Self-Contempt, the Working Alliance and Outcome in Treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. We examined the role of expressed self-contempt in therapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Based on previous literature on BPD, we assumed an association between the self-contempt and the core symptoms of BPD. We also studied the progression of expressed self-contempt during the treatment and its effect on the alliance and the outcomes of treatment.Method. We rated the expressed self-contempt in 148 tape-recorded sessions with patients with BPD (N = 50), during a brief psychiatric treatment. We rated self-contempt at three time-points, using an observer-rate scale. Self-reported questionnaires were used to assess symptoms and the working alliance.Results. There are some associations between self-contempt and BPD symptoms. Expressed self-contempt did not change during the treatment. One measure of self-contempt was associated with a weaker alliance rated by the patients and with a stronger alliance rated by the therapists. The expression of high self-contempt was not predictive of outcomes when the initial level of problems was controlled for.Conclusions. The results highlight the importance to examine the complex effects of self-contempt in BPD undergoing treatment in a differentiated manner and suggest to clinicians and researchers to be attentive to this specific emotional state, and change therein, in psychotherapy.Keywords: Self-contempt; Borderline Personality Disorder; Brief Treatment; Therapeutic Alliance; EmotionTrial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01896024.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".