Recent theorizing suggests that the 4Ns - that is, the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice - are common rationalizations people use to defend their choice of eating meat. However, such theorizing has yet to be subjected to empirical testing. Six studies were conducted on the 4Ns. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the 4N classification captures the vast majority (83%-91%) of justifications people naturally offer in defense of eating meat. In Study 2, individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tended also to objectify (dementalize) animals and included fewer animals in their circle of moral concern, and this was true independent of social dominance orientation. Subsequent studies (Studies 3-5) showed that individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tend not to be motivated by ethical concerns when making food choices, are less involved in animal-welfare advocacy, less driven to restrict animal products from their diet, less proud of their animal-product decisions, tend to endorse Speciesist attitudes, tend to consume meat and animal products more frequently, and are highly committed to eating meat. Furthermore, omnivores who strongly endorsed the 4Ns tended to experience less guilt about their animal-product decisions, highlighting the guilt-alleviating function of the 4Ns.

Background: Family and friends ('carers') of adults with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and carers of young people with other serious illnesses experience significant adversity but research on the experiences of caring for a young person with BPD features is sparse. This study aimed to: (i) describe the experiences of carers of young people with BPD features; (ii) compare them with published data assessing carers of young people with other serious illnesses and with adults from the general population. Methods: Eighty-two carers (M age = 44.74, SD = 12.86) of 54 outpatient young people (M age = 18.76, SD = 3.02) who met 3 to 9 DSM-IV BPD criteria completed self-report measures on distress, experiences of caregiving, coping, and expressed emotion. Independent-samples t-tests were employed to compare scores with those reported by convenience comparison groups of general population adults or carers of young people with eating disorders, cancer, or psychosis. Results: Carers of young people with BPD features reported significantly elevated levels of distress, negative caregiving experiences, and expressed emotion, as well as maladaptive coping strategies, compared with general population adults or carers of young people with other serious illnesses.

BackgroundCaring for a person with borderline personality disorder is associated with poor outcomes including elevated psychological distress and burden. This study will compare the effectiveness of two brief psychoeducational programs for carers of youth presenting for early intervention for borderline personality disorder features. The protocol for this study is presented here.MethodsThe study is a single-centre parallel group, randomised controlled trial. As a family unit, relatives, partners and friends (‘carers’) are randomly allocated to one of two treatment arms to receive either an online borderline personality disorder psychoeducation program, or both the online psychoeducation group and a face-to-face group program, Making Sense of Borderline Personality Disorder. Carers are assessed at baseline and follow-up (4 weeks after the intervention). It is expected that participants who received the combined group and online programs will have better outcomes than those who received the online program alone. The primary outcome is carer burden, assessed using the negative appraisal subscales of the Experience of Caregiving Inventory. Secondary outcomes include positive experiences of caregiving, coping, self-rated personality disorder knowledge, psychological distress, expressed emotion and quality of life.DiscussionThis will be the first published evaluation of a psychoeducational intervention for carers of youth with borderline personality disorder features using a randomised controlled trial design. The results have the potential to inform clinicians and carers about the effectiveness of brief interventions designed to support families and friends of young people with borderline personality disorder, and what medium those interventions should utilise.Trial registrationProspectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616000304437 on 08 March 2016.

Objective: Caregivers of individuals with severe mental illness often experience significant negative experiences of care, which can be associated with higher levels of expressed emotion. Expressed emotion is potentially a modifiable target early in the course of illness, which might improve outcomes for caregivers and patients. However, expressed emotion and caregiver experiences in the early stages of disorders might be moderated by the type of severe mental illness. The aim was to determine whether experiences of the caregiver role and expressed emotion differ in caregivers of young people with first-episode psychosis versus young people with ‘first-presentation’ borderline personality disorder features. Method: Secondary analysis of baseline (pre-treatment) data from three clinical trials focused on improving caregiver outcomes for young people with first-episode psychosis and young people with borderline personality disorder features was conducted (ACTRN12616000968471, ACTRN12616000304437, ACTRN12618000616279). Caregivers completed self-report measures of experiences of the caregiver role and expressed emotion. Multivariate generalised linear models and moderation analyses were used to determine group differences. Results: Data were available for 265 caregivers. Higher levels of negative experiences and expressed emotion, and stronger correlations between negative experiences and expressed emotion domains, were found in caregivers of young people with borderline personality disorder than first-episode psychosis. Caregiver group (borderline personality disorder, first-episode psychosis) moderated the relationship between expressed emotion and caregiver experiences in the domains of need to provide backup and positive personal experiences. Conclusion: Caregivers of young people with borderline personality disorder experience higher levels of negative experiences related to their role and expressed emotion compared with caregivers of young people with first-episode psychosis. The mechanisms underpinning associations between caregiver experiences and expressed emotion differ between these two caregiver groups, indicating that different supports are needed. For borderline personality disorder caregivers, emotional over-involvement is associated with both negative and positive experiences, so a more detailed understanding of the nature of emotional over-involvement for each relationship is required to guide action.

Objective: Preliminary evidence indicates that interventions designed to support family and friends (‘carers’) of young people with early-stage borderline personality disorder effectively improve carer outcomes. None of these interventions have been tested in a randomised controlled trial. Method: This clustered, partially nested, randomised controlled trial was conducted at Orygen, Melbourne, Australia. Carers of young people (aged 15–25 years) with borderline personality disorder features were randomly assigned as a unit in a 1:1 ratio, balanced for young person’s sex and age, to receive a 15-day intervention comprising: (1) the three-session, in-person, Making Sense of BPD (MS-BPD) multi-family group programme, plus two self-directed online psychoeducational modules (MS-BPD + Online, n = 38), or (2) the two self-directed online psychoeducational modules alone (Online, n = 41). The primary outcome was ‘negative experiences of care’, measured with the Experience of Caregiving Inventory, at the 7-week endpoint. Results: A total of 79 carers were randomised (pool of 281, 197 excluded, 94 declined) and 73 carers (51 females [69.9%], Mage = 43.8 years [standard deviation, SD = 12.9], MS-BPD + Online n = 35 [47.9%], Online n = 38 [52.1%]) provided follow-up data and were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The intent-to-treat (and per protocol) analyses did not find any significant differences between the groups on the primary ( d = −0.32; 95% confidence interval = [−17.05, 3.97]) or secondary outcomes. Regardless of treatment group, caregivers improved significantly in their personality disorder knowledge. Conclusion: Delivering MS-BPD in conjunction with an online psychoeducational intervention was not found to provide additional benefit over and above access to an online intervention alone. In accordance with national guidelines, carer interventions should be routinely offered by youth mental health services as part of early intervention programmes for borderline personality disorder. Further research is warranted into which interventions work for whom, carers’ preferences for support and barriers to care.