Biased thinking assessed by external observers in borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Biased thinking (to some extent overlapping with the concepts of cognitive distortions and cognitive errors) is a key concept in cognitive therapy of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Specific contents and cognitive processes related to BPD functioning are known. However, most studies are based on self-report measures which present a number of important limitations, in particular the difficulty in assessing non-conscious processes infused by affect. So far, no studies were conducted using valid observer-rated methodology addressing the question of biased thinking in BPD as it unfolds spontaneously in session. DESIGN: This is a controlled interview study comparing two matched groups, BPD patients and healthy controls. METHODS: A total of N= 25 clinical dynamic interviews with patients presenting with BPD were transcribed and rated using the Cognitive Errors Rating Scale (Drapeau, Perry, & Dunkley, 2008); their cognitive profiles were compared to those of N= 25 healthy controls who underwent the same procedure. RESULTS: Overall, results indicated that no between-group difference in the frequency of specific biases was found. However, heightened levels of negative cognitive biases, in particular over-generalizing and fortune-telling, were associated with BPD. Furthermore, negative over-generalizing was associated with the number of BPD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These results have high levels of ecological validity and are promising for the refinement of cognitive theory of BPD. Clinical implications for assessment and intervention are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".