The Effect Emotion Regulation Difficulties on Interoceptive Awareness and Alexithymia: An Example of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry

Article information

Psychiatry Investig. 2025;22(8):906-913
Publication date (electronic) : 2025 August 5
doi : https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0368
1Department of Psychiatry, Ankara Penitentiary Campus State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
2Department of Psychiatry, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
Correspondence: Nur Nihal Türkel, MD Department of Psychiatry, Ankara Penitentiary Campus State Hospital, Avenue of Mevlana No:29, Yenimahalle, Ankara 06590, Turkey Tel: +90-0-312-202-4443 , E-mail: n.nihalqw@gmail.com
Received 2024 December 3; Revised 2025 March 6; Accepted 2025 May 22.

Abstract

Objective

This study investigated the relationships among interoceptive awareness, difficulties in emotion regulation, and alexithymia in a group of outpatients undergoing consultation liaison psychiatry (CLP).

Methods

Three hundred forty outpatients who applied to the Consultation Liaison Psychiatry Department were included in the study. Thirty-four patients who did not complete the questionnaires for various reasons were excluded from the study. Multidimensional Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-16), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) were applied to the participants. Statistics were performed with SPSS 21.0. Mediation analysis examined the relationship between interoceptive awareness, difficulties in emotion regulation, and alexithymia.

Results

It was found that 32% of outpatients who applied to CLP exhibited high alexithymic features. According to the study’s results, interoceptive awareness had a significant negative relationship with difficulty in emotion regulation (r=-0.487, p<0.001). According to mediation analysis, difficulty in emotion regulation mediated the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia (β=-0.313; 95% confidence interval, -0.405 to -0.227; p<0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the mediating effect of emotion regulation difficulties on the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia in outpatients applying to CLP. The use of interoception-based practices by mental health professionals working with CLP may reduce emotion control and alexithymia symptoms in this patient group.

INTRODUCTION

Interoception can be defined as the perception of physical sensations originating from within the body, along with the autonomic nervous system activity associated with emotions [1]. We experience sensations like hunger, thirst, pressure on our heads, and perhaps an inability of our feet to support us. The transformation of these unconscious sensations into conscious awareness, namely interoceptive awareness, occurs through processing these events and their elevation to conscious awareness [2]. Interoceptive awareness denotes the metacognitive connection between performance in interoceptive tasks and underlying beliefs [3]. Interoceptive awareness is a multifaceted construct; numerous self-report instruments have been created to evaluate it. The Multidimensional Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2) scale assesses interoceptive awareness across multiple dimensions from the first to the final phases of processing sensations [4]. Variations in these dimensions have been linked to numerous psychopathologies. In a study conducted by Dunne et al. [5] on patients who followed up with depressive disorder, they observed that trusting the body—one of the MAIA-2 subscales—was inversely related to the severity of depression. Lee et al. [6] also emphasized the relationship between interoceptive awareness (especially attention regulation) and clinical symptoms of anxiety and depression in their study.

Individuals regulate their emotions to adapt to physical and psychosocial conditions, enhancing their survival advantage [7]. Emotion regulation encompasses the activation of suitable emotional responses to internal bodily cues and external environmental stimuli, alongside implementing coping strategies to modulate the intensity of experienced emotions [8]. While short-term emotion dysregulation may confer survival advantages, it is linked to various health issues, including self-harming behaviors and the development of post-traumatic stress disorder [9,10].

Historically, numerous theories of emotion have emphasized the relationship between interoception and emotional experience. Emotion regulation involves a systematic relationship with the self, characterized by the interplay among the body, emotions, and cognitive processes. A coherent self-construct can be developed by accurately perceiving and evaluating cues associated with physiological responses, thereby linking the inner world with the outer world. Evidence indicates interoceptive awareness correlates with emotion regulation in healthy and clinical populations [11-13].

Alexithymia, characterized by difficulty expressing and identifying emotions, is associated with interoceptive awareness and emotion regulation [14]. In alignment with the hypothesis that emotion identification and expression represent sequential pathways in emotion processing, individuals with alexithymia exhibit difficulties with emotion regulation [15].

