Association between self-regulatory modes and alexithymia mediated by mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal

Abstract

This research examined alexithymia through the lens of personality as a dynamic regulatory system and focused on the ways in which two distinct self-regulatory modes, assessment and locomotion, are linked to alexithymia. Assessment involves the inclination to evaluate the value of something by weighing its strengths and weaknesses against other options leading to self-doubt and over-comparison. In contrast, locomotion reflects tendency to transition between states while investing psychological resources to actively pursue goals. Locomotion is associated with greater emotional intelligence, self-esteem and reduced counterfactual thinking. Two online subclinical studies (N = 224) tested multistep mediation models examining whether mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal would mediate the relationship between these self-regulatory modes and alexithymia. Assessment was positively associated with alexithymia, whereas locomotion showed a negative association. Mindfulness mediated both relationships, but reappraisal only mediated the assessment-alexithymia link. Locomotion may tap both mindfulness and the cognitive reappraisal associated with alexithymia whereas assessment may only implement cognitive reappraisal after mindfulness. Effects were found for both the global alexithymia score and the specific to DIF and DDF but not EOT, supporting the view of alexithymia as a failure in emotion representation. These findings underscore the benefit of motivation-based tailoring in alexithymia treatment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-026-35882-y.

Introduction

Alexithymia is defined as a three faceted personality trait associated with the processing of emotional information^1,2. The key features of alexithymia include difficulty identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty describing feelings (DDF), and externally-oriented thinking (EOT)^3,4. The construct of alexithymia has been associated with a host of psychopathologies^5–7, in particular somatization, and is widely viewed as a significant transdiagnostic risk factor⁸.

Alexithymia as a self-regulatory deficit

When viewed as a personality trait, alexithymia not only reflects difficulties processing emotions, but a broader dysfunction in self-regulation mechanisms^9,10. From this perspective, personality operates as a dynamic regulatory system¹¹. Effective self-regulation requires identifying relevant goals, mobilizing affect to sustain focus and persistence, and flexibly translating intentions into actions¹². A disruption in the self-regulatory system impairs the internal feedback loop, reducing the ability to detect discrepancies and adjust behavior accordingly.¹³ Although research has largely focused on cognitive control in alexithymia, its links to the regulatory architecture of personality remains understudied¹⁴. Twin studies support this perspective, by showing that 30–33% of the alexithymia variance is genetic, with environmental factors accounting for the rest.¹⁵.

Other models complement this regulatory perspective by conceptualizing emotional awareness as a developmental capacity shaped by cognitive and social maturation, and by extending it to include the neurocognitive stages of emotion processing, from generation to conscious access^16,17.

The attention-appraisal model^18–20, rooted in the extended process model of emotion regulation, conceptualizes alexithymia in terms of core stages of self-regulation of emotion. In this model, EOT reflects deficits in emotional attention, whereas DIF and DDF correspond to impairments in the appraisal and representation of emotion^19,20. Treating alexithymia as a unitary construct may mask these functionally distinct pathways. Given the multidimensional nature of alexithymia, analyzing its components separately may provide a more granular understanding of its links with emotion regulation and self-regulation^9,10. A facet-level analysis may thus allow for greater theoretical precision in linking motivation orientations to specific emotional processing deficits.

Self-regulatory modes and alexithymia

Within the framework of personality and self-regulation^21,22, assessment and locomotion are viewed as self-regulatory modes that reflect different approaches to goal pursuit: assessors primarily engage in a careful evaluation of actions against standards, whereas locomotors focus on taking direct action to achieve goals quickly. These modes correspond to different emphases in self-regulation during goal pursuit and can be seen as either situational or orthogonal chronic tendencies^23–25. Individuals with psychological conditions show rigid self-regulation patterns²⁶, suggesting that alexithymia may also be related to self-regulatory characteristics²⁷.

The assessment mode involves heightened sensitivity to external standards, leading to self-doubt, frequent comparisons, the need for accuracy, and unstable self-views. It is associated with self-criticism, conformity, and lower emotional and social regulation. In contrast, the locomotion mode reflects proactive, goal-directed behavior characterized by decisiveness, persistence, and action. Individuals high in locomotion report greater emotional intelligence, higher self-esteem, and less counterfactual thinking and regret^23,24. This orientation fosters positive and stable self-views that correlate with higher emotional intelligence and better socio-emotional management. By contrast, assessment is more prevalent in OCD²⁵ and BPD²⁷ in subclinical samples.

