Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation

Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation volume 10, Article number: 25 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Introduction

Shame is a painful, debilitating emotion characterized by feelings of exposure, inadequacy, inferiority, worthlessness, and powerlessness [1, 2]. Evolutionary, the function of shame is to drive the individuals to maintain their social position: physiological responses to shame, such as body shrinkage, blushing, gaze aversion and down-tilt of the head, and facial covering induce empathy and forgiveness in others [3, 4]. In fact, shame experience can promote reparative motivation [5]. However, meta-analyses suggest that “shame” is associated with varying disorders, including Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder [6,7,8,9]. This may be a superficial contradiction stemming from the indiscrimination of state and trait shame. State shame is a transient context-dependent experience, while trait shame or shame-proneness is the tendency to experience shame intensely and frequently, disproportionate to shame-inducing stimuli [1, 10]. However, similar to the argument of Gratz and Roemer [11] that instead of inherent characteristics of emotions, unsuccessful regulatory efforts lead to emotional disarray, maladaptive shame-coping/regulation is proposed to be the culprit in psychopathogenesis, rather than state or even trait shame [3, 12]. In other words, shame-proneness may not be as detrimental to mental health if shame itself were to be coped with adaptively. The current study aimed to identify profiles of shame-coping and compare them regarding proposed psychological correlates of attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for General Emotion Dysregulation (GED).

Nathanson [13] characterized four distinctive styles of shame-coping in the compass of shame model: attack-self, withdrawal, attack-other, and avoidance. Although these four styles are generally maladaptive, they may prove functional depending on the situation and context. In attack-self, one validates the shaming message and turns the anger and criticisms inwards, resulting in self-loathing and contempt. The message is similarly acknowledged in withdrawal; however, one tries to diminish its painful experience by removing and isolating oneself from the physical situation. These two styles are categorized as “internalizing” since both involve consciously recognizing the shame experience [3, 13, 14]. In attack-other, one minimizes the experience of shame by shifting the blame outwards and employing a “fight” response to the perceived threat. In avoidance, one similarly minimizes the shame experience by denying it and cognitively distancing oneself from it. Both attack-other and avoidance reflect disowning shame and its unconscious processing and are thus labeled as “externalizing” styles [3, 13, 14]. More recently, an adaptive style was added to the former four, which reflects validation of the shaming message, attempts to compensate for the shortcomings, self-reassurance, and interacting with significant others [15, 16].

Due to personality and individual differences, people tend to use some styles more frequently than others, which transforms styles into “scripts” [13]. At the same time, people use different styles in varying contexts. Thus, the absolute labeling and categorization as, for instance, “attacker” or “avoidant” oversimplifies the matter since the choice depends on both character and context. In other words, individuals interact with the environment as a whole, not as a collection of distinctive features. Hence, identifying profiles of shame-coping styles is necessary in order to have a valid assessment.

The roots of shame-proneness could be traced back to early attachment-based relationships. Caregivers’ misattunements to the child’s signals, or in other words, failure to resonate with the expectant hope of responsiveness, are proposed to instill shame [17, 18]. Ruptures in these relationships are inevitable [19]; nonetheless, if the ruptures, whose causes are incomprehensible to the child, become frequent and left unrepaired, the children villainize themselves [20]. In other words, former children repeatedly held themselves accountable for the misattunements and ruptures, which makes the present adults existentially shameful. As evident, theoretical and empirical literature linking attachment with shame predominantly focus on shame-proneness [e.g., 1, 21]. Notwithstanding the well-established link between attachment insecurities and GED [22], findings on the association between attachment insecurities and shame-coping are scarce and partly incongruous. Traumatic experiences and lower felt safety in early childhood are related to maladaptive shame-coping [23]. More directly, Remondi and colleagues [24] found that the four shame-coping styles were linked to both attachment anxiety and avoidance. The associations of attachment anxiety were stronger than attachment avoidance, except for the reversed pattern for avoidance shame-coping style. Sedighimornani and colleagues [25] found attack-self, withdrawal, and attack-other to be only associated with preoccupied attachment, whereas avoidance was only associated with dismissing attachment.

The emergence of mentalizing capacity and the experience of shame coincide during early childhood [26]. The children discover that others can see them, which they have no control over; thus, intersubjectivity is argued to be the precondition of shame experience [27]. In later life, a sophisticated mentalizing capacity is required to be able to adaptively cope with shame. Fonagy [28] argues that, if experienced in psychic equivalence mode, shame becomes an unbearable, palpable, and “ego-destructive” emotion, triggering self-hatred. Hence, acts of violence may be better understood as a defense mechanism to maintain self-cohesion, or in other words, a maladaptive shame-coping style [28]. Congruently, Gilligan [29] argues that shame is such an intolerable feeling for offenders that the possibility of re-experiencing it leads them to violence. Although words commonly represent emotions and thoughts, offenders cannot express themselves in this way and turn to acting out. Nonetheless, these postulations only reflect the link between mentalizing deficits and attack-other style. Despite the extensive literature on mentalizing deficits and GED [e.g., 30], to our best knowledge, the relationship between mentalizing deficits and shame-coping has not been investigated.

Findings of qualitative and quantitative studies elucidate the need for particular attention to shame and its regulation in understanding Personality Disorders (PDs) [6, 31]. Meanwhile, the majority of evidence regarding this association is focused on shame-proneness [e.g., 6, 32]. About a decade ago, Schoenleber and Berenbaum [12] attempted to conceptualize the association between shame-coping and personality pathology, but this link is yet poorly understood, theoretically and empirically. The existing scarce literature focuses on cluster B PDs [33]. For instance, Gratz and colleagues [34] found that, compared to the non-clinical group, individuals with BPD demonstrate heightened shame and a more extended period to recover from this intense emotional reaction. Moreover, vulnerable narcissism is related to maladaptive shame-coping [35] and predicts addiction through shame [36]. Maladaptive shame-coping styles are also linked to psychopathy, with more pronounced effects for externalizing styles [23, 37].

