羞耻应对集群:在控制一般情绪失调的情况下,关于依恋不安全感、心理缺陷和人格病理的比较。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Ahmad Asgarizadeh, Carla Sharp, Saeed Ghanbari
{"title":"羞耻应对集群:在控制一般情绪失调的情况下,关于依恋不安全感、心理缺陷和人格病理的比较。","authors":"Ahmad Asgarizadeh, Carla Sharp, Saeed Ghanbari","doi":"10.1186/s40479-023-00231-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48586,"journal":{"name":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10485966/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmad Asgarizadeh, Carla Sharp, Saeed Ghanbari\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40479-023-00231-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10485966/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-023-00231-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-023-00231-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一般情绪失调(GED)越来越多地被认为是人格病理学的一个潜在因素;然而,对特定情绪的调节,如羞耻感,在文献中相对被忽视了。我们的目的是识别不同的羞耻应对/调节集群,并在控制GED的情况下,比较它们在依恋不安全感、心理缺陷和人格病理方面的差异。方法:选取年龄在18 ~ 65岁(M = 33.78, SD = 12.80)的普通人群600名(女性351名,男性249名),完成了一系列自我报告工具,包括羞耻感应对方式、GED、依恋不安全感、心理缺陷、人格障碍替代模型标准A和B以及边缘型人格特征。采用两阶段聚类方法,以羞耻应对方式为聚类变量。然后使用多变量和单变量分析比较确定的集群对因变量的影响。这些比较也是在控制GED后进行的。结果:多种判定方法均提示两类解决方案:适应不良和适应羞耻应对。攻击-自我、退缩和攻击-其他类型是主要的区别因素。与适应群体相比,适应不良群体对适应不良行为的使用较多,而对适应羞耻应对方式的使用较少。多变量分析表明,在有或没有GED作为协变量的情况下,所有簇间比较都存在显著差异(p)。结论:目前的研究为社区成人中羞耻应对同质簇的存在提供了证据。控制GED后的集群间对比表明,解决羞耻应对可能具有超过GED的增量效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation.

Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation.

Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation.

Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
30
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation provides a platform for researchers and clinicians interested in borderline personality disorder (BPD) as a currently highly challenging psychiatric disorder. Emotion dysregulation is at the core of BPD but also stands on its own as a major pathological component of the underlying neurobiology of various other psychiatric disorders. The journal focuses on the psychological, social and neurobiological aspects of emotion dysregulation as well as epidemiology, phenomenology, pathophysiology, treatment, neurobiology, genetics, and animal models of BPD.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信