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between alexithymia, difficulties with emotion regulation, and interoceptive awareness among patients admitted to consultation liaison psychiatry, who frequently confront a mind-body dilemma with a negative focus on bodily sensations and unresolved medical symptoms. For this purpose, the hypotheses of our study are as follows: there is a negative relationship between interoceptive awareness and both difficulty in emotion regulation and alexithymia. Difficulty in emotion regulation mediates the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia.

METHODS

Participants

A priori power analysis was performed using G*Power 3.1.9.2 (Kiel University). Input parameters for the linear multiple regression model were set as follows: alpha level of 0.05, power of 0.95, and effect size of 0.1. The results showed that 132 participants were required to have sufficient power to detect a small effect size.

The study sample consisted of individuals who applied to the consultation liaison clinic. The inclusion criteria for the study were determined as being able to read and write in Turkish, being between the ages of 18–65 years, and not having a mental or neurological disease that would affect cognitive functions. After the participants were included in the study, the researcher evaluated them using a diagnostic interview focused on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Patients with psychotic disorders, bipolar mood disorder, dementia, epilepsy, pervasive developmental disorder, mental retardation, and active suicidal ideation were excluded from the study. Three hundred forty individuals were recruited in the study, 34 of whom were excluded because they had missing data. Three hundred six healthy individuals were included in the study.

Procedure

Participants who met the inclusion criteria among those who applied to the Consultation Liaison Psychiatry Clinic were included in the study after a DSM-5-focused interview. After the participants were informed about the purpose and methodology of the study, informed consent was obtained. The participants could withdraw from the study without any financial pressure. The participants who signed the informed consent form were distributed questionnaires prepared by the researcher.

Measures

Participants were administered the MAIA-2, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-16), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) following a sociodemographic data form prepared by the researchers, including age, sex, education level, marital status, additional physical illness, and income status.

MAIA-2

MAIA-2, which measures interoceptive body awareness based on self-report, was developed by Mehling et al. [16]. The Turkish version is a 6-point Likert-type scale (0=never, 5=always) comprising 32 items and 6 factors. The Turkish questionnaire has 6 dimensions: not distracted (the ability to ignore or accept bodily sensations of discomfort or pain), not worrying (the capacity to maintain emotional balance despite discomfort or pain), attentional regulation (the ability to control or sustain attention toward bodily sensations), emotional awareness (the ability to recognize the connection between bodily and emotional states), body listening (the active engagement in perceiving and interpreting bodily sensations), and trusting (the perception of bodily sensations as reliable and trustworthy sources of information) [17]. Since recent studies have suggested that a general factor better reflects the interoceptive awareness structure measured using MAIA-2, our study has a general factor structure shown by MAIA-2 [18].

DERS-16

This 16-question self-report questionnaire evaluates difficulties in emotion regulation under 5 factors (clarity, goals, impulse, strategies, and non-acceptance). Its validity and reliability have been demonstrated in Turkish society [19,20].

TAS-20

It is a 20-item self-report scale that evaluates alexithymia under 3 factors (difficulties in identifying feelings, difficulties in describing feelings, and externally oriented thinking) [14]. The scale shows good psychometric properties in Turkish society [21].

Ethics approval

The Gazi University Ethics Committee approved the study (no: 2024-1474, date: 01/10/2024). According to the Declaration of Helsinki, participants were informed about the study objectives and methodologies before starting the study. Participants were free to withdraw from the study without any obligation. Each participant signed and gave an informed consent indicating they fully understood the study protocols.

Statistical analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Version 22.0; IBM Corp.) was used for statistical analyses. All scales (MAIA-2, DERS-16, and TAS-20) showed acceptable internal validity as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, 0.884, 0.955, and 0.803. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample. Groups were formed according to alexithymia scores, and differences between the two groups were evaluated with an independent sample t-test. The relationship between variables was shown by Pearson correlation analysis. Finally, PROCESS MACRO 4.2, developed by Hayes, was used to show the relationship between alexithymia, difficulty in emotion regulation, and interoceptive awareness. Five thousand resampling options were preferred, using the bootstrap technique to test statistical robustness. Point estimates were considered significant if the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) did not include zero [22].

