The role of emotion regulation in body-focused repetitive behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Body-focused repetitive behaviours (BFRBs) including trichotillomania, skin picking, and nail biting, are non-functional self-destructive habits, which have a severe negative impact on everyday functioning. Although BFRBs cause distress, they are maintained by both negative (relief) and positive (stimulation) reinforcement. The emotional regulation (ER) model proposes that people with BFRBs have a general deficit in ER and, as a consequence, engage in BFRBs to alleviate affect and reinforce the behaviour. The current study was designed to explore differences in ER between people with BFRBs and controls to identify specific emotions triggering BFRBs. Forty-eight participants (24 BFRB, 24 controls) completed questionnaires measuring Difficulties in Emotional Regulation (DERS), a Triggers Scale and an Affective Regulation Scale (ARS). Significant differences in people with BFRBs and controls were reported principally on the DERS subscales of lack of emotional clarity, difficulties in impulse control, and access to ER strategies. On the ARS, the BFRB group reported overall difficulty ‘snapping out’ of emotions. The majority of BFRBs were reported to be triggered by anxiety (78%), tension (70%), or boredom (52%). The clinical implication is that ER could be beneficially targeted in therapy for BFRBs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".