Except the diagnosis of BPD which “refused to lie down and die” [38, p. 116], dimensional models were introduced in DSM-5 and ICD-11 [33, 39] in the face of the long-established criticisms of the categorical model for PDs [40,41,42,43]. Criterion A of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), the dimensional model of DSM-5, denotes impairments in self and interpersonal functioning that cuts across all manifestations (“flavors”) of personality pathology, whereas criterion B characterize five pathological personality trait domains. Although shame-coping is conceptually tied with BPD, as well as subcomponents of criterion A (e.g., emotion regulation, self-other distinction, self-esteem, intimacy, and empathy) and criterion B (e.g., negative affectivity and detachment), to date, no studies have investigated these links empirically.

Put together, attachment insecurities and mentalizing deficits develop jointly in the context of early childhood experiences and become important correlates of a range of pathological coping styles in adulthood. Parental misattunement and unmarked mirroring undermine the child’s capacity to mentalize. Mentalizing deficits, in turn, may result in vulnerability to GED. Correspondingly, a vast body of research findings link different forms of childhood maltreatment and attachment insecurities to GED [e.g., 44]. GED, on the other hand, is increasingly implicated as a putative underlying factor in personality pathology, particularly in BPD [45]. However, GED may be too broad a concept that needs to be further specified and scrutinized. In fact, previous findings support this position [46, 47]. This study is therefore focused on the regulation of a specific emotion, that is, shame.

Current study

The first aim of this study was to cluster or profile individuals regarding their use of shame-coping styles. Secondly, we aimed to compare the identified clusters based on attachment insecurities (anxiety and avoidance), mentalizing deficits (as measured by multiple instruments), personality dysfunctions (self and interpersonal), pathological personality traits (negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism), and BPD traits, with and without GED as the covariate. Although cluster analysis is an exploratory method with no prior hypotheses, we hypothesized that members of the identified clusters would differ regarding the above constructs.

Method

Participants and procedure

As the current study was the first attempt to categorize individuals based on their shame-coping styles, we recruited our sample from the general community so that the full spectrum of shame-coping may be adequately covered. Despite the absence of consensus on optimal sample size for clustering methods, several rules of thumb are proposed. Dolnicar and colleagues [48] found the number of clustering variables multiplied by 100 to be the optimal sample size. Sarstedt and Mooi [49] consider a sample size of 500 as the minimum for k-means clustering. Since we have five clustering variables and the above-said rules correspond, a minimum sample size of 500 was determined.

The battery of measures was created online using the Porsline platform (porsline.com) and was distributed to Iranian adults in the most popular social media applications in Iran (i.e., Instagram, Telegram, and WhatsApp). As Persian translations of the Compass of Shame Scale and Mentalization Questionnaire were not available, both instruments underwent a translation/back-translation procedure [50]. Initially, two Iranian authors fluent in English and Persian performed the translations from English to Persian. The incongruities were then resolved by consensus between authors. To ensure the accuracy of the Persian version, a blind native English speaker conducted the back-translations without prior knowledge of the original English versions. Any discrepancies identified were subsequently addressed and corrected.

Of note, despite different cross-cultural valence associated with experiencing shame [51], in Persian, the word shame (pronounced as /ʃarm/) has a negative connotation and is traditionally defined as “The shock and terror that arise in humans upon becoming aware of someone’s discovery of their flaw or deficiency.” [52, p. 14,237] and “The state of passivity that takes over a person when speaking or committing an action.” [53, p. 698].

Data was collected from April to May 2022. An age range between 18 and 65 years was our inclusion criterion. The data collection phase was terminated after reaching the convenience sample size of 625, of which 20 responses were deemed invalid due to insufficient completion time (i.e., less than 10 minutes). Additionally, five multivariate outliers were identified and excluded (see Data Analysis). The final sample included 600 participants (351 females and 249 males) aged 18 to 65 (M = 33.78, SD = 12.80). Table 1 illustrates the demographic characteristics of the sample.

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of participants
Full size table

Measures

Shame-coping styles

The Compass of Shame Scale [CoSS-5; 3, 14] comprises 58 items and measures four “scripts” of maladaptive shame-coping and one of adaptive. The scale includes 12 scenarios (e.g., when I feel rejected by someone), each one presented with four types of potentially maladaptive responses: avoidance (e.g., I soothe myself with distractions), attack-self (e.g., I repeatedly think about my imperfections), withdrawal (e.g., I withdraw from the situation), and attack-other (e.g., I get angry with them). There are also ten subsequent items assessing adaptive coping (e.g., When I feel guilty, I try to make amends). Respondents rate each item on a 5-point scale (from 1 = Never to 5 = almost always). Capinha and colleagues [16] found shame-coping styles to correlate with pathological symptoms, self-criticism, and rigidity, with stronger links for maladaptive styles. Moreover, internal consistencies of the subscales are acceptable [ranging from 0.79 to 0.90; 16]. For this sample, Cronbach’s alphas for avoidance, attack-self, withdrawal, attack-other, and adaptive subscales were 0.66, 0.88, 0.83, 0.84, and 0.80, respectively.

General emotion dysregulation

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale – Short Form [DERS-SF; 54] is a brief 18-item version of the original DERS [11]. Items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Almost Never to 5 = Almost Always), with higher scores reflecting more difficulties in emotion regulation. DERS-SF retains the six-factor structure (Strategies, Non-acceptance, Impulse, Goals, Awareness, and Clarity) while showing equal to better psychometric properties than the original version [55, 56]. In a large sample of non-clinical adults in Iran, a parsimonious 15-item version of the DERS-SF (excluding the awareness subscale) demonstrated excellent psychometric properties, associations with mentalizing deficits and BPD traits, and measurement invariance across genders [57]. Cronbach’s alpha for the total score was 0.91 in this study.

