Borderline Personality Disorder and Perception of Friendship Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived friendship quality is an important aspect of physical and mental health (Nicholson, 2012; Pucker et al., 2019). Prior research on Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) has examined romantic partner relationships, social network quantity, and social network functioning. No research has examined perception of friendship quality in individuals with elevated BPD traits. Given overall interpersonal relationship dysfunction in BPD, it is important to understand all relationship domains to fully conceptualize this dysfunction. This study aimed to fill that gap in research by examining perception of friendship quality in a male and female college sample of 265 participants with differing levels of BPD traits; these traits were measured using the Wisconsin Personality Disorder Inventory-Borderline Features (WISPI-BOR; Klein et al., 1993). Participants filled out self-report measures administered online. The study used a factor conceptualization of perceived friendship quality, the McGill Friendship Questionnaire (Mendelson & Aboud, 1999). Each of the functions of friendship was examined individually (Stimulating Companionship, Help, Intimacy, Reliable Alliance, Self-Validation, Emotional Security, Affection, and Satisfaction) (Mendelson & Aboud, 1999). Given the lack of prior research, this study was exploratory; exploratory hypothesis were that those higher in BPD traits would be lower in perceived friendship quality. Results indicated that there was not an overall significant relationship between BPD and perceived friendship quality. However, individual functions of perceived friendship quality were significantly related to borderline scores: Intimacy, Reliable Alliance, and Stimulating Companionship. Results of this study provide further insight into interpersonal dysfunction for individuals with elevated BPD traits.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".