Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2023
Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Asgarizadeh Ahmad, Sharp Carla, Ghanbari Saeed
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: General Emotion Dysregulation (GED) is increasingly implicated as an underlying factor in personality pathology; however, the regulation of specific emotions, such as shame, has been relatively overlooked in the literature. We aimed to identify distinct clusters of shame-coping/regulation and compare them regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for GED.
METHODS: A convenience sample of 600 participants (351 females and 249 males) from the general population with ages ranging from 18 to 65 (M = 33.78, SD = 12.80) completed a battery of self-report instruments, measuring shame-coping styles, GED, attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, criteria A and B of the alternative model for personality disorders, and borderline personality traits. A two-stage clustering method was employed, with shame-coping styles as the clustering variables. The identified clusters were then compared for their effects on dependent variables using multivariate and univariate analyses. These comparisons were also performed after controlling for GED.
RESULTS: Multiple determination methods suggested a two-cluster solution: maladaptive and adaptive shame-coping. Attack-self, withdrawal, and attack-other styles were the main discriminators. Compared with the adaptive cluster, the maladaptive cluster was characterized by higher use of maladaptive and lower use of adaptive shame-coping styles. Multivariate analyses demonstrated significant differences for all the between-cluster comparisons, with and without GED as the covariate (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides evidence for the presence of homogenous clusters of shame-coping in community-based adults. Between-cluster contrasts after controlling for GED suggest that addressing shame-coping could have incremental utility over and above GED.
METHODS: A convenience sample of 600 participants (351 females and 249 males) from the general population with ages ranging from 18 to 65 (M = 33.78, SD = 12.80) completed a battery of self-report instruments, measuring shame-coping styles, GED, attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, criteria A and B of the alternative model for personality disorders, and borderline personality traits. A two-stage clustering method was employed, with shame-coping styles as the clustering variables. The identified clusters were then compared for their effects on dependent variables using multivariate and univariate analyses. These comparisons were also performed after controlling for GED.
RESULTS: Multiple determination methods suggested a two-cluster solution: maladaptive and adaptive shame-coping. Attack-self, withdrawal, and attack-other styles were the main discriminators. Compared with the adaptive cluster, the maladaptive cluster was characterized by higher use of maladaptive and lower use of adaptive shame-coping styles. Multivariate analyses demonstrated significant differences for all the between-cluster comparisons, with and without GED as the covariate (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides evidence for the presence of homogenous clusters of shame-coping in community-based adults. Between-cluster contrasts after controlling for GED suggest that addressing shame-coping could have incremental utility over and above GED.