Gender Differences in Alexithymia

The alexithymia literature was meta-analyzed to determine whether there was empirical support for gender differences. Our a priori theoretical motivation for expecting higher mean levels of alexithymia in men than in women was based on Levant's (1992) "Normative Male Alexithymia" hypo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology of men & masculinity 2009-07, Vol.10 (3), p.190-203
Main Authors: Levant, Ronald F, Hall, Rosalie J, Williams, Christine M, Hasan, Nadia T
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Alexithymia
Childrearing Practices
Emotionality
Female
Gender differences
Human
Human Sex Differences
Male
Men
Moderators
Narratives
Social Learning
Socialization
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The alexithymia literature was meta-analyzed to determine whether there was empirical support for gender differences. Our a priori theoretical motivation for expecting higher mean levels of alexithymia in men than in women was based on Levant's (1992) "Normative Male Alexithymia" hypothesis, which suggests a pattern of restrictive emotionality in traditionally reared men. Some previous works have questioned whether there is a detectable gender difference in alexithymia (i.e., Heesacker et al., 1999 ; Wester, Vogel, Pressly, & Heesacker, 2002 ), but they have not comprehensively or empirically cumulated results across studies, although Levant et al.'s (2006) narrative review suggests men tend to score higher than women on average, at least in nonclinical samples. An effect size estimate based on 41 existing samples found consistent, although expectedly small, differences in mean alexithymia between women and men ( Hedges' d = .22). Men exhibited higher levels of alexithymia. There were no significant moderator effects for clinical versus nonclinical populations or alexithymia measure used, although there were relatively few clinical samples and non-TAS measures. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
ISSN:1524-9220
1939-151X
DOI:10.1037/a0015652