Alexithymia, mindfulness, and attachment orientations as predictors of passion: evidence from two cross-sectional mediation studies

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Although alexithymia has been widely studied in clinical contexts, its relevance to motivational dynamics such as passion has yet to be fully understood. Building on the Dualistic Model of Passion that distinguishes between harmonious and obsessive passion, the present studies examined how alexithymia, attachment orientations, and mindfulness are associated with different forms of passion. Two cross-sectional studies were conducted on a total of 648 participants. Study 1 ( N = 375 adults) tested whether alexithymia would mediate the associations between attachment anxiety/avoidance and passion orientations. Study 2 ( N = 263 undergraduates) examined whether mindfulness would mediate the association between alexithymia and passion. Validated self-report scales were used, and mediation analyses were conducted. In Study 1, alexithymia mediated the associations between both attachment anxiety and avoidance and obsessive passion, and between avoidant attachment and harmonious passion. In Study 2, mindfulness mediated the association between alexithymia and obsessive passion, but not harmonious passion. Taken together, the findings from these two separate studies provide complementary evidence for distinct but theoretically related pathways linking attachment, alexithymia, mindfulness, and passion. The results highlight the importance of considering alexithymia as an explanatory variable linking attachment-related vulnerabilities to motivational orientations. They also provide indications that mindfulness may be associated with maladaptive forms of passion. Alexithymia may play a key role in the associations between attachment orientations and obsessive passion, with mindfulness potentially mediating these links. These findings provide insights into the emotional dynamics associated with passion.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.