Responses to validating versus reframing support strategies as a function of borderline personality features and interpersonal problems

Nicolaou, Stella; Goldberg, Sydney F.; Michael, Kaley M.; Berenson, Kathy R.

doi:10.1080/23311908.2022.2146280

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although little work has examined the predictive role of BPD and BPD features on functional social connectedness variables and vice versa, more research has examined the nondirectional (cross-sectional) association between these constructs. A diagnosis of BPD and higher BPD features are associated with less perceived social support, more variability in perceived support and closeness from others (Beeney et al, 2018; Chang et al, 2021; Howard & Cheavens, 2023; Lazarus & Cheavens, 2017; Miano et al, 2021; Nicolaou et al, 2023; Preuss et al, 2016; Selby et al, 2008; see Elzy, 2011; Lazarus & Cheavens, 2017 for exceptions), and more loneliness (Hauschild et al, 2018; Liebke et al, 2017; Philipsen et al, 2009; Richman & Sokolove, 1992; Schermer et al, 2020; Thome et al, 2016; see Philipsen et al, 2009 for exception). Further, although those with higher BPD features are less likely to seek out emotional support compared to those with lower BPD features, they do not differ on seeking out instrumental support (i.e., support which is physical or tangible; Beeney et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nondirectional (cross-sectional) association between BPD and high BPD features with poorer quality social connectedness variables has substantial empirical support. While some studies suggest that those with high BPD features are not more likely to experience relationship disturbances (Selby et al, 2008) or poor relationship depth (Elzy, 2011) compared to those with less BPD features, most studies suggest that those with BPD, high BPD features, and couples wherein one partner had BPD experience relationship satisfaction and quality (Beeney et al, 2018;Hill et al, 2011;Howard et al, 2022;Javaras et al, 2017;Lazarus & Cheavens, 2017;Miano et al, 2020Miano et al, , 2021Nicolaou et al, 2023;Selby et al, 2008;Thompson et al, 2019;Whisman & Schonbrun, 2009;Zielinski & Veilleux, 2014) and one study suggests the same is true for sexual satisfaction (Hurlbert et al, 1992). Although those with BPD seem to fare better regarding relationship quality with siblings compared to individuals with BPD and Schizotypal personality disorder, this does not hold true for relationship quality with parents and peers (Vaglum & Vaglum, 1989).…”

Section: Nondirectional Associations Between Bpd and Bpd Features And...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Borderline personality disorder and social connectedness: A systematic review.

Di Bartolomeo,

Siegel,

Fulham

et al. 2024

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating disorder characterized by deficits in social connectedness, which is a multifaceted construct with structural (i.e., the number, diversity, or frequency of social relationships), functional (i.e., the actual or perceived resources relationships provide), and quality (i.e., the positive and negative aspects of social relationships) elements (Holt-Lunstad, 2018). However, the literature is sparse and lacks integration regarding which specific elements of social connectedness are deficient in BPD and why. This systematic review synthesized the literature on the bidirectional relationship of social connectedness and BPD. Electronic searches of three databases (i.e., PsycInfo, PsycArticles, and PubMed) identified 1,962 articles which underwent title and abstract screening and, if potentially eligible, full-text review. Sixty two articles met the eligibility criteria and underwent data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Cross-sectional research supported associations between BPD and problems in structural, functional, and quality social connectedness, with most research underscoring deficits in quality social connectedness. Preliminary longitudinal research suggested that BPD pathology predicts problems across these domains, but little to no research exists testing the reverse direction. Although people with BPD may not have difficulties forming relationships, they exhibit a range of problems within those relationships. BPD may elicit such problems in social connectedness, but it is unclear whether such issues reciprocally exacerbate and elicit BPD, and longitudinal research investigating such directionality is needed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nondirectional Associations Between Bpd and Bpd Features And...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Borderline personality disorder and social connectedness: A systematic review.

Di Bartolomeo,

Siegel,

Fulham

et al. 2024

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results suggest that treatments for BPD should support patients to engage with social emotions in a different way. Shifting the focus away from the own person and from self-perception but towards the emotional situation, which might—among other things—be supported through imagination exercises, as it has recently been shown that acceptance-based and validation-based approaches are superior to other regulative approaches, e.g., like cognitive suppression [ 79 , 80 ] and even reframing [ 81 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Sides of the Same Coin in Female Borderline Personality Disorder: Self-Reported Guilt and Shame and Their Neurofunctional Correlates

Parpart,

Blass,

Meindl

et al. 2024

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) report to be especially prone to social emotions like shame and guilt. At the same time, these emotions seem to play an important role in BPD pathology. The present study aimed to deepen the knowledge about the processes behind shame and guilt in patients with BPD. Methods: Twenty patients with BPD and twenty healthy controls (HCs) took part in an experiment that induced shame and guilt by imagining scenarios during scanning using functional brain imaging. Participants also filled out self-report questionnaires and took part in diagnostic interviews. Results: BPD patients reported more proneness to guilt but not to shame than the HCs. There was no difference in the self-reported intensity rating of experimentally induced emotions between the groups. Between-group contrast of neural signals in the shame condition revealed a stronger activation of cingulate and fusiform gyrus for the BPD patients compared to the controls, and a more pronounced activation in the lingual gyrus and cuneus for the HCs. In the guilt condition, activation in the caudate nucleus, the fusiform gyrus, and the posterior cingulate cortex was stronger in BPD patients, while HC showed stronger activations in cuneus, lingual gyrus, and fronto-temporal regions. Conclusions: Differences in the neuro-functional processes between BPD patients and HC were found, even though the two groups did not differ in their self-report of subjective proneness to guilt and emotional intensity of shame and guilt during the experiment. While the HCs may be engaged more by the emotional scenarios themselves, the BPD patients may be more occupied with cognitive regulatory and self-referential processing.

show abstract