The role of shame and self‐compassion in psychotherapy for narcissistic personality disorder: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This process-outcome study aims at exploring the role of shame, self-compassion, and specific therapeutic interventions in psychotherapy for patients with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This exploratory study included a total of N = 17 patients with NPD undergoing long-term clarification-oriented psychotherapy. Their mean age was 39 years, and 10 were male. On average, treatments were 64 sessions long (range between 45 and 99). Sessions 25 and 36 were rated using the Classification of Affective Meaning States and the Process-Content-Relationship Scale. Outcome was assessed using the Symptom Check List-90 and Beck Depression Inventory-II. Between Sessions 25 and 36, a small decrease in the frequency of shame was found (d = .30). In Session 36, the presence of self-compassion was linked with a set of specific therapist interventions (process-guidance and treatment of behaviour-underlying assumptions; 51% of variance explained and adjusted). This study points to the possible central role of shame in the therapeutic process of patients with NPD. Hypothetically, one way of resolving shame is, for the patient, to access underlying self-compassion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".