Locomotion is associated with greater life satisfaction across cultures, as well as consistent success in performance contexts. Assessment often seeks reassurance and is highly responsive to external cues. Whereas assessment may reflect regulatory preoccupation, locomotion, which is characterized by forward movement and engagement, may support emotional awareness and goal-directed regulation. Chronic assessment has been posited to be closely linked to alexithymia, in that individuals high in alexithymia have been found to be high in experiential avoidance²⁸.

Self-regulatory modes, emotion regulation strategies, and alexithymia

Although the link between self-regulatory modes and emotion regulation is still understudied, research indicates that action-oriented individuals regulate emotions more adaptively, especially under stress. Their ability to sustain positive affect enhances goal-directed behavior. Positive affect further modulates regulation style, encouraging intuitive responses when high, and activating intention memory when low^29–31. Thus, individuals high in locomotion, marked by positive affect and goal-directed action, may employ more adaptive emotion regulation strategies. In contrast, those high in assessment, characterized by a focus on comparison and evaluation, may rely on less effective regulatory approaches. Given the emotional processing difficulties linked to alexithymia, patterns of self-regulatory modes may help account for individual differences in emotion regulation strategies observed among those with higher alexithymia.

Mindfulness, reappraisal and alexithymia

Mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal engage overlapping emotion-regulation regions, particularly the prefrontal cortex and limbic system, suggesting shared neural circuits. Mindfulness regulates emotion through sensory awareness and acceptance, whereas reappraisal alters emotional meaning through cognitive reinterpretation^32,33. Because reappraisal requires greater regulatory control, mindfulness may serve as a more accessible initial strategy³⁴. This aligns with meta-analytic evidence showing that mindfulness-based approaches can offset reduced emotional awareness in alexithymia³⁵. Such interventions, body-focused³⁶ partner-based³⁷, or cognitive³⁸, have been shown to reduce distress, enhance emotional awareness, and increase resilience^36–39. Bolstering these findings, four randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of mindfulness-based interventions on alexithymia found lower post-intervention alexithymia levels in the experimental group compared to the control⁴⁰. Similarly, studies have reported a strong association between alexithymia and the lesser use of cognitive reappraisal⁴¹. There is some data that individuals high on alexithymia were less effective in implementing cognitive reappraisal than individuals low on alexithymia⁴². However, other findings have found no association between alexithymia and the use of reappraisal⁴³.

These findings inconsistencies warrant closer examination of the mechanisms underlying the relationship between alexithymia and reappraisal. Although expressive suppression has been reliably linked to alexithymia, particularly the DDF facet, the association with cognitive reappraisal remains inconsistent, with studies reporting mixed results. This may reflect differences between alexithymia facets or methodological factors. Reappraisal depends on emotional awareness, which is often impaired in alexithymia⁴⁴. When individuals lack access to their emotional states, implementing cognitive reappraisal becomes challenging. Supporting this, some studies have found no association between total alexithymia and reappraisal, while others reported that only the EOT facet predicted reduced use of reappraisal⁴⁵. These mixed findings underscore the importance of examining alexithymia at the facet level^18–20.

The present research

The two studies reported below examined the links among self-regulatory modes (assessment and locomotion), mindfulness, reappraisal, and alexithymia within a mediation framework. We hypothesized that assessment would be positively related to alexithymia, whereas locomotion would show a negative relationship. We further predicted that dispositional mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal would be negatively correlated with alexithymia and would mediate the association between self-regulatory modes and alexithymia.

To increase precision, we also analyzed the three alexithymia components (DIF, DDF, and EOT) separately. Facet-level analyses enable a more fine-grained understanding of the functional links to emotion regulation strategies and align with multidimensional accounts suggesting distinct mechanisms for each facet⁵. Based on the literature, we expected stronger effects for DIF and DDF and weaker or null effects for EOT.

Study 1 tested mindfulness as a mediator between self-regulatory modes and alexithymia, using both the total and subscale scores. Study 2 added cognitive reappraisal as a second mediator and tested a sequential pathway from assessment to lower mindfulness, to lower reappraisal, and ultimately to higher alexithymia across subscales. Given the cross-sectional design, all interpretations refer to associations rather than causal effects.