RESULTS

The research involved 306 healthy participants. Of the participants, 61.1% were female, and 53.9% held university degrees. The average age of participants was 36.12±14.78 years. Additionally, 15.7% of participants reported having a physical illness. In that order, the predominant physical illnesses leading to referrals to the CLP unit included oncological, cardiological, dermatological, pain-related, gastroenterological, and endocrinological conditions. Thirty-six point nine percent of participants were identified as having a psychiatric illness. Among these, 42.4% were diagnosed with an acute stress response, 37.1% with an adjustment disorder, 6.0% with a depressive disorder, and 9.0% with an anxiety disorder; the remaining cases were classified as somatoform disorders. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the participants.

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants

Participants were categorized based on the presence or absence of alexithymic features, determined by their TAS-20 scores, with a cut-off value of 59 or higher. The differences in MAIA-2 subscale scores between the two groups were analyzed [23]. Individuals with higher alexithymic features were found to have lower interoceptive awareness scores (t=-7.588, p<0.001) and more emotional regulation difficulties (t=10.123, p<0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between individuals with higher and lower alexithymia on the MAIA-2 not worrying and not distracting subscales. The results are shown in Table 2.

Clinical characteristics according to TAS-20 scores in participants

Pearson correlation analyses were conducted between the participants’ MAIA-2 subscales, DERS-16, and TAS-20 scores. The study found a negative relationship between alexithymia and the general interoceptive awareness factor (r=-0.493, p<0.001) and a significant negative relationship between alexithymia and difficulty in emotion regulation (r=0.668, p<0.001). The MAIA-2 subscale scores of not worrying showed a low correlation with alexithymia, while not distracting showed no significant correlation. Table 3 displays the relationship between the participants’ scale scores.

Correlation Analysis between MAIA-2, DERS-16 and TAS-20

Mediation analysis (Model 4) assessed interactions between the MAIA-2 general factor, alexithymia, and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation. As seen in Table 4 and Figure 1, interoceptive awareness significantly predicted alexithymia (β=-0.516, t=-8.775, p<0.001), and the direct effect of interoceptive awareness on alexithymia remained statistically significant even after considering the effect of the mediator variable (β=-0.203; t=-3.486; 95% CI, -1.136 to -0.315; p=0.001). The paths from interoceptive awareness to difficulties in emotion regulation and from difficulties in emotion regulation to alexithymia showed significant relationships, with difficulties in emotion regulation mediating the relationship between alexithymia and interoceptive awareness (β=-0.313; 95% CI, -0.405, to -0.227; SE=0.045) (Table 4 and Figure 1). Statistical analysis revealed a significant mediation effect of emotion regulation difficulties in the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia (Figure 1), with the model accounting for 49.9% of the variance in alexithymia. The effect size, calculated as the proportion mediated, is approximately 0.61. This means that around 61% of the effect of interoceptive awareness on alexithymia is mediated through difficulties in emotion regulation, indicating a substantial mediation effect.

The mediating role of DERS-16 on the associations between MAIA-2 and TAS-20

Figure 1.

The mediation model of DERS-16 in the relationship between MAIA-2 and TAS-20. **p<0.001. MAIA-2, Multidimensional Interoceptive Awareness; DERS-16, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; TAS-20, Toronto Alexithymia Scale.

DISCUSSION

This study investigates the relationship among interoceptive awareness, difficulties in emotion regulation, and alexithymia within a CLP sample. In our study, we demonstrated that interoceptive awareness is negatively associated with both difficulty in emotion regulation and alexithymia. Additionally, consistent with our hypothesis, we found that difficulties in emotion regulation mediate the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia.

