Putting the “Me” in “Mentalizing”: Multiple Constructs Describing Self Versus Other During Mentalizing and Implications for Social Anxiety Disorder

Maresh, Erin L.; Andrews‐Hanna, Jessica R.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51890-5_33

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 189 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, their recent postulations (Fonagy et al., 2019; Luyten et al., 2020) interpose mentalizing capacity and attachment strategies between broader sociocultural context and resiliency. A growing body of literature is suggesting associations between mentalizing deficits and different categories of psychopathology, including personality disorders (Bateman et al., 2019; Drozek & Unruh, 2020; Fonagy & Luyten, 2016; Simonsen & Euler, 2019), anxiety disorders (Ballespí et al.,2019; Maresh & Andrews‐Hanna, 2021), eating disorders (Gagliardini et al., 2020; Robinson & Skårderud, 2019), and more recently, affective disorders (Luyten, Lemma, et al.,2019; Rifkin‐Zybutz et al., 2021). Nonetheless, nearly two decades after its foundation, the optimal way to assess this capacity is up for debate as new measures are still being introduced (e.g., Gagliardini & Colli, 2019; Müller, Wendt, & Zimmermann, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mentalization Scale (MentS): Validity and reliability of the Iranian version in a sample of nonclinical adults

Asgarizadeh,

Vahidi,

Seyed Mousavi

et al. 2023

Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMentalizing incapacity is increasingly identified as a common factor in psychopathology. The Mentalization Scale (MentS) is a cost‐effective measure built upon the dimensional model of mentalizing. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Iranian version of MentS.MethodsTwo samples of community‐based adults (N1 = 450, N2 = 445) completed different batteries of self‐report measures. In addition to MentS, participants completed measures of reflective functioning and attachment insecurities in the first sample and a measure of emotion dysregulation in the second sample.ResultsDue to the conflicting results of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses, an item‐parceling approach was applied, which replicated the original three‐factor structure of MentS, yielding Self‐Related Mentalization, Other‐Related Mentalization, and Motivation to Mentalize. The reliability and convergent validity of MentS were supported in both samples.ConclusionOur findings provided preliminary evidence for using the Iranian version of MentS in nonclinical populations as a reliable and valid measure.

show abstract