Attachment insecurities

The Revised Adult Attachment Scale [RAAS; 58] includes 18 items and is rated on a 5-point scale (Not at all characteristic of me to very characteristic of me). The convergent validity and reliability of RAAS are previously corroborated [59, 60]. Nevertheless, two factor structures have been proposed for RAAS: (1) three dimensions of closeness, dependence, and anxiety, and (2) two dimensions of avoidance and anxiety. Results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested some items be excluded based on their unsatisfactory factor loadings. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis supported the better fit of the two-factor structure. All excluded items (1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14) were originally proposed to load on the avoidance subscale [58]. The Persian version hence comprises two 6-item subscales of anxiety and avoidance [61]. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for anxiety and avoidance were 0.83 and 0.76, respectively.

Mentalizing deficits

To assess mentalizing deficits more comprehensively, we employed the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire [RFQ; 62] and Mentalization Questionnaire [MZQ; 63]. RFQ is an 8-item measure rated on a 7-point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Originally, Fonagy and colleagues [62] proposed a two-factor structure (i.e., certainty and uncertainty about mental states) with nonlinear re-coding of items. However, recent studies have criticized its structure and suggested a single-factor solution assessing uncertainty about mental states, or in short, uncertainty [64, 65]. For the single-factor model, the 7-point scale is retained, and only item seven is re-coded [64]. In the current study, this recently proposed structure was applied, which yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80.

MZQ is a 15-item measure with a single factor, assessing overall mentalizing deficit. Items are rated on a 5-point scale (I disagree to I agree) and conceptually address mentalizing problems. The scores of MZQ improve in the course of psychotherapy [63] and differentiate between clinical and non-clinical respondents [66]. Recent findings suggest that MZQ has incremental validity above RFQ in predicting BPD features [67]. Hausberg and colleagues [63] re-coded all items so that the overall score reflects a sophisticated mentalizing capacity. We instead retained the original scoring since both RFQ and MZQ would be in the same direction and reflect problematic mentalizing. Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was 0.80.

Personality functioning

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale – Brief Form 2.0 [LPFS-BF 2.0; 68, 69] is a 12-item scale designed to measure criterion A of AMPD [33]. Consistent with AMPD, it measures personality functioning in self and interpersonal dimensions. Items are rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 = completely untrue to 4 = completely true. Recent findings mainly support its measurement invariance across different nations, languages, and genders, as well as community and student samples [70, 71]. Furthermore, its scores and cut-off scores are related to self-reports of psychological disorders, help-seeking for mental health, and social and occupational functioning [70, 72]. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for self and interpersonal functioning were 0.84 and 0.73, respectively.

Pathological personality traits

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form [PID5BF; 73] measures pathological personality traits (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism) based on AMPD [33]. PID5BF is rated on a 4-point scale (very false or often false to very true or often true), and elevated scores on its subscales denote higher levels of the traits. Various studies have supported the scale’s 5-factor structure, convergent and divergent validity, reliability, and measurement invariance between genders [74, 75]. The Persian version of PID5BF has also demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties [76]. In the current study, Cronbach’s alphas for negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism were 0.77, 0.71, 0.60, 0.67, and 0.78, respectively.

BPD traits

The McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder [MSI-BPD; 77] measures the symptoms of BPD according to the categorical model of personality disorders [33]. MSI-BPD includes ten yes-or-no items (e.g., Have you chronically felt empty?), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of BPD traits. Previous research has supported its administration in community samples [78] and demonstrated it to be favorable among other measures of BPD [79]. Moreover, the convergent validity and reliability of the original MSI-BPD have been corroborated frequently [e.g., 80], as well as its Persian version [81]. Cronbach’s alpha of the total scale was 0.72 in this study.

Data Analysis

The concurrent application of person-centered and variable-centered approaches is argued to have complementary strengths [82]. First, we clustered the participants based on shame-coping styles, and then the members of clusters were compared regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and dimensional and categorical models of PDs. A two-stage cluster analysis [49] was applied to identify homogenous subgroups of shame-coping in a heterogeneous sample: hierarchical clustering using Ward’s method with squared Euclidean distance was followed by non-hierarchical k-means clustering. The centroids derived from Ward’s method were used as the starting points for the k-means clustering. The indicators for optimal cluster numbers were the dendrogram and agglomeration schedule, as well as the majority rule of fit indices in the NbClust package [83]. For the former two, the optimal number is respectively determined by observing (1) a long distance without any merger of clusters and (2) a sharp increase in agglomeration coefficients. In both cases, the stage immediately prior to the observation is considered the last merger of clusters. Since the judgment based on these methods has a subjective component, NbClust Package was also employed, which reports the cluster number suggested by the majority of the available fit indices.

After verifying their assumptions, we conducted four separate multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) and covariance (MANCOVAs) to compare the means of the identified clusters regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, personality dysfunctions, and pathological personality traits. MANOVAs and MANCOVAs differed as the latter controlled for the effect of GED. The underlying assumptions and their test method were as follows: univariate normality [absolute skewness and kurtosis values below 1.96; 84], absence of multivariate outliers [P < .001 for Mahalanobis distance; 85], multivariate normality [absolute standard multivariate kurtosis value below 5; 86], homogeneity of variance [P < .05 in Levene’s test; 84], homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices [P < .001 in Box’s M test; 85], and homogeneity of regression slopes [P < .01 for the interaction between the independent variable and covariate; 85]. As all the omnibus effects were significant, MANOVAs/MANCOVAs were followed by ANOVAs/ANCOVAs. Given that MSI-BPD is a single-factor measure, it was only entered in univariate analyses. The alpha level of 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple comparisons since the hypotheses were tested individually [87]. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v26) and RStudio (v2021.09.2).

Results

Cluster analysis

Hierarchical clustering suggested a two-cluster solution. Both the dendrogram and agglomeration schedule recommended stopping the agglomeration in the penultimate step, yielding two clusters (see Figures S1 and S2 in supplementary materials). Moreover, the majority of fit indices in the NbClust package (10 out of 23) proposed a two-cluster solution. Hence, k-means clustering was run with a fixed number of two clusters and centroids derived from the hierarchical method as starting points. Convergence was achieved by the 11th iteration. Shame-coping styles differed significantly between the two clusters (Avoidance: F(1, 598) = 12.22, P < .001, η2 = 0.02; Attack-self: F(1, 598) = 685.12, P < .001, η2 = 0.53; Withdrawal: F(1, 598) = 598.07, P < .001, η2 = 0.50; Attack-other: F(1, 598) = 300.72, P < .001, η2 = 0.34; Adaptive: F(1, 598) = 16.06, P < .001, η2 = 0.03), implying a valid clustering solution. Compared to the members of the second cluster (n = 306), members of the first cluster (n = 294) applied more maladaptive and less adaptive styles (Fig. 1). The first and second clusters were thus labeled as Maladaptive and Adaptive.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mean scores of shame-coping styles for each cluster. Cluster 1 = maladaptive, Cluster 2 = adaptive

Full size image

Preliminary analyses

Correlation coefficients, along with Cronbach’s alphas, are presented in Table 2. Assumptions of univariate normality, multivariate normality, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and homogeneity of regression slopes were met, while multivariate outliers were present and homogeneity of variances was violated. A total of five multivariate outliers were identified and removed from the dataset. Moreover, homogeneity of variance was not met for MZQ and MSI-BPD; nonetheless, when the group sizes are approximately equal, F-test is reasonably robust to this violation [84].

Table 2 Pearson correlation coefficients of the study variables
Full size table

Between cluster comparisons

In multivariate analyses, clusters significantly differed on attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, personality dysfunctions, and pathological personality traits (all Ps < 0.001): the maladaptive cluster demonstrated higher attachment insecurities, more problematic mentalizing, higher levels of personality dysfunctions, and higher levels of pathological traits (Table 3). The significance levels were not altered after controlling for GED; nevertheless, the strength of the associations was decreased. In univariate analyses, compared to the adaptive cluster, the maladaptive cluster scored higher on attachment anxiety and avoidance, uncertainty and mentalizing deficits (i.e., MZQ), self and interpersonal dysfunction, negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, psychoticism, and BPD traits (all Ps < 0.001; Table 4). After controlling for GED, the significance level for some associations was reduced (i.e., attachment avoidance, uncertainty about mental states, detachment, and antagonism), and a number of relationships did not remain significant (i.e., disinhibition, psychoticism, and BPD traits). Of note, the strength of all between-cluster comparisons was dropped.

Table 3 Multivariate analyses of variance and covariance
Full size table
Table 4 Univariate analyses of variance and covariance
Full size table

Discussion

Our first aim was to identify profiles of shame-coping styles. Results of the cluster analysis suggest that members of the maladaptive cluster use the four maladaptive styles frequently and adaptive style infrequently, while the pattern is inversed for members of the adaptive cluster. Previous attempts at identifying profiles of emotion regulation strategies support this dichotomous classification [88, 89]. However, the classification of styles or strategies as “adaptive” and “maladaptive” has been discouraged since the utility of each one is context-dependent [90, 91]. Our findings are, in fact, non-contradictory since “scripts” were intended to capture rather than styles [13]. Scripts denote the habitual use of styles, which reflect engrained personality characteristics. Thus, the tendency to use maladaptive styles may be pathologic, while their occasional use may not be. We continue to use the word style instead of “script” to keep up with the literature.

Clusters were approximately the same size, conveying that nearly half of our sample had relative difficulties in coping with shame. All five styles differed between the two clusters, but the main discriminators were attack-self, withdrawal, and attack-others. Congruently, rather than avoidance and adaptive styles, these three styles differentiated between clinical and non-clinical groups in previous studies [23, 92, 93]. These styles may be maladaptive as they hinder the individual from taking advantage of positive social aspects. Self-criticism creates a vicious cycle in which its repetition internalizes a sense of unworthiness and incapacity, leading to the non-acceptance of others’ admiration and appreciation [94]. Withdrawal and attack-other both provide temporary relief but are eventually counterproductive. By withdrawing from likely shaming situations, multitudes of potentially pleasant experiences are also averted [95]. Projecting the shame, as in attack-other, also briefly ameliorates the accompanying pain but leads to devastating interpersonal problems [96], which in turn contributes to psychopathology [97].

Avoidance and adaptive styles were less powerful in distinguishing the clusters. Compared to other maladaptive styles, avoidance has the weakest associations with psychopathology [15, 16, 24]. Avoidance, as described in the compass of shame, is analogous to the strategy called distraction in mainstream literature. Distraction temporarily relieves the individuals from experiencing intense negative emotions, eventually allowing them to reappraise the situation or attempt to solve the problem [98, 99]. Moreover, when the time for acting and responding is limited, distraction is more effective than reappraisal [100, 101]. Congruently, findings either suggest distraction to be adaptive [102, 103] or to be maladaptive only in combination with other maladaptive strategies [104]. Hence, avoidance shall be placed somewhere in the middle of the adaptive-maladaptive spectrum.

On the other hand, items measuring the adaptive style primarily reflect an attempt for compensation (e.g., …I try to make amends), which is not consistent with the immediate experience of shame. In fact, these responses may indicate suppression or unconscious processing of shame. Thus, the adaptive style may not necessarily be “adaptive” as individuals may be innately inclined to dissociate from the intense emotional experiences first [98, 99].

The second aim of this study was to compare the clusters regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, BPD traits, and criteria A and B of AMPD. Further, we also conducted these comparisons controlling for GED to isolate the unique effects of shame-coping in the context of broader emotion regulation capacity given the overlap between GED and all main study variables in the current study. As for attachment insecurities, the clusters differed with and without GED as the covariate: the maladaptive cluster demonstrated more insecurity than the adaptive cluster. Univariate analyses indicated that, compared to avoidance, the magnitude of the difference was larger for anxiety. Correspondingly, anxious attachment is found to have a stronger association with psychopathology [105,106,107]. When facing interpersonal problems, anxious individuals are likely to engage in hyperactivating strategies and rumination, both of which exacerbate the distress [108, 109]. In response to an unpredictable environment, they become hypervigilant about the signs of abandonment and feelings of shame. This state of chronic and excessive self-consciousness will, in turn, lead them to persistent negative interpersonal experiences [110, 111]. Avoidant individuals, on the other hand, are likely to suppress or disavow emotional thoughts and distract themselves from them, particularly from negative emotions such as shame [22]. To regulate the perceived threat and sense of vulnerability conveyed by negative emotions, they often deactivate their attachment system using emotional distancing and disengagement [112, 113]. These strategies may mitigate the experience of shame or prevent its conscious processing altogether.

Mentalizing deficits were also different among the clusters, with the maladaptive cluster presenting more deficits than the adaptive cluster. This difference held after controlling for GED. Our finding aligned with the conceptualization of ego-destructive shame [30]. Unmarked affect mirroring compromises the formation of secondary representations, leaving a part of subjective experiences as “alien” to the self [30]. In the psychic equivalence mode, shame is experienced as equivalent to inadequacy, deficiency, and worthlessness. Through a projective identificatory process, such an unbearable feeling may lead the individual to externalize these incoherent alien parts, followed by an attempt to denigrate and destroy them in the other. Concisely put, “Not being able to feel themselves from within, they are forced to experience the self from without” [114, p. 859]. Nevertheless, our findings propound that mentalizing deficits are not merely associated with attacking others but with a combination of maladaptive styles. As in avoidance, the individuals dissociate from the intolerable shame to refrain from reflecting on and consciously experiencing it. On the other hand, attack-self and withdrawal styles likely result from hypermentalizing: in pretend mode, unrealistic magnification of the gravity and frequency of shortcomings drive the individuals to criticize themselves or withdraw from the situation. These styles may also prevail in individuals whose alien parts constitute a substantial amount of their subjective experiences. When individuals commonly invalidate what they are going through, self-loathing ensues.

Members of the maladaptive cluster demonstrated higher levels of personality dysfunctions than those of the members of the adaptive cluster, with and without GED as the covariate. The magnitude of the difference was equal for self and interpersonal dysfunction. Personality dysfunctions represent a common and defining feature of personality pathology [115, 116]. As mentioned before, shame-coping is conceptually linked with constituent subcomponents of self-functioning. For instance, unconscious dysregulated shame contributes to deficits in self-esteem in the early years [17]. Nonetheless, self-esteem and shame-coping are argued to have a bidirectional link in later life: fluctuations in self-esteem following failures may result in an intolerable experience of shame, and an intense feeling of shame might lead to abrupt and downward shifts in self-esteem, engendering self-derogation [117]. Moreover, impairments in self-other distinction may result from emotion dysregulation [118]. Shame experience also impacts one’s interpersonal functioning. Applying maladaptive emotion regulation strategies decreases positive interpersonal behaviors and lowers relationship satisfaction [119], whereas using adaptive strategies promotes relationship satisfaction and well-being [120]. The experience of shame is also likely to undermine empathy: shame directs one’s attention to the self, whereas empathy entails outward attention [121].

Compared to the members of the adaptive cluster, higher levels of Section II BPD traits and Section III pathological traits were observed in the members of the maladaptive cluster. This difference did not remain significant for BPD traits after controlling for GED, suggesting that shame-coping styles have no unique contribution over and above GED to the categorical assessment of BPD. Regarding criterion B of AMPD, negative affectivity, detachment, and antagonism differed between the clusters after controlling for GED, with stronger associations in the respective order. Negative affectivity causes a recurrent state of emotional, behavioral, and interpersonal imbalance that needs to be regulated. The more one experiences negative affects, the more likely one is to use maladaptive emotion regulation strategies [122]. Moreover, emotion dysregulation contributes to the development and maintenance of affective disorders [123]. Hence, the link between negative affectivity and maladaptive shame-coping is plausibly bidirectional. Detachment, on the other hand, may be a maladaptive attempt to cope with shame by withdrawing from situations that could potentially induce it [3]. For instance, shame is pronounced in individuals with social anxiety disorder, who characteristically detach from social and interpersonal situations [124]. Unlike detachment, antagonism is incongruous with the proposed evolutionary function of shame, which is to recover social status [3, 4]. Nonetheless, individuals with narcissistic and antisocial PDs, who are characterized by antagonism, apply defense mechanisms such as aggression or “attack-others” to minimize the experience of shame and maintain self-cohesion [37, 117].

This study has a number of limitations. First, it was conducted in Iran, a collectivistic shame culture [125, 126]. Although shame is found to be a universal system [127], our findings should be generalized to Western cultures cautiously: investigating the potential cultural differences in shame-coping styles is a priority for future research. Second, the compass of shame model does not capture the family of strategies labeled “prevention” [12], as well as the less studied strategy of people-pleasing [128]. Addressing these strategies would provide a more comprehensive assessment of shame-coping styles. Third, questionable internal consistency of the avoidance coping style could threaten the validity of our findings. Fourth, we used self-report measures for all variables. Although the limitations of self-report assessment do not go beyond that of other methods [129], method effects may have inflated associations. In addition, using self-report to measure mentalizing capacity has been criticized [64]. Future studies may benefit from using multiple methods to assess mentalizing capacity [e.g., 130]. Fifth, we administered brief versions to measure personality functioning and pathological traits. The original exhaustive measures provide additional details for the facets of both constructs. Lastly, we used a cross-sectional design and gathered data from a community sample. Thus, causal inferences are not warranted, and caution should be exercised when applying our findings to individuals with clinical diagnoses. Future research shall focus on the direction of the links between shame-coping and other constructs, as well as recruiting clinical samples to increase the external validity of findings.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the current study provides the first evidence of the link between maladaptive clusters of shame-coping, independent from general emotion regulation capacity, as it relates to personality pathology, attachment insecurities and mentalizing deficits. Clinical implications of these results include the potential importance of explicitly incorporating a focus on shame-coping in emotion dysregulation work with clients who struggle with personality challenges. While such a focus may organically evolve in emotion dysregulation work with clients, the current study emphasizes its importance, especially with a focus on the tendency to attack self, withdraw or attack others in an attempt to manage the painful experience of shame.

