Psychological Conflict in Borderline Personality as Represented by Inconsistent Self–Report Item Responding (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Preliminary Report on Defenses and Conflicts Associated with Borderline Personality Disorder
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1986
The authors present preliminary psychodynamic findings from a naturalistic study of borderline personality disorder compared to antisocial personality disorder and bipolar type II (depression with hypomania) affective disorder. An independent psychodynamic interview of each subject was videotaped from which ratings were made of the presence of 22 defense mechanisms and 11 psychodynamic conflicts. A factor analysis of ratings from 81 subjects supported the separation of borderline (splitting, projective identification) from narcissistic defenses (devaluation, omnipotence, idealization, mood-incongruent denial). While certain groups of defenses were associated with each diagnosis, defense ratings did not significantly discriminate the three diagnostic groups, suggesting a limit to their diagnostic value. Among 27 subjects rated, borderline personality was strongly associated with two conflicts: separation-abandonment, and a global conflict over the experience and expression of emotional needs and anger. Antisocial personality was psychodynamically distinct and more heterogeneous. Bipolar type II was associated with two hypothesized depressive conflicts: dominant other and dominant goal. Chronic depression, which was more common in both personality disorder groups than in bipolar type II, was associated with a third depressive conflict, overall gratification inhibition. Overall, conflicts were powerful discriminators of the three diagnostic groups. The heuristic value of these findings is discussed. FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS we have been conducting a study of the psychopathology and course of borderline personality disorder to determine whether this diagnosis is valid and can be discriminated from other disorders. We selected two near neighbor disorders for this comparison on which there has been systematic research. We chose antisocial personality disorder because of a possible overlap in impulse pathology, and bipolar type II affective disorder because recurrent depression and hypomania represent disturbances in affect regulation which may overlap with borderline personality disorder. To determine the discriminate validity of borderline personality disorder from these two comparison disorders, we have examined descriptive features, and the prevalence of accompanying syndromes such as depression, alcohol, and drug abuse. We are following their course for patterns of impulse problems, social role dysfunction, and response to life events (Perry 1985); (Perry and Cooper 1985). In addition to this descriptive work, we are systematically examining the psychodynamics of these disorders using a framework of defense mechanisms and psychodynamic conflicts, ascertained outside of psychoanalytic or other treatment contexts. This preliminary report addresses the question of whether the borderline personality disorder is associated with psychodynamics that differentiate it from these two comparison disorders. The psychodynamic literature has generally viewed the antisocial and borderline personality disorders as strongly related or even identical regarding their underlying psychodynamics. Kernberg (1975) stated that most cases of antisocial personality disorder have an underlying borderline personality organization. This concept is defined by the presence of intact reality testing, identity diffusion, and the use of certain primitive defenses revolving around splitting, which defend against the activation of pathological internalized object relations (Kernberg, 1981). Kernberg has suggested that the major deficit in borderline psychopathology is the inability to integrate positive and negative identifications and introjects. The reliance
Cognitive Conflict in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Study Protocol
Behavioral Sciences
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) represents a severe mental condition that is usually characterized by distressing identity disturbances. Although most prevailing explanatory models and psychotherapy approaches consider and intervene on self-concept, they seem not to recognize or explore idiosyncratic cognitive conflicts that patients may experience. These conflicts, which have been conceptualized as “implicative dilemmas” and “dilemmatic constructs” by personal construct theorists, could be considered as key elements of the explanatory model for BPD to provide a better understanding of this disorder and possibly enhance the effectiveness of contemporary psychotherapeutic approaches. The current study (Identifier: NCT04498104) aims to examine the characteristics of the interpersonal cognitive system of a group of patients diagnosed with BPD, using the repertory grid technique, and to compare them with those of a community sample. We will test if BPD participants are more affect...
Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
Dysfunctional interpersonal patterns are a defining feature of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). A number of studies have aimed to determine if there are specific patterns in the interpersonal functioning of patients with BPD. The vast majority of these studies have used a widely-used rating system called the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme method [1]. To date, three main models of interpersonal functioning of patients with BPD have been developed using the CCRT [2, 3] including one model developed by our team . The aim of this study was to examine to what extent these three empirically-derived models of interpersonal functioning in patients with BPD overlap. borderline personality disorder / core conflictual relationship theme / CCrT / BPd / personality disorders / Interpersonal Functioning
2010
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2003
Despite recent advancements in the treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), little is known about the underlying mechanisms in the development and maintenance of the disorder. To examine these issues, it is first necessary to identify a brief screening measure that can be used to assess factors underlying BPD. Considering this need, the current investigation examined the utility of a BPD-related composite consisting of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Interpersonal Sensitivity (IIP-IS) and Aggression (IIP-Ag) subscales of the IIP in a sample of college students (n ¼ 78) and a sample of individuals seeking residential drug use treatment (n ¼ 78). Data indicated that score on this composite measure (IIP-BPD) was positively related to scores on measures tapping BPD-related symptomotology, as well or better than the IIP total score in all cases. These data suggest the specificity of the IIP-BPD and support its use in analogue studies to better understand the mechanisms underlying the disorder.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 2010
The Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R; Zanarini, Gunderson, Frankenburg, & Chauncey, 1989) measures four major aspects of borderline personality disorder (BPD): Affect, Cognition, Impulse Action Patterns, and Interpersonal Relationships. In the present study, 353 young adults completed the DIB-R at age 18 (Wave 1) and again two years later (Wave 2) at age 20. Concerning the prediction of future BPD features, three models were compared: (a) Wave 1 Affect scores predicting all Wave 2 BPD features (NA model); (b) Wave 1 Impulse Action Patterns scores predicting all Wave 2 BPD features (IMP model); and (c) both Wave 1 Affect and Impulse Action Patterns scores predicting all Wave 2 BPD features (NA-IMP model). Each model controlled for stabilities over time and within-time covariances. Results indicated that the NA model provided the best fit to the data, and improved model fit over a baseline stabilities model and the other models tested. However, even within the NA model there was some evidence that the impulsivity scores were not accounted for by other BPD features. These results suggest that although negative affect is predictive of most BPD symptoms, it does not fully predict future impulsive behavior. Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is characterized by symptoms of severe mood disturbance, impulsive behaviors, inappropriate anger, self-harm behaviors, relationship problems, and identity disturbance (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Dimensional perspectives on BPD emphasize extreme variants of normal personality traits as the root of PD pathology (Trull & Durrett, 2005). The two BPD personality features receiving the most research attention are affective instability/negative affectivity and impulsivity/disinhibition (Skodol et al., 2002; Trull, 2001). Recent research has focused on determining whether one or both of these underlying personality traits may be responsible for the manifestation of other features of BPD (Tragesser, Solhan, Schwartz-Mette, & Trull, 2007). There are three leading perspectives on this issue. First, some suggest that affective instability (or emotion