Although emotion dysregulation has consistently been conceptualized as a core problem of borderline personality disorder (BPD), a comprehensive, and empirically and ecologically validated model that captures the exact types of dysregulation remains absent. In the present article, we combine insights from basic affective science and the biosocial theory of BPD to present a theoretical model that captures the most fundamental affective dynamical processes that underlie BPD and stipulates that individuals with BPD are characterized by more negative affective homebases, higher levels of affective variability, and lower levels of attractor strength or return to baseline. Next, we empirically validate this proposal by statistically modeling data from three electronic diary studies on emotional responses to personally relevant stimuli in personally relevant environments that were collected both from patients with BPD (N ϭ 50, 42, and 43) and from healthy subjects (N ϭ 50, 24, and 28). The results regarding negative affective homebases and heightened affective variabilities consistently confirmed our hypotheses across all three datasets. The findings regarding attractor strengths (i.e., return to baseline) were less consistent and of smaller magnitude. The transdiagnostic nature of our approach may help to elucidate the common and distinctive mechanisms that underlie several different disorders that are characterized by affective dysregulation.Although emotion dysregulation has been consistently conceptualized as the core problem of borderline personality disorder (BPD; Crowell et al

Background Concerns have been raised about whether self-report measures of pain catastrophizing reflect the construct as defined in the cognitive-behavioral literature. We investigated the content of these self-report measures; that is, whether items assess the construct ‘pain catastrophizing’ and not other theoretical constructs (i.e., related constructs or pain outcomes) using the discriminant content validity method. Method Items (n = 58) of six pain catastrophizing measures were complemented with items (n = 34) from questionnaires measuring pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability. Via an online survey, 94 participants rated to what extent each item was relevant for assessing pain catastrophizing, defined as “to view or present pain or pain-related problems as considerably worse than they actually are” and other relevant constructs (pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability). Results Data were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical models. The results revealed that the items from pain-related worrying, vigilance, pain severity, distress, and disability questionnaires were distinctively related to their respective constructs. This was not observed for the items from the pain catastrophizing questionnaires. The content of the pain catastrophizing measures was equally well, or even better, captured by pain-related worrying or pain-related distress. Conclusion Based upon current findings, a recommendation may be to develop a novel pain catastrophizing questionnaire. However, we argue that pain catastrophizing cannot be assessed by self-report questionnaires. Pain catastrophizing requires contextual information, and expert judgment, which cannot be provided by self-report questionnaires. We argue for a person-centered approach, and propose to rename ‘pain catastrophizing’ measures in line with what is better measured: ‘pain-related worrying’.

BackgroundAffective dysregulation is widely regarded as being the core problem in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Moreover, BPD is the disorder mainly associated with affective dysregulation. However, the empirical confirmation of the specificity of affective dysregulation for BPD is still pending. We used a validated approach from basic affective science that allows for simultaneously analyzing three interdependent components of affective dysregulation that are disturbed in patients with BPD: homebase, variability, and attractor strength (return to baseline).MethodsWe applied two types of multilevel models on two e-diary datasets to investigate group differences regarding three subcomponents between BPD patients (n = 43; n = 51) and patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; n = 28) and those with bulimia nervosa (BN; n = 20) as clinical control groups in dataset 1, and patients with panic disorder (PD; n = 26) and those with major depression (MD; n = 25) as clinical control groups in dataset 2. In addition, healthy controls (n = 28; n = 40) were included in the analyses. In both studies, e-diaries were used to repeatedly collect data about affective experiences during participants’ daily lives. In study 1 a high-frequency sampling strategy with assessments in 15 min-intervals over 24 h was applied, whereas the assessments occurred every waking hour over 48 h in study 2. The local ethics committees approved both studies, and all participants provided written informed consent.ResultsIn contradiction to our hypotheses, BPD patients did not consistently show altered affective dysregulation compared to the clinical patient groups. The only differences in affective dynamics in BPD patients emerged with regard to one of three subcomponents, affective homebase. However, these results were not even consistent. Conversely, comparing the patients to healthy controls revealed a pattern of more negative affective homebases, higher levels of affective variability, and (partially) reduced returns to baseline in the patient groups.ConclusionsOur results indicate that affective dysregulation constitutes a transdiagnostic mechanism that manifests in similar ways in several different mental disorders. We point out promising prospects that might help to elucidate the common and distinctive mechanisms that underlie several different disorders and that should be addressed in future studies.

Intensity profiles of emotional experience over time have been found to differ primarily in explosiveness (i.e. whether the profile has a steep vs. a gentle start) and accumulation (i.e. whether intensity increases over time vs. goes back to baseline). However, the determinants of these temporal features remain poorly understood. In two studies, we examined whether emotion regulation strategies are predictive of the degree of explosiveness and accumulation of negative emotional episodes. Participants were asked to draw profiles reflecting changes in the intensity of emotions elicited either by negative social feedback in the lab (Study 1) or by negative events in daily life (Study 2). In addition, trait (Study 1 & 2), and state (Study 2) usage of a set of emotion regulation strategies was assessed. Multilevel analyses revealed that trait rumination (especially the brooding component) was positively associated with emotion accumulation (Study 1 & 2). State rumination was also positively associated with emotion accumulation and, to a lesser extent, with emotion explosiveness (Study 2). These results provide support for emotion regulation theories, which hypothesise that rumination is a central mechanism underlying the maintenance of negative emotions.

Background Questions have been raised about whether items of alexithymia scales assess the construct alexithymia and its key features, and no other related constructs. This study assessed the (discriminant) content validity of the most widely used alexithymia scale, i.e., the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Methods Participants (n = 81) rated to what extent TAS-20 items and items of related constructs were relevant for assessing the constructs ‘alexithymia’, ‘difficulty identifying feelings’, ‘difficulty describing feelings’, ‘externally-oriented thinking’, ‘limited imaginal capacity’, ‘anxiety’, ‘depression’, and ‘health anxiety’. Results Results revealed that, overall, the TAS-20 did only partly measure ‘alexithymia’. Only the subscales ‘difficulty identifying feelings’ and ‘difficulty describing feelings’ represented ‘alexithymia’ and their intended construct, although some content overlap between these subscales was found. In addition, some items assessed (health) anxiety equally well or even better. Conclusions Revision of the TAS-20 is recommended to adequately assess all key features of alexithymia. Findings with the TAS-20 need to be interpreted with caution in people suffering from medical conditions.