Relationship between interoceptive sensibility and somatoform disorders in adults with autism spectrum traits. The mediating role of alexithymia and emotional dysregulation

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to analyses the relationship between interoceptive sensibility and somatoform disorders among persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). It has been assumed that the interoceptive sensibility is accompanied by a high level of alexithymia and emotion dysregulation in somatoform disorders. METHODS: Persons under the care of the foundation helping people with ASD were asked to participate in the study. In total, 205 people took part in the research. The participants aged from 18 to 63 (M = 34.91; SD = 8.44). The ASD group comprised 79 persons (38.5% of subjects). The control group comprised 126 individuals (61.5% of subjects). Participants completed self-report questionnaires measuring autism (AQ), interoceptive sensibility (BPQ), alexithymia (TAS20), emotional dysregulation (DERS), and somatoform disorder (SDQ). RESULTS: The analyses showed a moderation effect of the group, which indicates the existence of a relationship between interoceptive sensibility and somatoform disorders to the greater extent in the clinical group than in the control group. In addition, the serial multiple mediation model analysis allowed to verify the mediating effect of emotion dysregulation and alexithymia on the abovementioned relationship. The indirect effect, which assumed the mediating role of alexithymia turned out to be significant, contrary to the indirect effect where emotion dysregulation was a mediator in a situation where both variables were applied simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: Interoceptive sensibility correlated with level of alexithymia, in particular, difficulties in identifying and verbalizing emotions and emotion dysregulation in the lack of emotional awareness and lack of emotional clarity and is associated with somatoform disorders in the investigated group regardless of participants’ belonging to the ASD or control group

To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of social perception apply?

Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov’s valence–dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov’s methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov’s original analysis strategy, the valence–dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence–dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution. Protocol registration: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 5 November 2018. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7611443.v1

To Which World Regions Does the Valence-Dominance Model of Social Perception Apply?

Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov’s valence–dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov’s methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov’s original analysis strategy, the valence–dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence–dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution

To Which World Regions Does the Valence-Dominance Model of Social Perception Apply?

Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov’s valence–dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov’s methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov’s original analysis strategy, the valence–dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence–dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution