Three Dimensional Approaches to Personality Disorders: a Review on Personality Functioning, Personality Structure, and Personality Organization

Purpose of Review: The concept of personality functioning (Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorders) has led to increased interest in dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. While differing markedly from the current categorical classification, it is closely related to the psychodynamic concepts of personality structure and personality organization. In this review, the three dimensional approaches, their underlying models, and common instruments are introduced, and empirical studies on similarities and differences between the concepts and the categorical classification are summarized. Additionally, a case example illustrates the clinical application. Recent Findings: Numerous studies demonstrate the broad empirical basis, validated assessment instruments and clinical usefulness of the dimensional concepts. Their advantages compared to the categorical approach, but also the respective differences, have been demonstrated empirically, in line with clinical observations. Summary: Evidence supports the three dimensional concepts, which share conceptual overlap, but also entail unique aspects of personality pathology, respectively

Changes in Reflective Functioning during Psychoanalytic Psychotherapies

This study examines how reflective functioning (RF) can be assessed in analytic sessions and throughout psychoanalytic psychotherapy. The goals are to replicate in part a study by Josephs and colleagues (2004) by applying the RF Scale to analytic sessions and to study fluctuations of RF within each session. Additionally, RF based on sessions was compared with the RF ratings based on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) during the course of two psychoanalytic psychotherapies with a duration of 240 hours. RF changes based on 10 sessions per patient, assessed at baseline and after 80, 160, and 240 hours of therapy, and RF changes based on AAI ratings measured at baseline and after 240 hours of therapy, and in one case at follow-up, were related to changes of symptoms and attachment classifications over time. Results showed that in both cases RF fluctuated within sessions. The average RF rating per session increased over the course of treatment, while the AAI-based RF rating needed longer to increase. Rather good correspondence was found between session-based RF ratings and independent AAI-based RF ratings. In both cases, changes in RF over time were compared to changes in attachment classification based on the AAI and to symptomatic change. Better correspondence between symptomatic and attachment changes was found with the AAI-based RF rating. It was tentatively interpreted that session-based RF ratings may represent a state of RF that is strongly influenced by the therapist-patient interaction, whereas AAI-based RF can be considered to have more trait characteristics

Exploring the associations between psychodynamic constructs and psychopathology: A network approach

Gefördert im Rahmen des Projekts DEA

It's Not That Great Anymore: The Central Role of Defense Mechanisms in Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism

Objectives: The concept of narcissism contains a yet unresolved paradox: Its grandiose facet depicts the psychopathological core but is often associated with life-satisfaction and overall functioning, whereas its vulnerable facet is associated with psychological distress, but still not included in the international classification systems. Our goal was to investigate the relationship between the two facets of narcissism expecting underlying defense mechanisms to be core elements. First, we aimed to identify defense mechanisms specific to grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Second, we explored how both facets are differentially associated with psychological distress, assuming that grandiose narcissism would be associated with less psychological distress than vulnerable narcissism. Third, we investigated the mediating role of defense mechanisms between narcissism and psychological distress. Methods: In a non-clinical sample of N = 254 individuals, the Pathological Narcissism Inventory was used for the assessment of grandiose and vulnerable facets of narcissism, the Defense Style Questionnaire for defense mechanisms, and the Brief Symptom Inventory for psychological distress. Structural equation modeling was employed to identify distinct factors of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Associations between specific defense mechanisms and both facets were calculated. Furthermore, the direct association between both facets and psychological distress was examined. We finally explored whether defense mechanisms mediate the association between distress and both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Results: A distinct pattern of defense mechanisms for each facet of narcissism could be extracted: Both facets showed significant positive correlations with specific intermediate and all maladaptive defense mechanisms. Only grandiose narcissism showed significant positive correlations with adaptive defenses. Vulnerable narcissism showed negative correlations with all adaptive defenses. Specifically, grandiose narcissism was significantly related to anticipation, pseudo-altruism, rationalization, and dissociation, whereas vulnerable narcissism was negatively related to all these defense mechanisms. While grandiose narcissism was not related to psychological distress, vulnerable narcissism showed high correlations with psychological distress. Intriguingly, mediator analysis found that grandiose narcissism was related to psychological distress when mediated by maladaptive defense mechanisms. Discussion: The role of defense mechanisms is central for a differentiated understanding of the two different faces of narcissism. The relevance of assessing defense mechanisms in clinical settings, and related empirical findings are discussed