Alexithymia serves as an indicator of atypical interoception [24]. The relationship between interoception and alexithymia has been highlighted in early and late alexithymia formulations but has yielded relatively mixed results. This confusion stems from using interchangeable terms and differences in measurement methods [25]. The study’s findings indicate that MAIA-2 subscales, except the “not worrying” and “not distracting” subscales, were lower in individuals exhibiting high levels of alexithymia. Ferentzi et al. [18] proposed that “not worrying” and “not distracting” are associated with an inappropriate anxiety-focused internal attention style rather than a stable interoceptive sensitivity, indicating a potential link to trait anxiety. Todd et al. [26] demonstrated that the MAIA-2 is the most central scale for assessing interoceptive sensitivity, defined as the tendency to notice bodily changes in response to events that may alter a person’s physiological state. However, the “not worrying” and “not distracting” subscales do not apply in this context. The correlation analyses, including alexithymia, revealed no significant link with the “not worrying” subscale; however, a substantial yet minor negative correlation was identified with the “not distracting” subscale. The “attentional regulation” and “trusting” subscales identified the most significant relationships with alexithymia. In other words, individuals with alexithymia pay less attention to congruent bodily experiences and do not consider these sensations trustworthy. Analysis of the pertinent literature indicates that persons with alexithymia achieve standard scores on interoceptive accuracy assessments that objectively evaluate interoception, although they exhibit discrepancies in subjective report questionnaires [27]. This situation can be interpreted as the deterioration of interoceptive processing in the later stages of alexithymia formation. Consistent with our findings, the absence of a significant difference in the “not worrying” and “not distracting” subscales among alexithymic individuals might be interpreted as these two subscales evaluating the early to middle phases of automatic attention and emotional processing [4,28].

The multidimensional structure of the MAIA-2 scale reveals that the scale’s total score cannot be used for an evaluation purpose [28]. A mediation analysis was conducted by creating a general interoceptive awareness factor in accordance with previous studies [29]. There was a significant negative relationship between general interoceptive awareness, alexithymia, and difficulty in emotion regulation. The significance remained when emotion regulation difficulty was included in the model. Awareness of internal signals from different bodily regions is crucial for sustaining homeostasis and regulating behaviors that provide equilibrium between the internal and external worlds [1]. As early theories of emotion underlined, according to Damasio [30], emotional expressions paired with physiological responses are somatic markers that guide behavior and cognition. In accordance with Damasio, Füstös et al. [31] have emphasized the significance of meta-representations of bodily states in the development and regulation of emotions. Pistoia et al. [32] found that individuals with spinal cord injuries have difficulty regulating their emotional responses while assessing emotionally charged scenes, thereby underscoring the significance of sensory feedback in emotional experience. Accordingly, reduced scores on the interoceptive awareness subscales were observed in individuals with medically unexplained symptoms, suggesting that therapies focused on bodily awareness could enhance interoceptive capacities in this patient population [4]. Additionally, Schaefer et al. [33] found that interoceptive interventions resulted in lower health anxiety in patients with somatoform disorders. According to the findings of our study, the relationship between interoceptive awareness and difficulty in emotion regulation is consistent with previous studies. Desdentado et al. [34] demonstrated that the interpretation of sensations (non-judgmental and accepting) correlates with the ability to regulate emotional abilities rather than the level of intensity of their perception. Schuette et al. [35] demonstrated a positive relationship between interoceptive sensitivity and emotion identification and regulation using the MAIA-2 in a nonclinical population. Zamariola et al. [11] found that individuals with diminished interoceptive capacities encountered increased challenges in mitigating the emotional consequences of negative experiences. Jakubczyk et al. [13] have paired the ability to recognize and be aware of somatic sensations with the capacity to accept negative emotional states, an adaptive emotion regulation strategy, in individuals with alcohol use disorder. Nevertheless, the literature on the topic remains ambiguous. In a laboratory investigation, people with elevated self-reported interoceptive awareness exhibited more negative affect following a negative feedback manipulation [36].

