Feeling hollow: examining the presence and emotional correlates of emptiness in borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feelings of emptiness represent a common experience among individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) that are not well understood. Theoretical literature suggests that emptiness functions to downregulate intense emotional experiences in BPD, but this has not been tested. This study examines whether (1) emptiness at baseline and emptiness in response to stressors (i.e. emptiness reactivity) is elevated in BPD relative to clinical and healthy controls (HCs), and whether (2) emptiness reactivity predicts emotion reactivity across self-report, skin conductance response (SCR), and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) indices of emotion. Participants (N = 120) with BPD, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), or HCs provided measurements of emptiness, self-reported emotion, SCR, and RSA at baseline and following a rejection-themed stressor. Results revealed that baseline emptiness was highest in the BPD group compared to the HC group and the GAD group. There were no significant group differences for emptiness reactivity. Overall, increases in emptiness predicted increases and decreases in emotional reactivity via self-report and RSA, respectively. These results suggest that higher baseline emptiness rather than emptiness reactivity is characteristic of BPD. Future research using longitudinal and ecological momentary assessment designs is needed to examine the causes of emptiness and how it can be effectively reduced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".