Cognitive Reappraisal of Negative Emotional Images in Borderline Personality Disorder: Content Analysis, Perceived Effectiveness, and Diagnostic Specificity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) report using cognitive reappraisal less often than healthy individuals despite the long-term benefits of the emotion regulation strategy on emotional stability. Individuals with BPD, mixed anxiety and/or depressive disorders (MAD), and healthy controls (HC) completed an experimental task to investigate the tactics contained in cognitive reappraisal statements vocalized for high and low emotional intensity photographs. Self-reported effectiveness after using cognitive reappraisal to decrease negative emotions was also evaluated. Although BPD and MAD used a similar number of cognitive reappraisal tactics, they perceived themselves as less effective at reducing their negative emotions compared to HC. During cognitive reappraisal, BPD and MAD uttered fewer words versus HC, while BPD uttered fewer words versus MAD. Results suggest that individuals with BPD and MAD are less fluent and perceive themselves as less effective than HC when using cognitive reappraisal to lower negative emotions regardless of stimulus intensity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".