to engage in NSSI and completed well-validated measures of the constructs of interest. RESULTS: Latent profile analysis indicated four ambivalence profiles (avoid: n = 39; moderately ambivalent: n = 85; highly ambivalent: n = 30; approach: n = 70). The profiles differed across a number of NSSI-related characteristics, cognitive, emotional, and incentive-related variables. Differences between the ambivalence profiles and the avoid/approach profiles varied across constructs. For example, the ambivalence and approach profiles were similar for NSSI-related outcome expectancies, but the ambivalence and avoidance profiles were similar for self-efficacy to resist NSSI. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight variation between the desire to engage or not engage in NSSI that are consistent with the notion of ambivalence. Understanding these differences may allow for a more person-centered approach in treatment for NSSI.

Further Silencing the Voiceless: The Role of Gatekeepers in Accessing Information About Self-Injury.

ABSTRACT: Gatekeepers play a pivotal role in protecting individuals under their care and are central to keeping people safe and away from harm. In the field of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), a range of gatekeepers exist, including those who protect access to vulnerable research participants, those who protect school children, those charged with making decisions about funding priorities, and those in charge of clinical care for people who self-injure. The aim of this commentary is to outline the roles these different gatekeepers have in protecting access to research participants, access to NSSI knowledge, and access to clinical care for individuals who self-injure. We provide examples in which gatekeepers may present barriers and offer solutions for how to work with gatekeepers for mutual benefit.