A laboratory examination of emotion regulation skill strengthening in borderline personality disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD; N = 25) exhibit deficits in their ability to strengthen their emotion regulation skills over time compared with healthy controls (HCs; N = 30). Participants were instructed to implement 1 of 2 different emotion regulation strategies (i.e., distraction and mindful awareness of the emotion) or to either react naturally (i.e., nonregulation condition) in response to BPD-relevant stimuli across multiple trials. Self-reported negativity and positivity, and physiological indices of emotion were collected throughout. Self-report results indicated that both groups displayed strengthening of distraction, but not mindful awareness, compared with the nonregulation condition over time. When comparing the 2 emotion regulation strategies to each other, heart rate data suggested that the rate of skill strengthening varied by group. Specifically, the BPD group evidenced strengthening of mindful awareness, but not distraction, over time whereas the HCs exhibited the opposite pattern. These findings suggest that individuals with BPD generally do not show deficits in their ability to strengthen emotion regulation skills and exhibit greater strengthening of mindful awareness than distraction over time. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".