Empathy in Families of Women with Borderline Personality Disorder, Anorexia Nervosa, and a Control Group*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study of empathy in the families of 27 women with borderline personality disorder (BPD), 28 women with restricting anorexia nervosa (AN), and 27 women without a clinical diagnosis (NC). The daughters and both parents responded to the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), an instrument for assessing four dimensions of empathy. In addition, they were personally interviewed, with the Family Interview for Protectiveness and Empathy (FIPE), about the extent of empathy expressed by the parents to their daughter during her development. On the IRI, women with BPD scored highest on the immature and lowest on the mature aspects of empathy, whereas scores of AN and NC women were all within normal limits. Parents of BPDs had the lowest IRI scores, while parents of AN and NC groups were similar to each other and to criterion group scores. IRI scores of AN daughters were positively correlated with their parents' scores whereas BPDs' scores were negatively correlated with those of their parents. There were no correlations between the IRI scores of NC subjects and their parents. On the FIPE, borderline daughters and parents agreed about the relative absence of empathic parenting, whereas AN and NC daughters and parents agreed as to the presence of empathic parenting. The theoretical and clinical implications of these contrasting findings 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".