Study 1

Results

Bivariate analyses. The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables are presented in Table 1. Alexithymia general score was negatively associated with locomotion (r = − 0.41, p =  < 0.001) and mindfulness (r = − 0.47, p =  < 0.001) and positively with assessment (r = 0.27, p = 0.003). The same patterns appeared regarding DIF and DDF alexithymia subscales, accept for no correlation between the EOT alexithymia sub-scale and assessment (r = − 0.07, p = 0.464) and mindfulness (r = − 0.15, p = 0.112). Mindfulness was positively associated with locomotion (r = 0.47, p =  < 0.001) and negatively with assessment (r = − 0.38, p =  < 0.001). All three alexithymia subscales were positively correlated (r ranges from 0.33–0.84 all ps’ < 0.001). Age was found to be negatively associated with assessment (r = − 0.37, p < 0.001), Alexithymia general (r = − 0.30, p = 0.001), and DIF (r = − 0.30, p = 0.001) and DDF (r = − 0.30, p = 0.001) alexithymia subscales but not with EOT (r = − 0.13, p = 0.165), and positively associated with mindfulness (r = 0.34, p < 0.001), Gender was not associated with any of the measures so we did not report it. No association was found between assessment and locomotion.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables (Studies 1 and 2).

Variable	Study 1 (N = 115)
	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age	34.89	10.49
2. Locomotion	4.23	0.71	0.16	–
3. Assessment	3.86	0.83	− 0.37***	0.08	−
4. Mindfulness	3.90	1.11	0.34***	0.35***	− 0.28**	−
5. Alexithymia	2.93	0.90	− 0.30**	− 0.41***	0.27**	− 0.47***	–
6. Alexithymia—DIF	2.75	1.34	− 0.30**	− 0.27**	34***	− 0.47***	0.92***	–
7. Alexithymia—DDF	3.15	1.27	− 0.30**	− 0.35***	0.34***	− 0.50***	0.92***	0.84***	–
8. Alexithymia—EOT	2.94	0.71	− 0.13	− 0.48***	− 0.07	− 0.15	0.63***	0.33***	0.42***

Variable	Study 2 (N = 109)
	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	37.13	11.62	–
2. Locomotion	4.22	0.86	0.09	–
3. Assessment	3.76	0.80	− 0.41***	− 0.06	–
4. Mindfulness	4.11	0.89	0.25*	0.47***	− 0.38***	–
5. Reappraisal	4.72	1.37	0.15	0.56***	− 0.24*	0.42***	–
6. Alexithymia	2.65	0.80	− 0.33***	− 0.50***	0.20*	− 0.59***	− 0.48***	–
7. Alexithymia—DIF	2.30	1.03	− 0.38***	− 0.43***	0.27**	− 0.55***	− 0.45***	0.87***	–
8. Alexithymia—DDF	2.72	1.14	− 0.36***	− 0.47***	0.31**	− 0.57***	− 0.39***	0.87***	0.75***	–
9. Alexithymia—EOT	2.91	0.77	− 0.07	− 0.36***	− 0.10	− 0.38***	− 0.30**	0.72***	0.40***	0.42***

Abbreviations: M = means; SD = Standard Deviation; DIF = Difficulty identifying Feelings; DDF = Difficulty describing Feelings; EOT = Externally- oriented Thinking * p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.

Testing for mediation effects. To test the relationship between self-regulatory modes of assessment/locomotion and alexithymia, as well as the mediating role of mindfulness in this relationship, a mediation analysis was performed⁴⁶ using the PROCESS v3.3 Model 4 add-on to SPSS^47,48 (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Multistep mediation model. Note: c = total effect. C' = the effect after controlling for the effect(s) of the mediator(s). All path coefficients (standardized β values) are presented along each arrow. Coefficients are based on the PROCESS macro, model 4 with 5000 bootstraps.

