Too upset to think: The interplay of borderline personality features, negative emotions, and social problem solving in the laboratory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with poor social problem solving and problems with emotion regulation. In this study, the social problem-solving performance of undergraduates with high (n = 26), mid (n = 32), or low (n = 29) levels of BPD features was assessed with the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised and using the means-ends problem-solving procedure before and after a social rejection stressor. The high-BP group, but not the low-BP group, showed a significant reduction in relevant solutions to social problems and more inappropriate solutions following the negative emotion induction. Increases in self-reported negative emotions during the emotion induction mediated the relationship between BP features and reductions in social problem-solving performance. In addition, the high-BP group demonstrated trait deficits in social problem solving on the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised. These findings suggest that future research must examine social problem solving under differing emotional conditions, and that clinical interventions to improve social problem solving among persons with BP features should focus on responses to emotional contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".