Abstract Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: A latent profile analysis enlightened the presence of four clusters with problematics in the dimensions of mentalization, indicated by cluster names: (1) Affectiveself‐ 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.

Personality and mentalization: A latent profile analysis of mentalizing problematics in adult patients

Giulia Gagliardini
;
Salvatore Gullo;Antonello Colli
2022

Abstract

Abstract Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: A latent profile analysis enlightened the presence of four clusters with problematics in the dimensions of mentalization, indicated by cluster names: (1) Affectiveself‐ 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.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11576/2704290
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact