Examining the relationship between emotion regulation deficits and borderline personality disorder features: A daily diary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a six-day daily diary methodology to precisely specify the nature of emotion regulation deficits associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD) features. Three possibilities were explored: that BPD features are associated with (1) the overall underuse of emotion regulation strategies; (2) the overuse of dysfunctional and the underuse of functional strategies; and (3) the lower perceived effectiveness of emotion regulation strategies. One hundred and fifty-four undergraduate participants completed self-report measures of BPD feature severity, and then reported their daily negative emotional intensity, whether or not they used various emotion regulation strategies, and whether or not the strategies that they used were effective across a six-day period. Higher BPD features were associated with (a) higher total frequency use of emotion regulation strategies; (b) higher frequency use of dysfunctional and functional emotion regulation strategies; and (c) less self-reported effectiveness of functional strategies. BPD features may be characterized by increased attempts to regulate emotions, without corresponding increases in perceived effectiveness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".