Department of Humanities, "Carlo Bo" University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy.
Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo Italy, Palermo, Italy.
J Clin Psychol. 2023 Feb;79(2):514-530. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23430. Epub 2022 Aug 17.
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between patients' mentalizing problematics and their personality; specifically, it aimed to identify clusters of individuals characterized by specific patterns of mentalizing imbalances and to analyze the relationship between these and diagnosis of personality disorder (PD), nonmentalizing modes, emotion dysregulation, and interpersonal reactivity.
Four hundred therapeutic dyads were recruited. A part of these (n = 183) only completed clinician-report measures, Mentalization Imbalances Scale, and Modes of Mentalization Scale, while others (n = 217) also completed patients' self-report measures, which were Reflective Functioning Questionnaire, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, and Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
A latent profile analysis enlightened the presence of four clusters with problematics in the dimensions of mentalization, indicated by cluster names: (1) Affective-self-automatic profile (ASA-P) (with higher percentage of PDs); (2) External profile (E-P) (with lower percentage of PDs); (3) Others-automatic-affective profile (OAA-P); (4) Cognitive-self-automatic profile (CSA-P). Multivariate analysis of variances confirmed that the four clusters differed in relation to the quality of mentalization, emotional dysregulation and interpersonal reactivity, with higher levels of nonmentalization modes, uncertainty about mental states and emotion dysregulation in ASA-P, higher levels of good mentalization in E-P, lower impulsivity in CSA-P, and greater empathic concern in OAA-P.
本研究旨在探究患者心理化问题与其人格特质之间的关系;具体而言,旨在识别以特定心理化失衡模式为特征的个体集群,并分析这些模式与人格障碍(PD)诊断、非心理化模式、情绪失调和人际反应之间的关系。
招募了 400 对治疗性二人组。其中一部分(n=183)仅完成了临床医生报告的测量,心理化失衡量表和心理化模式量表,而其他部分(n=217)还完成了患者的自我报告测量,包括反思功能问卷、情绪调节困难量表和人际反应指数。
潜在剖面分析揭示了在心理化维度存在四个具有问题的集群,集群名称分别为:(1)情感-自我-自动特征(ASA-P)(PD 比例较高);(2)外部特征(E-P)(PD 比例较低);(3)其他-自动-情感特征(OAA-P);(4)认知-自我-自动特征(CSA-P)。方差多元分析证实,四个集群在心理化质量、情绪失调和人际反应方面存在差异,ASA-P 的非心理化模式、心理状态不确定性和情绪失调水平较高,E-P 的良好心理化水平较高,CSA-P 的冲动性较低,OAA-P 的共情关怀程度较高。