4.5 Article

Childhood adversities as risk factors for alexithymia and other aspects of affect dysregulation in adulthood

期刊

PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 107-116

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000075542

关键词

alexithymia; dissociation; affect dysregulation; parenting style; childhood, sexual and physical abuse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Affect regulation is assumed to be a biologically based function that can become disrupted by inadequate parenting and by traumatic experiences. We studied the relation between the perceived parental parenting style, and sexual and physical abuse, with alexithymia, dissociation, anxiety and depression. Methods: In a cross-sectional study psychiatric outpatients were administered a structured interview on childhood physical and sexual abuse and they completed a number of questionnaires about the parenting styles of their parents, and about alexithymia, dissociation and mood pathology. Results: Maternal and paternal parenting styles were moderately correlated with alexithymia and depression. The paternal parenting style was also correlated with dissociation. Optimal parenting of one of the parents had a buffering effect on the degree of alexithymia, but not on the severity of other forms of affect dysregulation. The effect of sexual or physical abuse did not add to that of parental parenting style in terms of predictingaffect dysregulation. However, a positively perceived maternal parenting style was found to have a buffering effect in terms of the degree of alexithymia, if sexual abuse had also taken place. Conclusions: Perceived parenting does appear to be of some significance in the development of alexithymia. Optimal parenting of one of the parents may protect against the development of alexithymia when the parenting of the other parent is perceived as non-optimal. However, it is likely that other factors besides parental care and sexual or physical abuse play an important role in the development of an adequate affect regulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据