Shame-proneness mediates relations between borderline personality disorder symptom severity and domains of sexuality in undergraduate women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by instability in affect, interpersonal relationships, and impulsivity ( APA, 2013 ); individuals with BPD have elevated shame-proneness ( Scheel et al., 2013 ), including higher baseline levels of ( Scheel et al., 2013 ), and greater reactivity to, shame ( Gratz et al., 2010 ). Shame, an aversive self-conscious emotional state wherein one experiences the self as both flawed and unacceptable ( VanDerhei et al., 2014 ), has putative links to both self-destructive and self-protective domains of sexuality; namely, sexual self-esteem ( Heinrichs et al., 2009 ) and sexual risk-taking ( Overstreet, 2012 ). The current research investigated (1) relations between elevated BPD symptom severity and sexuality, and (2) whether shame-proneness could mediate relations between BPD symptom severity and sexuality domains in an undergraduate sample. Participants included 167 women undergraduate psychology students ( Mage = 20.42, SD = 4.82) who completed measures of BPD symptom severity, shame-proneness, sexual self-esteem, and safe sex behaviour. Shame-proneness partially mediated relations between BPD symptom severity and both sexual self-esteem (6.79% variance) and sexual risk-taking (2.82% variance). Potential implications include understanding how proneness to shame may enhance likelihood of sexual risk-taking behaviour and/or low sexual self-esteem, and whether shame-targeted interventions could mitigate the ramifications of shame on these domains of sexuality in individuals with higher BPD symptom severity.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".