Asgarizadeh Ahmad, Sharp Carla, Ghanbari Saeed
Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Shahid Shahriari Square, Daneshjou Boulevard, Shahid Chamran Highway, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2023 Sep 8;10(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s40479-023-00231-2.
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.
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.
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).
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.
一般情绪失调(GED)越来越被认为是人格病理学的一个潜在因素;然而,诸如羞耻等特定情绪的调节在文献中相对被忽视。我们旨在识别羞耻应对/调节的不同类别,并在控制GED的情况下,比较它们在依恋不安全感、心理化缺陷和人格病理学方面的差异。
从普通人群中选取600名参与者(351名女性和249名男性)作为便利样本,年龄在18至65岁之间(M = 33.78,SD = 12.80),他们完成了一系列自我报告工具,测量羞耻应对方式、GED、依恋不安全感、心理化缺陷、人格障碍替代模型的A和B标准以及边缘型人格特质。采用两阶段聚类方法,以羞耻应对方式作为聚类变量。然后使用多变量和单变量分析比较所识别的类别对因变量的影响。在控制GED后也进行了这些比较。
多种判定方法表明存在两个类别:适应不良的和适应性的羞耻应对。自我攻击、退缩和他人攻击方式是主要的区分因素。与适应性类别相比,适应不良类别以更多地使用适应不良的羞耻应对方式和更少地使用适应性羞耻应对方式为特征。多变量分析表明,无论是否将GED作为协变量,所有类别间比较均存在显著差异(p <.001)。
本研究为社区成年人群中存在同质的羞耻应对类别提供了证据。在控制GED后的类别间对比表明,解决羞耻应对问题可能比GED具有更大的效用。