Data Availability

The data that supports the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data cannot be accessed publicly as it contains information that could jeopardize the privacy and consent of research participants.

Abbreviations

ANCOVAs:

Analyses of Covariance

ANOVAs:

Analyses of Variance

BPD:

Borderline Personality Disorder

CoSS-5:

Compass of Shame Scale

DERS-SF:

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale – Short Form

DSM-5:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition

GED:

General Emotion Dysregulation

ICD-11:

International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition

LPFS-BF 2.0:

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale – Brief Form 2.0

MANCOVAs:

Multivariate Analyses of Covariance

MANOVAs:

Multivariate Analyses of Variance

MSI-BPD:

McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder

MZQ:

Mentalization Questionnaire

PID5BF:

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form

RAAS:

Revised Adult Attachment Scale

RFQ:

Reflective Functioning Questionnaire

References

  1. Tangney JP. In: Dearing RL, editor. Shame and guilt. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2002. pp. xvi–272.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis HB. Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Elison J. Interpreting instances of shame from an evolutionary perspective: the Pain Analogy. In: Mayer C-H, Vanderheiden E, editors. The Bright side of shame: transforming and growing through practical applications in Cultural Contexts. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 395–411.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cibich M, Woodyatt L, Wenzel M. Moving beyond “shame is bad”: how a functional emotion can become problematic. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2016;10(9):471–83.

    Google Scholar 

  5. de Hooge IE, Zeelenberg M, Breugelmans SM. Restore and protect motivations following shame. Cogn Emot. 2010;24(1):111–27.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buchman-Wildbaum T, Unoka Z, Dudas R, Vizin G, Demetrovics Z, Richman MJ. Shame in Borderline personality disorder: Meta-Analysis. J Pers Disord. 2021;35(Supplement A):149–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim S, Thibodeau R, Jorgensen RS. Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2011;137(1):68–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. López-Castro T, Saraiya T, Zumberg-Smith K, Dambreville N. Association between shame and posttraumatic stress disorder: a Meta-analysis. J Trauma Stress. 2019;32(4):484–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cândea D-M, Szentagotai-Tătar A. Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness and anxiety symptoms: a meta-analysis. J Anxiety Disord. 2018;58:78–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rüsch N, Lieb K, Göttler I, Hermann C, Schramm E, Richter H, et al. Shame and Implicit Self-Concept in Women with Borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(3):500–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional Assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2004;26(1):41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schoenleber M, Berenbaum H. Shame regulation in personality pathology. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012;121(2):433–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nathanson DL. Shame and pride: affect, sex, and the birth of the self. WW Norton & Company; 1992.

  14. Elison J, Lennon R, Pulos S. Investigating the compass of shame: the development of the compass of shame scale. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2006;34(3):221–38.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vagos P, Ribeiro da Silva D, Brazão N, Rijo D, Elison J. Psychometric Properties of the compass of shame scale: testing for Measurement Invariance Across Community Boys and Boys in Foster Care and Juvenile Detentions Facilities. Child Youth Care Forum. 2019;48(1):93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Capinha M, Rijo D, Matos M, Pereira M. The compass of shame scale: dimensionality and gender measurement invariance in a portuguese sample. J Pers Assess. 2021;103(6):807–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schore AN. Right brain psychotherapy (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology). WW Norton & Company; 2019.

  18. Shabad P. Owing and being owed: shame and responsibility toward the other. Psychoanal Dialogues. 2022;32(4):389–404.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fonagy P. The Mentalization-Focused Approach to Social Development. Handbook of Mentalization-Based Treatment2006. p. 51–99.

  20. Solomon J. Shame as a behavioral system: its links to attachment, defense, and dysregulation. Shame Matters: Routledge; 2021. pp. 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gross CA, Hansen NE. Clarifying the experience of shame: the role of attachment style, gender, and investment in relatedness. Pers Indiv Differ. 2000;28(5):897–907.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment orientations and emotion regulation. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;25:6–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ribeiro da Silva D, Vagos P, Rijo D. An evolutionary model to conceptualize psychopathic traits across Community and Forensic Male Youth. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019;63(4):574–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Remondi C, Casu G, Pozzi C, Greco F, Gremigni P, Brugnera A. A serial mediation model of Insecure attachment and psychological distress: the role of dispositional shame and shame-coping Styles. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(4):3193.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sedighimornani N, Rimes K, Verplanken B. Factors contributing to the experience of shame and shame management: adverse childhood experiences, peer acceptance, and attachment styles. J Soc Psychol. 2021;161(2):129–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sahi RS, Eisenberger NI. Why don’t you like me? The role of the Mentalizing Network in Social rejection. In: Gilead M, Ochsner KN, editors. The neural basis of Mentalizing. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. pp. 613–28.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schultz-Venrath U. Mentalizing shame, shamelessness and Fremdscham (shame by proxy) in groups. Shame Matters: Routledge; 2021. pp. 90–113.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fonagy P. The developmental roots of violence in the failure of mentalization. Matter of security: the application of attachment theory to forensic psychiatry and psychotherapy2003. p. 13–56.