Assessment. The results indicated a negative relationship between assessment and mindfulness (β = − 0.28, p = 0.003 [− 0.458, − 0.100]). There was also a negative relationship between mindfulness and alexithymia when controlling for assessment (β = − 0.42, p < 0.001 [− 0.594, − 0.255]). Finally, the association between assessment and alexithymia became non-significant when adding mindfulness to the model (β = 0.15, p = 0.076 [− 0.016, − 0.324]), indicating a full mediation effect. Examination of the indirect path between assessment, mindfulness and alexithymia indicated that mediation was significant. The formal two-tailed significance test (assuming a normal distribution) indicated that the indirect effect was significant. Bootstrap results showed that the bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect did not include zero. Table 1SM presents the complete statistical results for the direct and indirect effects of assessment on alexithymia through mindfulness levels.

Locomotion. The results indicated a positive relationship between locomotion and mindfulness (β = 0.35, p < 0.001 [0.175, 0.524]). There was a negative relationship between mindfulness and alexithymia when controlling locomotion (β = − 0.37, p < 0.001 [− 0.536, − 0.199]). Finally, the association between locomotion and alexithymia was also significant when adding mindfulness to the model (β = − 0.29, p = 0.001 [− 0.453, − 0.116]). Examination of the indirect path between locomotion, mindfulness levels and alexithymia indicated that mediation was significant. The formal two-tailed significance test (assuming a normal distribution) indicated that the indirect effect was significant. Bootstrap results showed that the bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect did not include zero. Table 1SM (right side) presents the direct and indirect effects of assessment on alexithymia through mindfulness levels. Similar results were found in all analyses after controlling for age.

For the DIF and DDF subscales, the results showed significant full mediation consistent with the overall alexithymia findings, whereas no mediation emerged for EOT. Similar patterns were observed after controlling for age. The full statistical results appear in Tables 2–4SM.

Discussion

Study 1 tested whether mindfulness would mediate the association between self-regulatory modes and alexithymia. Assessment was negatively and locomotion was positively related to mindfulness, which in turn was negatively related to alexithymia. Mediation was found for both self-regulatory modes. Similar patterns appeared for DIF and DDF but not EOT, suggesting variation across alexithymia subcomponents.

Study 2

Study 2 had four aims: (1) replicate Study 1, (2) test whether cognitive reappraisal, in addition to mindfulness, would mediate the association between self-regulatory modes and alexithymia, (3) examine a sequential mediation model in which assessment and locomotion are associated with mindfulness, which is associated with reappraisal and ultimately predicts alexithymia, and (4) explore these pathways across the DIF, DDF, and EOT subscales to identify potential differences among alexithymia components.

Results

Bivariate analyses. The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables are presented in Table 1. Alexithymia general score was negatively associated with reappraisal (r = − 0.48, p =  < 0.001), locomotion (r = − 0.50, p =  < 0.001) and mindfulness (r = − 0.59, p =  < 0.001) and positively with assessment (r = 0.20, p = 0.036). The results for the alexithymia sub-scale revealed similar results not including no correlation between EOT alexithymia sub-scale and assessment (r = − 0.08, p = 0.424). Reappraisal was positively associated with locomotion (r = 0.56, p =  < 0.001) and negatively with assessment (r = − 0.24, p = 0.011). Mindfulness was positively associated with locomotion (r = 0.47, p =  < 0.001) and negatively with assessment (r = − 0.38, p =  < 0.001). As in Study 1, no association was found between assessment and locomotion (r = − 0.06, p = 0.567). All three alexithymia subscales were positively correlated (r ranges from 0.39–0.87 all ps’ < 0.001). Age was found to be negatively associated with assessment (r = -0.41, p < 0.001), Alexithymia general (r = − 0.33, p < 0.001), and DIF (r = − 0.38, p < 0.001) and DDF (r = − 0.36, p < 0.001) alexithymia subscales but not with EOT (r = − 0.07, p = 0.499), and positively associated with mindfulness (r = 0.25, p = 0.010), Gender was not associated with any of the measures so we did not report it.

These findings thus replicated those of Study 1 while adding the contribution of assessment to the analyses.

Testing for a mediation effect. To test the relationship between self-regulatory modes of assessment/locomotion and alexithymia, as well as the mediating role of mindfulness in this relationship, a mediation analysis was performed⁴⁶ using the PROCESS v3.3 Model 4 add-on to SPSS^47,48 (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Multistep mediation model. Note: c = total effect. C' = the effect after controlling for the effect(s) of the mediator(s). All path coefficients (standardized β values) are presented along each arrow. Coefficients are based on the PROCESS macro, model 6 with 5000 bootstraps.

