Social Cognition and it’s Correlation with Alexithymia and Emotional Dysregulation in Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a prevalent psychiatric illness characterized by interpersonal instability, self-image disturbances, affective dysregulation, and impulsivity. Despite its high prevalence, BPD often goes underdiagnosed. Social cognitive deficits, including impairments in recognizing facial emotions and mentalizing, have been proposed as potential contributors to the social difficulties observed in individuals with BPD. Objectives This study aimed to compare social cognitive performance between individuals with BPD and healthy controls, and to examine the correlations between social cognition, alexithymia, and emotional dysregulation in BPD. Methods A case-control study was conducted over a nine-month period, involving 30 BPD patients and 30 healthy controls. Participants underwent structured clinical interviews for psychiatric diagnosis, as well as assessments for social cognition using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test and the Faux Pas Recognition Test. Additionally, emotional dysregulation and alexithymia were evaluated using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, respectively. Results BPD patients demonstrated deficits in recognizing intentions, thoughts, and emotions compared to controls. Significant differences were observed in Faux Pas Recognition and Mind in Eye Test scores, with BPD patients performing worse. Emotional regulation scores, specifically cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression, were significantly lower in BPD patients. Valence testing indicated higher prevalence of negative valence in BPD patients. Notably, BPD patients exhibited significantly higher scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, particularly in identifying and describing emotions. Conclusion This study highlights distinct social cognitive impairments in individuals with BPD, manifested through difficulties in recognizing emotions and intentions. Moreover, BPD patients demonstrated higher levels of alexithymia and emotional dysregulation. These findings underscore the importance of addressing social cognitive deficits and emotional dysregulation in the assessment and treatment of BPD, aiming to improve social functioning and overall quality of life for affected individuals.
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".