Although theories suggesting a positive relationship between interoceptive abilities and the ability to recognize and regulate emotions have reported negative relationships between interoception and alexithymia [37,38], recent studies have failed to replicate this relationship [39]. A recent meta-analysis revealed no significant correlation between interoception’s self-reported subjective aspect, interoceptive sensitivity, and alexithymia [25]. On the other hand, in line with the somatosensory amplification hypothesis, alexithymic individuals may be more sensitive to the perception of bodily sensations [40]. Palser et al. [41] noted that anxious individuals randomly experience physical sensations that are typically subthreshold and associate them with negative consequences via alexithymia. The discrepancy between studies on interoceptive awareness and alexithymia may be because the MAIA-2 and Body Perception Questionnaire, the predominant tools for evaluating interoceptive awareness, distinctly assess this construct’s adaptive and maladaptive dimensions. An attentive and receptive approach to body sensations enhances emotion regulation, but an exclusive emphasis on somatic symptoms may lead to strategies like rumination and somatization, which make successful emotion regulation difficult.

One of the key findings of our study is the relationship between difficulties in emotion regulation and alexithymia. Our results indicate that difficulty in emotion regulation mediates the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia. In contrast, previous studies have highlighted the potential mediating role of alexithymia in the relationship between interoceptive awareness and difficulties in emotion regulation [29,42]. From the perspective of the attention-appraisal model of alexithymia, the processing of emotional information can be considered a precursor to emotion regulation [15,43]. However, we found it valuable to highlight the other side of the coin in our study. The emotional process functions as a continuously evolving mechanism, dynamically adapting to internal and external feedback sources within a system of circular causality [44]. In this context, the temporal boundary between emotion generation and regulation may not always be clearly defined [45]. This has been supported by neuroimaging studies conducted by Burklund et al. [46], which revealed that emotion labeling and reappraisal share common neural mechanisms. However, given the cross-sectional design of our study, establishing causal relationships remains challenging, and longitudinal studies are needed to provide further clarity.

Our research elucidates the relationship among interoceptive awareness, challenges in emotion regulation, and alexithymia within a CLP population. Clinicians in the consultation-liaison domain frequently engage with patients who exhibit recurrent hospitalizations, unexplained medical symptoms, and a disconnection between their symptoms and the emotions they elicit. Within this group, Mindful Awareness in Body-Oriented Therapy activities may facilitate the restoration of the disrupted mind-body connection by instructing individuals to focus on their body language [47]. Consequently, maladaptive stress reactions may be re-regulated, facilitating healthy responses and emotional regulation in individuals.

Our study has certain limitations. Initially, our sample comprised patients seeking consultation-liaison psychiatry, and our findings cannot be extrapolated to clinical populations. Second, alexithymia and emotion regulation difficulties were assessed using self-report techniques. This could result in skewed replies and distorted outcomes. Third, this study assessed interoceptive awareness from multiple dimensions but did not consider performance-based interoceptive factors. The cross-sectional form of our investigation precludes the determination of causality and temporal correlations.

In conclusion, there are various changes in most stages of interoceptive awareness in individuals with higher alexithymia. Difficulties in emotion regulation accompany some relationships between altered interoceptive awareness and alexithymia. Interventions such as mindfulness-based therapies, yoga, and physical activity that increase interoceptive awareness may reduce alexithymia or emotion regulation difficulty.

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Nur Nihal Türkel. Data curation: Muhammed Hakan Aksu. Formal analysis: Nur Nihal Türkel. Investigation: Nur Nihal Türkel, Behçet Coşar. Methodology: İrem Ekmekçi Ertek. Project administration: Behçet Coşar. Supervision: Behçet Coşar, İrem Ekmekçi Ertek. Visualization: Nur Nihal Türkel, Muhammed Hakan Aksu. Writing—original draft: Nur Nihal Türkel. Writing—review & editing: Nur Nihal Türkel, Muhammed Hakan Aksu.