Assessment. The results indicated a negative relationship between assessment and mindfulness (β = − 0.38, p < 0.001 [− 0.561, − 0.207]). There was a negative relationship between mindfulness and alexithymia when controlling for assessment (β = − 0.50, p < 0.001 [− 0.667, − 0.323]). Finally, the effect of assessment on alexithymia became non-significant when adding mindfulness to the model (β = − 0.06, p = 0.481 [− 0.218, 0.103]), indicating a full mediation effect. Examination of the indirect path between assessment, mindfulness and alexithymia indicated that the mediation was significant. The formal two-tailed significance test (assuming a normal distribution) indicated that the indirect effect was significant. Bootstrap results showed that the bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect did not include zero. Table 5SM presents the complete statistical results for the analyses.

Locomotion. The results indicated a positive relationship between locomotion and mindfulness (β = 0.47, p < 0.001 [0.304, 0.642]). There was a negative relationship between mindfulness and alexithymia when controlling for locomotion (β = − 0.42, p < 0.001 [− 0.588, − 0.250]). Finally, the effect of locomotion on alexithymia was also significant when adding mindfulness and reappraisal to the model (β = − 0.20, p = 0.038 [− 0.380, − 0.011]). Examination of the indirect path between locomotion, mindfulness levels and alexithymia indicated that the mediation was significant. The formal two-tailed significance test (assuming a normal distribution) indicated that the indirect effect was significant. Bootstrap results showed that the bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect did not include zero (Table 5SM).

The same statistical procedure as for mindfulness was conducted to examine the mediating role of reappraisal.

Assessment. The results indicated a significant relationship between assessment and reappraisal (β = − 0.24, p = 0.011 [− 0.429, − 0.057]). There was a negative relationship between reappraisal and alexithymia when controlling for assessment (β = − 0.46, p < 0.001 [− 0.630, − 0.283]). Finally, the effect of assessment on alexithymia became non-significant when adding reappraisal to the model, indicating a full mediation effect (β = 0.09, p = 0.305 [− 0.083, 0.264]). Examination of the indirect path between assessment, reappraisal and alexithymia indicated that the mediation was significant. The formal two-tailed significance test (assuming a normal distribution) indicated that the indirect effect was significant. Bootstrap results showed that the bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect did not include zero (β = 0.11, 95% CI, − 0.010 to 0.224) (Table 5SM).

Locomotion. The results indicated a significant relationship between locomotion and reappraisal (β = 0.56, p < 0.001 [0.401, 0.719]). There was a negative relationship between reappraisal and alexithymia when controlling for assessment (β = − 0.29, p = 0.004 [− 0.482, − 0.095]). Finally, the effect of locomotion on alexithymia was also significant when adding reappraisal to the model (β = − 0.34, p < 0.001 [− 0.533, 0.146]). Examination of the indirect path between locomotion, reappraisal and alexithymia indicated that the mediation was significant. The formal two-tailed significance test (assuming a normal distribution) indicated that the indirect effect was significant. Bootstrap results showed that the bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect did not include zero (β = − 0.16, 95% CI, − 0.273 to − 0.031) (Table 5SM).

To examine the complete model associating self-regulatory modes and alexithymia through mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal, the data were subjected to a multistep mediation analysis with two sequential mediators (using the macro-PROCESS, model 6).^47,48 As depicted in Fig. 3, the dependent variable (Y) was alexithymia. The mediators in the model were the participants’ mindfulness (M1) and cognitive reappraisal (M2). The independent variable (X) was participants’ self-regulatory modes (i.e. assessment and locomotion). Table 5SM depicts the full results of the multistep mediation analysis.

Fig. 3.

Multistep mediation model. Note: c = total effect. C' = the effect after controlling for the effect(s) of the mediator(s).

