A diagnostic classification of Borderline subgroups was developed for the purpose of reducing the current ambiguities existing in the range of pathologies between the psychoses and neuroses. This classification is a questionnaire of forty items and is intended to be used in treatment settings as a measure of object relations, i.e., of ego development and arrest. The criteria which define the Borderline subgroups were derived from the normative developmental data of Mahler, Pine, and Bergman (1975). In Experiment I, raters used the Mahler criteria as operational definitions of the developmental stages and sorted 180 items taken from Benjamin's structural Analysis Social Behavior (SASB) into the four Mahler substages. Those items which were reliably sorted eight out of nine times into the same Mahler stage or substage were retained as critical items to be administered in Experiment II to three groups of subjects. These groups consisted of nineteen schizophrenic inpatients, eighteen outpatients, and twenty nonpsychiatric volunteers. These subjects rated each item of the SASB questionnaire on a scale of 0 to 100; means for each type of psychiatric group according to sex were submitted to a repeated measures 2 (sex) X 3 (group) X 4 (Mahler substage) Analysis of Variance.

The aim of this research was to describe the borderline individual’s lived experience of inhibiting self-mutilation and thus capacity for healthy functioning. A question which would elicit a description of the experience o f this phenomena was formulated. Three self-mutilators were interviewed and the two psychologically richest narratives were chosen for the research. Based on phenomenological methodology the two protocols were analysed in detail. From the results it becomes clear that borderline individuals are ambivalent when attempting to inhibit self-mutilation. Although they have a need to be self-sufficient and through a process of trial and error find the method of inhibiting that best suits them, it appears difficult for such individuals to trust that they have this ability and thr hnsr resources to find such a method. Borderline personality structure may be viewed along a continuum. The technique chosen by the individual is likely to fit with where they are developmental^ in relation to this continuum. Hence, while each individual may or may not make use of transitional objects within their techniques, they do have a need to draw on ‘soothers’. Although the ‘soothers’ may vary with regard to shape and form, they do appear to share similar qualities and to become imbued with like meanings by the individuals. The ‘soothers’ create a safe and holding space which is empathic, attuning, non-judgmental and non-directive in its interaction with the borderline individual. ‘Soothers’ need to allow the individual a sense of mastery and control over their otherwise chaotic environment. Repeated use of ‘soothers’ allows the borderline individual to begin drawing on good introjects as opposed to negative introjects which serves to increase confidence, sense o f self and the ability to trust in their own inner resources. This pin points an area of healthy functioning in the individual with borderline structure which until presently has been overlooked in the literature on the functioning of those with borderline structure

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University / PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you. / Previous studies indicate that four childhood factors - trauma, neglect, separations, and parental psychopathology, are relevant to the etiology of borderline personality disorder (BPD). The present sought to tease apart the relative strength of relationship between these childhood factors and specific features of BPD in adults. Four hypotheses were tested. The first two are: childhood neglect is the best predictor of the BPD features 1) "chronic feelings of emptiness" and 2) "general anxiety and impulsiveness". The second two are: childhood trauma is the best predictor of 3) "self-destructive behaviors" and 4) "depersonalization and brief psychotic episodes". The sample consisted of sixty-six subjects with borderline, antisocial or schizotypal personality disorder or bipolar type II affective disorder. The latter three groups were used as psychiatric control groups. Subjects were obtained from outpatient mental health settings and advertisements for symptomatic volunteers. Thirty-four subjects met full DSM-III criteria for BPD. Ascertainment of the severity of eleven features of BPD was made using a semi-structured interview (BPD Scale). Childhood and parental psychopathology variables were assessed using semi-structured interviews based on subjects' recollections of childhood experiences. statistical procedures included stepwise multiple regression analyses designed to test the hypotheses and to determine the strongest predictor (s) for each of the remaining BPD features. The results supported all four hypotheses. In addition, the results indicated that childhood trauma was the best predictor of the BPD features "regressive behavior in psychiatric treatment", "anger and hostility in relationships", "overdependence in relationships" and overall severity of borderline psychopathology. Parental psychopathology added significant additional variance to the prediction of "overdependence in relationships" and the overall severity of borderline psychopathology. The findings suggest that, in a group of adults with a range of psychiatric illnesses, specific childhood factors are uniquely associated with specific elements of BPD. Additionally, the findings showed that the four childhood factors were significantly inter-correlated, suggesting that BPD is, in part, the result of multiple developmental factors. / 2031-01-01

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2007. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on May 11, 2009) Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2004. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-124).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2004. / Supervisor: Ricardo C. Ainslie. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 63-77).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 271-279).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 72-83).

Thesis (M.A.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Department of Psychology, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references.