  29. Gilligan J. The interpretation of violence. In: Williams P, editor. Aggression: from fantasy to action. London, UK: Karnac Books; 2011. pp. 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fonagy P. In: Gergely G, Jurist EL, Target M, editors. Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York, NY, US: Other Press; 2002. pp. xiii–577.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Falcus C, Johnson D. The violent Accounts of Men diagnosed with Comorbid Antisocial and Borderline Personality Disorders. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2017;62(9):2817–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wall K, Kerr S, Nguyen M, Sharp C. The relation between measures of explicit shame and borderline personality features in adolescent inpatients. J Affect Disord. 2021;282:458–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5 ed. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gratz KL, Rosenthal MZ, Tull MT, Lejuez CW, Gunderson JG. An experimental investigation of emotional reactivity and delayed emotional recovery in borderline personality disorder: the role of shame. Compr Psychiatr. 2010;51(3):275–85.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gu X, Hyun M-H. The associations of covert narcissism, self-compassion, and shamefocused coping strategies with depression. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2021;49(6):1–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bilevicius E, Neufeld DC, Single A, Foot M, Ellery M, Keough MT, et al. Vulnerable narcissism and addiction: the mediating role of shame. Addict Behav. 2019;92:115–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Garofalo C, Velotti P. Shame coping and psychopathy: a replication and extension in a sample of male incarcerated offenders. J Criminal Justice. 2021;76:101845.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tyrer P. Classification of Complex Disorders is a challenge solved by simplicity: Commentary on Controversies in the classification and diagnosis of Personality Disorders. In: Lejuez CW, Gratz KL, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Disorders. Cambridge Handbooks in psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020. pp. 115–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) 2021 [Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse11.

  40. Krueger RF, Hobbs KA. An overview of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders. Psychopathology. 2020;53(3):126–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Skodol AE, Morey LC, Bender DS, Oldham JM. The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders: a clinical application. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(7):606–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sharp C, Miller JD. Ten-year retrospective on the DSM–5 alternative model of personality disorder: seeing the forest for the trees. Personality Disorders: Theory Research and Treatment. 2022;13:301–4.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bach B, Bo S, Keeley JW. Diagnostic Systems and Models: DSM-5 Criteria, ICD-11 Guidelines, and Dimensional Horizons. In: Asmundson GJG, editor. Comprehensive Clinical Psychology (Second Edition). Oxford: Elsevier; 2022. p. 36–58.

  44. Dvir Y, Ford JD, Hill M, Frazier JA. Childhood maltreatment, emotional dysregulation, and psychiatric comorbidities. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2014;22(3):149–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Chapman AL. Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation. Dev Psychopathol. 2019;31(3):1143–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zimmermann P, Iwanski A. Emotion regulation from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and middle adulthood: Age differences, gender differences, and emotion-specific developmental variations. Int J Behav Dev. 2014;38:182–94.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kuo JR, Fitzpatrick S, Ip J, Uliaszek A. The who and what of validation: an experimental examination of validation and invalidation of specific emotions and the moderating effect of emotion dysregulation. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation. 2022;9(1):15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Dolnicar S, Grün B, Leisch F. Increasing sample size compensates for data problems in segmentation studies. J Bus Res. 2016;69(2):992–9.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sarstedt M, Mooi E. Cluster analysis. In: Sarstedt M, Mooi E, editors. A Concise Guide to Market Research: the process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS Statistics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2019. pp. 301–54.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Brislin RW. Back-translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1970;1(3):185–216.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wong Y, Tsai J. Cultural models of shame and guilt. The self-conscious emotions: theory and research. Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 209–23.

  52. Dehkhoda AA. Farsi Dictionary. Tehran: Tehran University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Amid H. Amid’s Pocket Farsi Dictionary. Tehran: Rahe Roshd; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kaufman EA, Xia M, Fosco G, Yaptangco M, Skidmore CR, Crowell SE. The difficulties in emotion regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF): validation and replication in adolescent and adult samples. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2016;38(3):443–55.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Eloranta SJ, Kaltiala R, Lindberg N, Kaivosoja M, Peltonen K. Validating measurement tools for mentalization, emotion regulation difficulties and identity diffusion among finnish adolescents. Nordic Psychol. 2020:1–23.

  56. Mekawi Y, Watson-Singleton NN, Dixon HD, Fani N, Michopoulos V, Powers A. Validation of the difficulties with emotion regulation scale in a sample of trauma-exposed black women. J Clin Psychol. 2021;77(3):587–606.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Asgarizadeh A, Mazidi M, Preece D, Dehghani M. Psychometric Properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale-Short Form (DERS-SF) and the Links between Emotion Dysregulation, Mentalizing Deficits, and Borderline Personality Features. 2023.

  58. Collins NL. Working models of attachment: implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1996;71(4):810–32.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Graham JM, Unterschute MS. A reliability generalization Meta-Analysis of Self-Report Measures of adult attachment. J Pers Assess. 2015;97(1):31–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. O’Connor M, Elklit A. Attachment styles, traumatic events, and PTSD: a cross-sectional investigation of adult attachment and trauma. Attach Hum Dev. 2008;10(1):59–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Asgarizadeh A, Pakdaman S, Hunjani M, Ghanbari S. Iranian adaptation of the revised adult attachment scale: validity and reliability in the General Population. Q Appl Psychol. 2023;17(2):167–91.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Fonagy P, Luyten P, Moulton-Perkins A, Lee YW, Warren F, Howard S, et al. Development and validation of a self-report measure of Mentalizing: the reflective functioning questionnaire. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):e0158678.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Hausberg MC, Schulz H, Piegler T, Happach CG, Klöpper M, Brütt AL, et al. Is a self-rated instrument appropriate to assess mentalization in patients with mental disorders? Development and first validation of the mentalization questionnaire (MZQ). Psychother Res. 2012;22(6):699–709.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Woźniak-Prus M, Gambin M, Cudo A, Sharp C. Investigation of the factor structure of the reflective functioning questionnaire (RFQ-8): one or two dimensions? J Pers Assess. 2022;104(6):736–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Müller S, Wendt LP, Spitzer C, Masuhr O, Back SN, Zimmermann J. A critical evaluation of the reflective functioning questionnaire (RFQ). J Pers Assess. 2021:1–15.