Assessment. The path estimates confirmed the hypothesized multistep mediation process (see Fig. 2—top). The total effect model revealed a non-significant relationship between assessment and alexithymia (β = − 0.06, p = 0.481 [− 0.218, 0.103]). Further, the results confirmed the proposed chain of mediators; namely, mindfulness (M1) and reappraisal (M2) mediated the effect of assessment on alexithymia. Assessment was negatively associated with mindfulness (β = − 0.38, p < 0.001 [− 0.561, − 0.207]). Mindfulness had a significant and positive association with participants’ reappraisal (β = 0.39, p < 0.001 [0.199, 0.575]). A negative association was found between reappraisal and alexithymia (β = − 0.28, p < 0.001 [− 0.447, − 0.119]). Mindfulness was also negatively associated with alexithymia Fig. 2: (β = − 0.50, p < 0.001 [− 0.667, − 0.323]). No other paths were significant. The 95% CI for the indirect effect was obtained with 5000 bootstrap resamples and supported the suggested multistep mediation depicted in Fig. 3 (β = 0.04, 95% CI, 0.006 to 0.083). The complete statistical analyses appear in Table 5SM.

Locomotion. The path estimates confirmed the hypothesized multistep mediation process (see Fig. 2—bottom). The total effect model revealed a significant relationship between locomotion and alexithymia (β = − 0.20, p = 0.038 [− 0.380, − 0.011]). Further, the results confirmed the proposed chain of mediators; namely, mindfulness (M1) and reappraisal (M2) mediated the effect of locomotion on alexithymia. Locomotion was positively associated with mindfulness (β = 0.34, p < 0.001 [0.143, 0.543]). Mindfulness had a significant and positive association with participants’ reappraisal (β = 0.23, p = 0.024 [0.032, 0.431]). A negative association was found between reappraisal and alexithymia β = − 0.19, p = 0.037 [− 0.371, − 0.012]). Mindfulness was also negatively associated with alexithymia β = − 0.42, p < 0.001 [− 0.588, − 0.250]). No other paths were significant. The 95% CI for the indirect effect was obtained with 5000 bootstrap resamples and did not support the suggested multistep mediation depicted in Fig. 3 for locomotion (β = − 0.05, 95% CI, − 0.136 to 0.015). However, it did support the suggested mediation depicted in Fig. 2 for mindfulness and locomotion (β = − 0.14, 95% CI, − 0.280 to. − 052) but not reappraisal (β = − 0.11, 95% CI, − 0.228 to.013). The complete statistical analyses appear in Table 5SM.

Parallel analyses for the DIF, DDF, and EOT subscales showed that DIF largely replicated the overall alexithymia pattern across both self-regulatory modes and mediation paths. DDF showed similar path structures, though full mediation via mindfulness and reappraisal was not supported. EOT aligned with the general alexithymia findings only for assessment, not locomotion, and showed no mediation effects. Full results are reported in Tables 6–8SM.

Finally, as in Study 1, we reversed the model to test alexithymia as the predictor and self-regulatory modes as outcomes. Unlike the primary analyses, no significant mediation effects emerged for either self-regulatory mode.

Discussion

Study 2 explored how assessment and locomotion are associated with alexithymia through the mediating roles of mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal. In the locomotion mode, both strategies were associated with lower alexithymia, with mindfulness showing a stronger mediation effect than reappraisal. In the assessment mode, higher assessment predicted lower mindfulness and reappraisal, but both mediated its relation with alexithymia. These patterns were found for the DIF and DDF subscales, but not for EOT, which showed no significant mediation, suggesting a distinct regulatory profile for EOT.

General discussion

The present studies offer an integrative framework for understanding alexithymia as a dysfunction within personality when viewed as a dynamic self-regulatory system^21,22. The findings suggest that the chronic self-regulatory modes of assessment and locomotion are systematically linked to alexithymia through emotion regulation strategies, including mindfulness and cognitive reappraisal.

The assessment mode was positively associated with alexithymia, particularly with the DIF and DDF subcomponents. In contrast, the locomotion mode was significantly negatively associated with these components. In both studies, no significant associations were found with the EOT subscale, reinforcing the need for a multidimensional approach^18–20.

