Adolescent mentalizing and childhood emotional abuse: implications for depression, anxiety, and borderline personality disorder features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is preliminary evidence that childhood emotional abuse (CEA) is a risk factor for adolescent mentalizing difficulties (Uncertainty/Confusion about mental states) and borderline personality features and that Uncertainty/Confusion about mental states mediate the relationship between CEA and adolescent borderline personality features, but these findings need replication. Furthermore, no previous studies have examined the relationship between adolescent mentalizing deficits, anxiety, and depression in the context of CEA. Objectives: This study examined the associations between CEA, adolescent borderline personality features, depression and anxiety symptoms and tested a pathway model where Uncertainty/Confusion about mental states mediates the relationships between CEA and adolescent borderline personality features, depression and anxiety symptoms. Method: A clinical sample of 94 adolescents completed the Reflective Function Questionnaire for Youth (RFQY) to assess mentalizing, the Childhood Experiences of Care and Abuse Questionnaire (CECA-Q), the Borderline Personality Disorders Features Scale (BPFS-C), and the Beck Youth Inventories for Depression (BDI-Y) and Anxiety (BAI-Y). Results: Uncertainty/Confusion about mental states partially mediated the relationship between CEA and borderline traits as well as anxiety. In addition, there was an indirect effect where CEA predicted Uncertainty/Confusion about mental states, which then predicted depression. Discussion: The findings are consistent with the mentalizing model of psychopathology and provide new evidence that Uncertainty/Confusion about mental states might be a critical mentalizing deficit that characterizes the associations between CEA and adolescent BPD features and depression and anxiety symptoms. Uncertainty/Confusion may be a transdiagnostic risk factor for adolescent psychological distress and dysfunction. We discuss the clinical implications.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".