Funding Statement

None

Acknowledgments

None

References

1. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002;3:655–666.
2. Cameron OG. Interoception: the inside story--a model for psychosomatic processes. Psychosom Med 2001;63:697–710.
3. Murphy J, Catmur C, Bird G. Classifying individual differences in interoception: implications for the measurement of interoceptive awareness. Psychon Bull Rev 2019;26:1467–1471.
4. Flasinski T, Dierolf AM, Rost S, Lutz APC, Voderholzer U, Koch S, et al. Altered interoceptive awareness in high habitual symptom reporters and patients with somatoform disorders. Front Psychol 2020;11:1859.
5. Dunne J, Flores M, Gawande R, Schuman-Olivier Z. Losing trust in body sensations: interoceptive awareness and depression symptom severity among primary care patients. J Affect Disord 2021;282:1210–1219.
6. Lee SJ, Lee M, Kim HB, Huh HJ. The relationship between interoceptive awareness, emotion regulation and clinical symptoms severity of depression, anxiety and somatization. Psychiatry Investig 2024;21:255–264.
7. Price CJ, Hooven C. Interoceptive awareness skills for emotion regulation: theory and approach of mindful awareness in body-oriented therapy (MABT). Front Psychol 2018;9:798.
8. Blair C, Raver CC. Individual development and evolution: experiential canalization of self-regulation. Dev Psychol 2012;48:647–657.
9. Wolff JC, Thompson E, Thomas SA, Nesi J, Bettis AH, Ransford B, et al. Emotion dysregulation and non-suicidal self-injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Psychiatry 2019;59:25–36.
10. Raudales AM, Short NA, Schmidt NB. Emotion dysregulation mediates the relationship between trauma type and PTSD symptoms in a diverse trauma-exposed clinical sample. Pers Individ Differ 2019;139:28–33.
11. Zamariola G, Frost N, Van Oost A, Corneille O, Luminet O. Relationship between interoception and emotion regulation: new evidence from mixed methods. J Affect Disord 2019;246:480–485.
12. Willem C, Gandolphe MC, Roussel M, Verkindt H, Pattou F, Nandrino JL. Difficulties in emotion regulation and deficits in interoceptive awareness in moderate and severe obesity. Eat Weight Disord 2019;24:633–644.
13. Jakubczyk A, Trucco EM, Klimkiewicz A, Skrzeszewski J, Suszek H, Zaorska J, et al. Association between interoception and emotion regulation in individuals with alcohol use disorder. Front Psychiatry 2020;10:1028.
14. Bagby RM, Parker JD, Taylor GJ. The twenty-item Toronto alexithymia scale--I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. J Psychosom Res 1994;38:23–32.
15. Izard CE, Woodburn EM, Finlon KJ, Krauthamer-Ewing ES, Grossman SR, Seidenfeld A. Emotion knowledge, emotion utilization, and emotion regulation. Emot Rev 2011;3:44–52.
16. Mehling WE, Acree M, Stewart A, Silas J, Jones A. The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness, version 2 (MAIA-2). PLoS One 2018;13:e0208034.
17. Özpınar S, Dunder E, Demir Y, Akyol M. Multidimensional assessment of ınteroceptive awareness (MAIA 2): psychometric properties of the Turkish version. J Health Sci Med 2021;4:132–136.
18. Ferentzi E, Olaru G, Geiger M, Vig L, Köteles F, Wilhelm O. Examining the factor structure and validity of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness. J Pers Assess 2021;103:675–684.
19. Bjureberg J, Ljótsson B, Tull MT, Hedman E, Sahlin H, Lundh LG, et al. Development and validation of a brief version of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale: the DERS-16. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2016;38:284–296.
20. Yiğit İ, Guzey Yiğit M. Psychometric properties of Turkish version of difficulties in emotion regulation scale-brief form (DERS-16). Curr Psychol 2019;38:1503–1511.
21. Güleç H, Kose S, Çıtak S, Yazici M. The Turkish version of the 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS-20): reliability, validity, and factorial structure. Bull Clin Psychopharmacol 2009;19:214–220.
22. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach New York: Guilford Press; 2017.
23. Güleç H, Yenel A. [20 maddelik Toronto aleksitimi ölçeði Türkçe uyarlamasýnýn kesme noktalarýna göre psikometrik özellikleri]. Klinik Psikiyatri 2010;13:108–112. Turkish.
24. Murphy J, Brewer R, Hobson H, Catmur C, Bird G. Is alexithymia characterised by impaired interoception? Further evidence, the importance of control variables, and the problems with the heartbeat counting task. Biol Psychol 2018;136:189–197.