Relationships between self-regulatory modes and emotion regulation strategies

Study 1 indicated that mindfulness mediated the relationship between assessment and locomotion on alexithymia: higher assessment was associated with lower mindfulness, which in turn predicted higher alexithymia. By contrast, higher locomotion was positively associated with mindfulness. In Study 2, this pattern was replicated and extended: assessment was linked to alexithymia through both reduced mindfulness and, indirectly, threw reduced use of cognitive reappraisal. However, locomotion predicted lower alexithymia only via increased mindfulness, with no significant link to reappraisal. This interpretation aligns with Action Control Theory⁴⁹˒⁵⁰, which views emotion regulation as a facilitator of action orientation, a characteristic of the locomotion mode.

These results also support a regulatory model in which mindfulness operates as a sensory-based strategy essential for emotional monitoring, particularly in individuals prone to assessment tendencies. In contrast, reappraisal, which demands greater cognitive control, may be more vulnerable to the cognitive rigidity of assessment-oriented individuals⁵.

Emotion regulation strategies and alexithymia

In both studies, higher levels of mindfulness were associated with lower levels of alexithymia, particularly among individuals high on assessment. Models of emotional awareness suggest that mindfulness enhances early-stage interoceptive awareness, which is foundational for emotional awareness^17,44.

The indirect role of cognitive reappraisal observed in Study 2 supports this layered view of regulation: mindfulness may serve as a precursor, enabling access to more complex strategies such as reappraisal. This sequence is particularly evident in individuals with high assessment tendencies, for whom low mindfulness may block access to cognitively mediated strategies. Conversely, in individuals high in locomotion, mindfulness is more readily accessible, allowing for flexible emotional responsiveness without the cognitive demands of reappraisal. The findings thus contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how distinct regulatory modes interact with emotion regulation strategies. While mindfulness appears universally beneficial, its effects are particularly pronounced in assessment-oriented individuals, who otherwise lack access to more effortful regulation pathways⁵⁰. The results also showed that whereas locomotion was highly positively associated with reappraisal, no significant association was found between assessment and reappraisal. These findings suggest that the influence of self-regulatory modes extends beyond behavioral tendencies to include different types of emotion regulation strategies.

Alexithymia and the attention-appraisal model

Taken together, these findings suggest that self-regulatory modes are differentially associated with specific components of alexithymia, particularly those involving emotional appraisal and representation. Within the attention-appraisal framework^19,51, the link between assessment and higher levels of DIF and DDF, but not EOT, points to difficulties in evaluating and verbalizing emotions, rather than in directing attention to them. This distinction also aligns with the view that mindfulness and reappraisal, as appraisal-level strategies, may be more accessible or effective depending on one’s self-regulatory mode.

Limitations and future directions

The present studies have several limitations. First, the cross-sectional, correlational design precludes causal inference; longitudinal or experimental work is needed to verify directionality and temporal patterns. Second, the non-clinical sample limits generalizability to clinical or diagnostically diverse populations. While the mediation models suggest potential pathways, longitudinal or experimental designs are needed to examine the directionality and temporal dynamics of these relationships over time. Future research should examine whether individuals high on assessment could benefit from mindfulness-based approaches that reduce self-criticism and increase emotional acceptance⁵². For those high on locomotion, mindfulness may complement action-oriented tendencies and enhance emotional flexibility^50,53,54. Although cognitive reappraisal is valuable, it may be less effective without a mindfulness foundation⁵⁴, particularly among individuals high on assessment.

The findings support the mediating roles of mindfulness, and to a lesser extent reappraisal, in linking self-regulation and alexithymia, and may inform targeted interventions using awareness-to-sensation techniques^54–56. The replication of these findings lends weight to the reliability of the results and points to the potential for these insights to inform tailored and more effective therapeutic interventions, particularly those focusing on awareness-to-sensation techniques⁵².

This research offers an integrative framework for understanding alexithymia as a regulatory deficit situated within a broader personality system. It bridges self-regulatory modes, emotion regulation strategies and alexithymia. The findings support a multidimensional perspective on alexithymia and may contribute to the development of emotion-focused interventions that consider individuals’ motivation orientation.

Materials and methods

Study 1

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of [masked for review] University (protocol number AU-SOC-IS-20201222). This study was not pre-registered. All methods were in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Participants and procedure

A sample of 115 (52 females, 63 males) was recruited. They ranged in age from 18 to 68 with a mean age of 34.9 years (SD = 10.5 years).

Participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk and offered small monetary reward for their participation. Before the study, they provided informed consent, after reading a document that explained the study procedures and confidentiality agreements. They then completed a set of psychological scales presented in random order to minimize order effects and potential biases. After filling out all the scales, the participants submitted their responses through the MTurk platform, received their compensation, and the data were collected.

Locomotion and assessment

The Locomotion and Assessment Scale²⁴ was developed and validated on 13 independent samples. Each scale contains 12 items, which are summed to generate a total score. Responses are made on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The locomotion scale included items related to productive, goal-directed action, such as “By the time I complete a task, I already have the next one in mind” and “When I decide to do something, I can’t wait to get started.” The assessment scale included items that assessed evaluative planning, ranging from beneficial self-reflection and comparison to ruminative preoccupation with evaluation and comparison to others, such as “I spend a lot of time thinking about my own strengths and weaknesses” and “I often compare myself with other people.” Both scales showed reliable internal consistency in this study, with alpha coefficients of 0.89 (locomotion), and 0.83 (assessment).

Dispositional mindfulness

The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)⁵² is a 15-item scale designed to evaluate a fundamental aspect of dispositional mindfulness. Responses are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost always) to 6 (almost never) to evaluate items such as “I find myself listening to someone with one ear while doing something else at the same time” and “I tend to walk quickly to my destination without noticing my surroundings.” The MAAS had reliable internal consistency, with an alpha coefficient of 0.95 in the current study.

Alexithymia

The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)⁵⁷ is a self-report questionnaire. Responses are made on a five-point Likert scale, where higher scores denote greater levels of alexithymia (e.g., “I find it hard to put my feelings into words”). The TAS-20 item scale has 3 sub-scales: Difficulty Describing Feelings, Difficulty Identifying Feeling and Externally Oriented Thinking. Responses are indicated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The TAS-20 has consistently shown strong validity and reliability; the α = 0.92 in the current sample.

Statistical analyses

The analyses were conducted in two steps. In the first step, a correlational analysis was conducted between the study variables. In the second step a complete mediation analysis via PROCESS v3.3 was conducted.

Power analysis

To determine the a-priori sample size, the Lovakov and Agadullina⁵⁸ empirically derived guidelines for interpreting effect size in social psychology were applied. To have a statistical power of > 80% (alpha level of 0.05, ANOVA) the number of participants recruited for each cell was almost double the suggested 30. The a-priori required sample size was calculated with G-Power software⁵⁹ where assuming 80% power would yield a small-moderate effect size of f² = 0.12. The actual sample size was higher than the calculated number of N = 95.

Study 2

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for this study were obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of [masked for review] University (protocol number AU-SOC-IS-20201222). This study was not pre-registered. All methods were in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Participants and procedure

A sample of 109 Mechanical Turk respondents (60 females, 49 males) was recruited. They ranged in age from 18 to 68 with a mean age of 37.13 (SD = 11.6 years). The procedure was identical to that described in Study 1.

Locomotion and assessment orientations

Locomotion and assessment orientations²⁴ were assessed as chronic individual differences, α = 0.89 (locomotion), α = 0.79 (assessment).

Dispositional mindfulness

Dispositional mindfulness was assessed on the MAAS⁵², α = 0.90.

Reappraisal

Reappraisal was assessed on reappraisal scale adapted from the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)⁶⁰. This sub-scale was composed of 6 items out of the original 10-item questionnaire that assesses the frequency with which individuals employ cognitive reappraisal (e.g., “I manage my emotions by altering my perspective on the situation”) and expressive suppression (e.g., “I manage my emotions by not showing them”) for emotion regulation. Responses are indicated on a seven-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating more frequent use of that strategy. The reappraisal sub-scale showed good internal consistency in the current sample with α = 0.93.

Alexithymia

Alexithymia was assessed on the TAS-20⁵⁷, with α = 0.90.

Power analysis

We used the same procedure to determine the sample size as in Study 1. The actual sample size was higher than the calculated number of N = 105.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author contributions

IS contributed to the design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and writing the manuscript. EY contributed to the analysis and writing the manuscript.

Funding

No funding.

Data availability

The datasets generated by the survey research during and/or analyzed during the current studies are available via the Dataverse repository, 10.17605/OSF.IO/S2WHD.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approvals for these studies were obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Ariel University (protocol number AU-SOC-IS-20201222).