Researchers have proposed three core deficits of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD): emotion dysregulation, interpersonal problems, and self-identity disturbance. Previous methods for testing these deficits rest on problematic assumptions (e.g., the assumption that observable/measured features of BPD, such as chaotic relationships and affective intensity, occur independently). A network model of psychopathology assumes that observable features of disorders directly interact, and network analytic methods quantify how central each feature is. We conducted a network analysis of core deficits of BPD features using a large (n = 4386) sample of participants with a range of BPD features. The most central features of participants in the High BPD group were loneliness, recklessness/impulsivity, and intense moods, supporting models of emotion dysregulation and interpersonal problems. The networks of BPD features did not differ between men and women. We provide directions for future research to enhance our understanding of how networks of BPD features change over time.
Emotion dysregulation is fundamental to a range of psychiatric disorders. Leading psychological treatments are often designed to teach several emotion regulation strategies.However, teaching a wide range of strategies may be an inefficient way to enhance emotional functioning. We propose a framework of emotion dysregulation to guide the development of more efficient and flexible interventions. We review motivational (i.e., self-efficacy), betweensituation (i.e., increasing frequency, quantity, or quality of adaptive strategy use; decreasing frequency of maladaptive strategy use), and within-situation mechanisms (i.e., using more or fewer strategies in a given situation; optimally ordering strategies) as well as temporal targets of emotion regulation interventions (i.e., short-term effectiveness vs. long-term adaptiveness).Throughout, we detail recommendations for researchers to test these mechanisms and targets.
Although people often use multiple strategies to regulate their emotions, it is unclear if using more strategies effectively changes emotional outcomes. This may be because there is no clear, data-driven structure to organise which strategies people use together, so strategies with opposing impacts are modelled together. We first conducted a multilevel factor analysis of negative-and positive-emotion regulation strategies among undergraduates (n = 92) completing ecological momentary assessment three times per day for 10 days. Solutions including 3within/3-between factors were most interpretable. Using more between-person Adaptive Engagement strategies and within-person Adaptive Engagement, Enhancement, and Behavioural strategies predicted improved mood, whereas using more between-person Aversive Cognitive and within-person Aversive Cognitive and Disengagement strategies predicted worse mood, ps < .05. Using a greater quantity of strategies may thus promote better, or worse, emotional outcomes, depending on the class of strategies used.
Linehan's (1993) biosocial theory posits that people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) have emotion regulation skills deficits characterized by 1) less frequent use of adaptive emotion regulation strategies, 2) more frequent use of maladaptive strategies, or 3) poorer quality strategy implementation (i.e., strategies implemented less skillfully). We tested these possibilities among participants with BPD, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), or no disorder (controls). Study 1 participants (N = 272) were recruited online; Study 2 participants (N = 90) completed in-person diagnostic assessments. The BPD groups reported greater use of maladaptive strategies than the MDD (d = .35) and control (d = 1.54) groups and lower quality implementation than the MDD (d = −.33) and control groups (d = −.97). BPD participants reported similar use of adaptive strategies as the MDD group (d = −.09) but less use than controls (d = −.47). BPD may be uniquely characterized by overuse of maladaptive strategies and poorer quality emotion regulation implementation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.