25. Trevisan DA, Altschuler MR, Bagdasarov A, Carlos C, Duan S, Hamo E, et al. A meta-analysis on the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia: distinguishing interoceptive accuracy and sensibility. J Abnorm Psychol 2019;128:765–776.
26. Todd J, Swami V, Aspell JE, Furnham A, Horne G, Stieger S. Are some interoceptive sensibility components more central than others? Using item pool visualisation to understand the psychometric representation of interoception. PLoS One 2022;17:e0277894.
27. Zamariola G, Vlemincx E, Corneille O, Luminet O. Relationship between interoceptive accuracy, interoceptive sensibility, and alexithymia. Pers Individ Differ 2018;125:14–20.
28. Mehling WE, Price C, Daubenmier JJ, Acree M, Bartmess E, Stewart A. The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA). PLoS One 2012;7:e48230.
29. Ferraro IK, Taylor AM. Adult attachment styles and emotional regulation: the role of interoceptive awareness and alexithymia. Pers Individ Differ 2021;173:110641.
30. Damasio AR. The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1996;351:1413–1420.
31. Füstös J, Gramann K, Herbert BM, Pollatos O. On the embodiment of emotion regulation: interoceptive awareness facilitates reappraisal. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2013;8:911–917.
32. Pistoia F, Carolei A, Sacco S, Conson M, Pistarini C, Cazzulani B, et al. Contribution of interoceptive information to emotional processing: evidence from individuals with spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 2015;32:1981–1986.
33. Schaefer M, Egloff B, Gerlach AL, Witthöft M. Improving heartbeat perception in patients with medically unexplained symptoms reduces symptom distress. Biol Psychol 2014;101:69–76.
34. Desdentado L, Miragall M, Llorens R, Baños RM. Disentangling the role of interoceptive sensibility in alexithymia, emotion dysregulation, and depression in healthy individuals. Curr Psychol 2023;42:20570–20582.
35. Schuette SA, Zucker NL, Smoski MJ. Do interoceptive accuracy and interoceptive sensibility predict emotion regulation? Psychol Res 2021;85:1894–1908.
36. Zamariola G, Luminet O, Mierop A, Corneille O. Does it help to feel your body? Evidence is inconclusive that interoceptive accuracy and sensibility help cope with negative experiences. Cogn Emot 2019;33:1627–1638.
37. Shah P, Catmur C, Bird G. Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia. Mol Autism 2016;7:43.
38. Fiene L, Ireland MJ, Brownlow C. The interoception sensory questionnaire (ISQ): a scale to measure interoceptive challenges in adults. J Autism Dev Disord 2018;48:3354–3366.
39. Ernst J, Böker H, Hättenschwiler J, Schüpbach D, Northoff G, Seifritz E, et al. The association of interoceptive awareness and alexithymia with neurotransmitter concentrations in insula and anterior cingulate. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2014;9:857–863.
40. Betka S, Pfeifer G, Garfinkel S, Prins H, Bond R, Sequeira H, et al. How do self-assessment of alexithymia and sensitivity to bodily sensations relate to alcohol consumption? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2018;42:81–88.
41. Palser ER, Palmer CE, Galvez-Pol A, Hannah R, Fotopoulou A, Kilner JM. Alexithymia mediates the relationship between interoceptive sensibility and anxiety. PLoS One 2018;13:e0203212.
42. Ścigała DK, Fabris MA, Zdankiewicz-Ścigała E, Kuc K, Longobardi C. Interoceptive sensibility and alcohol craving in Polish prisoners: the role of alexithymia and emotional dysregulation. Front Psychol 2024;15:1356024.
43. Preece DA, Mehta A, Petrova K, Sikka P, Bjureberg J, Becerra R, et al. Alexithymia and emotion regulation. J Affect Disord 2023;324:232–238.
44. Kappas A. Social regulation of emotion: messy layers. Front Psychol 2013;4:51.
45. Okur Güney ZE, Sattel H, Witthöft M, Henningsen P. Emotion regulation in patients with somatic symptom and related disorders: a systematic review. PLoS One 2019;14:e0217277.
46. Burklund LJ, Creswell JD, Irwin MR, Lieberman MD. The common and distinct neural bases of affect labeling and reappraisal in healthy adults. Front Psychol 2014;5:221.
47. Bloch-Atefi A, Smith J. The effectiveness of body-oriented psychotherapy: a review of the literature. Psychother Couns J Aust 2015;3:1–22.

