Objectives Emotion regulation difficulties are a major characteristic of personality disorders. Our study investigated emotion regulation difficulties that are characteristic of borderline personality disorder (BPD), compared to a healthy control group. Methods Patients with BPD (N = 59) and healthy participants (N = 70) filled out four self-report questionnaires (Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Self-Compassion Scale) that measured the presence or lack of different emotion-regulation strategies. Differences between the BPD and the healthy control group were investigated by Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and univariate post-hoc F-test statistics. Results People suffering from BPD had statistically significantly (p<0.05) higher levels of emotional dysregulation and used more maladaptive emotion-regulation strategies, as well as lower levels of mindfulness and self-compassion compared to the HC group. Conclusion In comparison to a healthy control group, BPD patients show deficits in the following areas: mindfulness, self-compassion and adaptive emotion-regulation strategies. Based on these results, we suggest that teaching emotion-regulation, mindfulness, and self-compassion skills to patients can be crucial in the treatment of borderline personality disorder.

Background The current study's goal was to examine the multivariate patterns of associations between schema modes and emotion regulation mechanisms in personality disorders. Schema modes are either integrated or dissociative states of mind, including intense emotional states, efforts to regulate emotions, or self-reflective evaluative thought processes. Exploring the multivariate patterns of a shared relationship between schema modes and emotion regulation strategies may lead to a better understanding of their associations and a deeper understanding of the latent personality profiles that organize their associations in a mixed personality disorder sample. Methods Patients who have personality disorders (N = 263) filled out five different self-report questionnaires, out of which four measured adaptive and maladaptive emotion-regulation strategies (Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, Difficulty of Emotion Regulation Scale, Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire, Self-Compassion Scale), and the fifth one assessed schema modes (Schema Mode Inventory). We conducted canonical correlation analysis in order to measure the multivariate patterns of associations between the 26 emotion regulation and the 14 schema mode subscales. Results We found strong multivariate associations between schema modes and emotion regulation strategies. Collectively, the full model based on all canonical variate pairs was statistically significant using the Wilks’s Λ = .01 criterion, F (364,2804.4) = 3.5, p < .001. The first two canonical variate pairs yielded interpretable squared canonical correlation (Rc2) effect sizes of 74.7% and 55.8%, respectively. The first canonical variate pair represents a general personality pathology variable with a stronger weight on internalization than externalization, and bipolarity in terms of adaptive vs. non-adaptive characteristics. We labeled this variate pair "Adaptive/Non-Adaptive." The second canonical variate pair, labeled "Externalizing", represents externalizing schema modes and emotion regulation strategies. Conclusion Using a multivariate approach (CCA), we identified two independent patterns of multivariate associations between maladaptive schema modes and emotion regulation strategies. The Adaptive/Non-Adaptive general personality pathology profile and the Externalizing personality pathology profile may lead to a deeper understanding of personality disorders and help psychotherapists in their conceptualization in order to design the most appropriate interventions.

Objectives and methods In order to assess the internal consistency, fit indexes, test-retest reliability, and validity of the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) and its associations with age, gender, and education, 471 non-clinical (69,6% female; mean age: 37,63) and 314 clinical participants (69,7% female, mean age: 37,41) were administered the Hungarian translation of the PID-5, as well as the SCL-90-R and the SCID-II Personality Questionnaire. Results We found that; (a) temporal consistency of the Hungarian PID-5 was confirmed by one-month test-retest reliability analysis, (b) validity of the PID-5 instrument is acceptable in the clinical and the non-clinical sample as well, based on significant correlations with SCID-II and SCL-90-R, (c) PID-5 facets’ and domains’ associations with gender, age, and level of education are in accordance with previous findings. Conclusion These findings support that the Hungarian PID-5 is a reliable and valid instrument for both clinical and non-clinical populations.

Social difficulties are apparent in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Behavior in BPD is characterized by mistrust and expectations of malevolence from others. We examined whether there is an asymmetry between their social behavior and their belief about other people’s social motivations. Subjects completed a task where they had to allocate money between themselves and an imagined other they will not meet and interact with. In addition they also had to report their expectations about how the imagined other would solve the task. We hypothesized that even though BPD patients will act in a prosocial way, they will expect selfish behavior from the other. We used the Slider Measure of social value orientation (SVO) and also created a modified version of the measure to examine the discrepancy between the subjects’ own SVO and their expectations from other people. We compared the results of thirty clinically diagnosed BPD patients to a matched sample of healthy participants. Our results show that the BPD group’s selfishness expectations significantly outweigh the expectations of selfishness in the HC group (U = 269, p = 0.007). This result further supports the mistrust and negativity bias observed in various aspects of social interactions in BPD.

IntroductionBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a complex mental disorder with core symptoms like interpersonal instability, emotion dysregulation, self-harm, and impulsive decision-making. Previous neuropsychological studies have found impairment in the decision-making of patients with BPD related to impulsivity. In our study, we focus on a better, more nuanced understanding of impulsive decision-making in BPD with the help of Rogers’ decision-making test that simulates a gambling situation.MethodsA novelty of our study is that we excluded from further analysis non-compliant participants based on their performance. Outlier participants on the measures proportion of good choices and average of wager choice number were filtered out to represent the population that understood the basic premise of the task and showed minimal motivation to gain rewards. Thus participants often choosing the less likely color or frequently choosing the first bet amount available (to probably speed up the test) were omitted from further analysis. Another novelty is that we assessed and reported six variables that examine Deliberation Time, Quality of Decision, Risk-taking, Overall proportion bet, Delay aversion, and Risk adjustment. Forty-three women with BPD participated in the study, and 16 non-compliant were excluded. As for the healthy control group, 42 women participated in the study, and four non-compliant were excluded. Thus, we compared the data of 27 patients with BPD with 38 healthy controls.ResultsOur results show that there are significant differences amongst the groups regarding the Quality of Decision Making (F (1,63) = 5.801, p = 0.019) and Risk Adjustment (F (1,63) = 6.522, p = 0.013). We also found significant interactions between group and winning probability regarding Risk Taking (F (4,252) = 4.765 p = 0.001) and Overall proportion of bets, i.e., the average proportion of bets relative to the total score of the subject (F (4,252) = 4.505, p = 0.002).DiscussionOur results show that the two groups use different decision-making strategies that can have various associations with everyday life situations.