Regulation of emotions during experimental stress in alexithymia
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to examine whether deficits in emotion regulation manifest as a relative lack of congruence between subjective reports of emotion and autonomic activity when confronted with stressors. Methods A pool of 830 university students was screened using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-Revised for deficits in emotion regulation associated with alexithymia. Those meeting a criterion floor cutoff and other inclusion criteria composed the experimental group and were matched on age, gender, and race to those in the control group. A final sample size of 94 students (47 in each group) was presented with experimental stressor tasks (the Stroop task and a conversation task) in counterbalanced order while autonomic activity data (heart rate and skin conductance) and subjective reports of negative affect were continuously collected during baseline, stressor exposure, and recovery periods. Data were analyzed to determine relative differences in congruence between the autonomic and subjective measures. Results Data suggested that participants high in emotion regulation deficits reported consistently higher subjective negative affect relative to those without such deficits throughout baseline, stressor exposure, and recovery periods. However, autonomic activity remained nearly identical in both groups across phases. Explicit tests of group differences in congruence between autonomic and subjective emotion measures also partly supported evidence of subjective hyper…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Decoupling between self-reported emotional experience and autonomic responses is observed in those with alexithymia.
“decoupling between self-reported emotional experience and autonomic responses has been observed in those with alexithymia (Connelly and Denney, 2007; Eastabrook et al., 2013; Martin and Pihl, 1986; Newton and Contrada, 1994; Papciak et al., 1985; Pollatos, Werner, et al., 2011; Stone and Nielson, 2001).”
From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Connelly and Denney, 2007
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 123
- Authors
- Connelly, M., & Denney, D. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
- University of Kansas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Connelly, Mark
- ORCID
- Connelly, Mark
- Venue
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 649-656
- ISSN
- 0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2068478378
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
- Keywords
- alexithymia, emotion regulation, experimental stress, autonomic nervous system activity, heart rate, skin conductance, Stroop task, university students
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Affective Symptoms, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Social Control, Informal, Stress, Psychological, Prevalence, Expressed Emotion, Mood Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review