Article information Continued

Figure 1.

The mediation model of DERS-16 in the relationship between MAIA-2 and TAS-20. **p<0.001. MAIA-2, Multidimensional Interoceptive Awareness; DERS-16, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; TAS-20, Toronto Alexithymia Scale.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants

Variables Value
Sex
 Female 187 (61.1)
 Male 118 (38.9)
Marital status
 Married 133 (43.5)
 Single 173 (56.5)
Education
 Primary school 60 (19.6)
 High school 81 (26.5)
 University 135 (53.9)
Physical disease
 Yes 48 (15.7)
 No 258 (84.3)
Psychiatric disease
 Yes 113 (36.9)
 No 193 (63.1)
Income
 Low 106 (34.6)
 Middle 148 (48.4)
 High 52 (17.0)
Age (yr) 36.12±14.78
TAS-20 53.18±11.57
DERS-16 44.24±17.16

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

TAS-20, Toronto Alexithymia Scale; DERS-16, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale.

Table 2.

Clinical characteristics according to TAS-20 scores in participants

Variables TAS-20<59
TAS-20≥59
t p
Mean±SD Mean±SD
Not worrying 1.86±1.26 1.52±1.31 -1.912 0.057
Not distracting 2.23±0.75 2.44±0.94 1.685 0.095
Emotional awareness 3.53±0.88 2.91±1.05 -4.739 <0.001
Attentional regulation 3.41±0.65 2.60±0.76 -7.878 <0.001
Body listening 3.14±1.04 2.42±1.07 -4.953 <0.001
Trusting 3.70±1.02 2.74±1.20 -6.040 <0.001
MAIA-2-general factor 13.89±2.81 10.58±3.44 -7.588 <0.001
DERS-16 38.48±14.93 59.00±13.92 10.123 <0.001

TAS-20, Toronto Alexithymia Scale; MAIA-2, Multidimensional Interoceptive Awareness; DERS-16, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3.

Correlation Analysis between MAIA-2, DERS-16 and TAS-20

Not worrying Not distracting Emotional awareness Attentional regulation Body listening Trusting MAIA-2-general factor DERS-16 TAS-20
Not worrying 1
Not distracting -0.760 1
Emotional awareness -0.860 -0.293** 1
Attentional regulation 0.172** -0.337** 0.628** 1
Body listening -0.119* -0.264** 0.675** 0.620** 1
Trusting -0.590 -0.261** 0.655** 0.540** 0.571** 1
MAIA-2-general factor -0.230 -0.318** 0.875** 0.786** 0.847** 0.852** 1
DERS-16 -0.338** 0.145* -0.339** -0.504** -0.375** -0.409** -0.487** 1
TAS-20 -0.185* 0.126 -0.357** -0.529** -0.374 -0.457** -0.493** 0.668** 1
*

p<0.05;

**

p<0.001.

TAS-20, Toronto Alexithymia Scale; MAIA-2, Multidimensional Interoceptive Awareness; DERS-16, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale.

Table 4.

The mediating role of DERS-16 on the associations between MAIA-2 and TAS-20

Dependent variable Independent variable B t OR (95% CI) F R-sq
Model 1 DERS-16 MAIA-2 -2.789 -9.471 -3.369 to -2.208 89.693 0.297
Model 2 TAS-20 MAIA-2 -1.848 -8.775 -2.263 to -1.433 76.993 0.266
Model 3 TAS-20 MAIA-2 -0.726 -3.486 -1.136 to -0.315 104.947 0.499
DERS-16 0.422 9.987 0.322 to 0.483

TAS-20, Toronto Alexithymia Scale; MAIA-2, Multidimensional Interoceptive Awareness; DERS-16, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.