No abstract

No abstract

Background/Objective: The Invalidating Childhood Environment Scale (ICES) is an instrument designed to assess retrospectively parental invalidation experience, according to Marsha Linehan’s definition of invalidation. The main aim of this paper is to determine the factorial structure of the ICES. Three factor structures: Standard Model, Reduced Model, and 2 Factor Model are examined. Also, the association between invalidating experience and borderline symptoms is studied. Method: Data from a non-clinical, volunteer sample of 274 adults was collected. Participants completed 4 surveys: Demographic surveys, Invalidating Childhood Environment Scale (ICES), Borderline Symptoms List (BSL 23), and Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). Statistical analyses included confirmatory factor analysis and multiple linear regression. Results: The results of the analysis presented indicate that the ICES is a reliable instrument, and that the 2 Factor Model is good fit and allows for a broader understanding of invalidation and it’s qualities. The results of the linear regression analysis indicated a mild but significant association between invalidation and BPD symptoms. Internal consistency was acceptable for all levels. Conclusion: The outcome of this study shows that the ICES is a useful instrument that can be used to make progress in uncovering the role of childhood invalidation in BPD.

Instrumental learning guides behavior toward resources. When such resources are no longer available, approach to previously reinforced locations is reduced, a process called extinction. The present experiments are concerned with factors affecting the extinction of acquired behaviors in toads. In previous experiments, total reward magnitude in acquisition and duration of extinction trials were confounded. The present experiments were designed to test the effects of these factors in factorial designs. Experiment 1 varied reward magnitude (900, 300, or 100 s of water access per trial) and amount of acquisition training (5 or 15 daily trials). With total amount of water access equated in acquisition, extinction with large rewards was faster (longer latencies in 900/5 than 300/15), but with total amount of training equated, extinction with small rewards was faster (longer latencies in 100/15 than 300/15). Experiment 2 varied reward magnitude (1200 or 120 s of water access per trial) while holding constant the number of acquisition trials (5 daily trials) and the duration of extinction trials (300 s). Extinction performance was lower with small, rather than large reward magnitude (longer latencies in 120/300 than in 1200/300). Thus, instrumental extinction depends upon the amount of time toads are exposed to the empty goal compartment during extinction trials.