4.2 Review

Dysfunction of Empathy and Related Processes in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review

期刊

HARVARD REVIEW OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 238-254

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000260

关键词

borderline personality disorder; emotional intelligence; empathy; mentalization; mentalizing; neuroimaging; social cognition; theory of mind

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Learning objectives After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to: center dot Assess differences between adult patients with the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and healthy control subjects in terms of empathy and related processes center dot Evaluate the effects of empathy or related processes as factors contributing to abnormal social functioning in BPD We reviewed 45 original research studies, published between 2000 and 2019, to assess differences between adult patients with the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and healthy control subjects in terms of empathy and related processes (i.e., theory of mind, mentalizing, social cognition, and emotional intelligence). Thirty-six studies reported deficits of empathy or related processes in patients with BPD. Enhanced emotional empathy in BPD was also reported in eight studies, all of which revealed that patients had increased scores of personal distress on theInterpersonal Reactivity Indexself-report questionnaire. Six studies did not find significant differences between patients with BPD and healthy control subjects in terms of empathy or related processes. No study reported enhanced cognitive empathy, social cognition, or emotional intelligence in patients with BPD. We postulate that deficits of empathy or related processes contribute to preempting the formation of stable interpersonal relationships, whereas enhanced emotional empathy might lead to personal (and interpersonal) distress, further contributing to abnormal social functioning in BPD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据