  66. Belvederi Murri M, Ferrigno G, Penati S, Muzio C, Piccinini G, Innamorati M, et al. Mentalization and depressive symptoms in a clinical sample of adolescents and young adults. Child Adolesc Mental Health. 2017;22(2):69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Raimondi G, Samela T, Lester D, Imperatori C, Carlucci L, Contardi A, et al. Psychometric Properties of the italian mentalization questionnaire: assessing Structural Invariance and Construct Validity. J Pers Assess. 2022;104(5):628–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bach B, Hutsebaut J. Level of personality functioning scale–brief form 2.0: utility in capturing personality problems in Psychiatric Outpatients and incarcerated addicts. J Pers Assess. 2018;100(6):660–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Weekers LC, Hutsebaut J, Kamphuis JH. The level of personality functioning scale-brief form 2.0: update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning. Personal Ment Health. 2019;13(1):3–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Le Corff Y, Aluja A, Rossi G, Lapalme M, Forget K, García LF, et al. Construct validity of the Dutch, English, French, and spanish LPFS-BF 2.0: Measurement Invariance Across Language and gender and Criterion Validity. J Personal Disord. 2022;36(6):662–79.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Natoli AP, Bach B, Behn A, Cottin M, Gritti ES, Hutsebaut J, et al. Multinational evaluation of the measurement invariance of the level of personality functioning scale–brief form 2.0: comparison of student and community samples across seven countries. Psychol Assess. 2022;34:1112–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Weekers LC, Sellbom M, Hutsebaut J, Simonsen S, Bach B. Normative data for the LPFS-BF 2.0 derived from the danish general population and relationship with psychosocial impairment. Personal Ment Health. 2022;n/a(n/a).

  73. Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. The personality inventory for DSM-5—brief form (PID-5-BF)—adult. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Gomez R, Watson S, Brown T, Stavropoulos V. Personality inventory for DSM–5-Brief form (PID-5-BF): measurement invariance across men and women. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and treatment. 2022:No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified.

  75. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, Salekin RT. Utility of the personality inventory for DSM-5-Brief form (PID-5-BF) in the measurement of maladaptive personality and psychopathology. Assessment. 2018;25(5):596–607.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Athar ME, Ebrahimi A. Validation of the personality inventory for DSM-5–Brief form (PID-5-BF) with iranian University students and clinical samples: factor structure, Measurement Invariance, and Convergent, Discriminant, and known-groups validity. J Pers Assess. 2022:1–11.

  77. Zanarini MC, Vujanovic AA, Parachini EA, Boulanger JL, Frankenburg FR, Hennen J. A screening measure for BPD: the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline personality disorder (MSI-BPD). J Pers Disord. 2003;17(6):568–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Patel AB, Sharp C, Fonagy P. Criterion Validity of the MSI-BPD in a community sample of women. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2011;33(3):403–8.

    Google Scholar 

  79. van Alebeek A, van der Heijden PT, Hessels C, Thong MSY, van Aken M. Comparison of three questionnaires to screen for borderline personality disorder in adolescents and young adults. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2017;33:123–8.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Le Corff Y, Martin-Storey A, Touchette L, Lapalme M, Forget K. Validation of a french translation of the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline personality disorder, Invariance Across Genders, and Association with Depression, trauma symptoms, and Substance Use among University students. J Pers Disord. 2021;35(4):605–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Mousavi Asl E, Dabaghi P, Taghva A. Screening borderline personality disorder: the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the McLean screening instrument for borderline personality disorder. J Res Med Sci. 2020;25:97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Laursen B, Hoff E. Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to Longitudinal Data. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2006;52(3):377–89.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Charrad M, Ghazzali N, Boiteau V, Niknafs A. NbClust: an R Package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a Data Set. J Stat Softw. 2014;61(6):1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. 7th ed. Pearson Education; 2018.

  86. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 3rd ed. Routledge; 2016.

  87. Rubin M. When to adjust alpha during multiple testing: a consideration of disjunction, conjunction, and individual testing. Synthese. 2021;199(3):10969–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Chesney SA, Gordon NS. Profiles of emotion regulation: understanding regulatory patterns and the implications for posttraumatic stress. Cogn Emot. 2017;31(3):598–606.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Moumne S, Hall N, Böke BN, Bastien L, Heath N. Implicit theories of emotion, goals for emotion regulation, and cognitive responses to negative life events. Psychol Rep. 2021;124(4):1588–620.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Compas BE, Jaser SS, Bettis AH, Watson KH, Gruhn MA, Dunbar JP, et al. Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(9):939–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S. One versus many: capturing the use of multiple emotion regulation strategies in response to an emotion-eliciting stimulus. Cogn Emot. 2013;27(4):753–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Gillespie SM, Garofalo C, Velotti P. Emotion regulation, mindfulness, and alexithymia: specific or general impairments in sexual, violent, and homicide offenders? J Criminal Justice. 2018;58:56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Dyer KFW, Dorahy MJ, Corry M, Black R, Matheson L, Coles H, et al. Comparing shame in clinical and nonclinical populations: preliminary findings. Psychol Trauma: Theory Res Pract Policy. 2017;9(2):173–80.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Shahar G, Erosion. The psychopathology of self-criticism. Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.

  95. Werner K, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation and psychopathology: a conceptual framework. Emotion regulation and psychopathology: a transdiagnostic approach to etiology and treatment. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2010. pp. 13–37.

    Google Scholar 

  96. McWilliams N. Psychoanalytic diagnosis: understanding personality structure in the clinical process. Guilford Press; 2011.

  97. Girard JM, Wright AGC, Beeney JE, Lazarus SA, Scott LN, Stepp SD, et al. Interpersonal problems across levels of the psychopathology hierarchy. Compr Psychiatr. 2017;79:53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sheppes G, Gross JJ. Is timing everything? Temporal considerations in emotion regulation. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011;15(4):319–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Thiruchselvam R, Blechert J, Sheppes G, Rydstrom A, Gross JJ. The temporal dynamics of emotion regulation: an EEG study of distraction and reappraisal. Biol Psychol. 2011;87(1):84–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Sheppes G, Scheibe S, Suri G, Gross JJ. Emotion-regulation choice. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1391–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Sheppes G, Meiran N. Better late than never? On the dynamics of online regulation of sadness using distraction and cognitive reappraisal. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(11):1518–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Webb TL, Miles E, Sheeran P. Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychol Bull. 2012;138(4):775–808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Zetsche U, Bürkner P-C, Bohländer J, Renneberg B, Roepke S, Schulze L. Daily emotion regulation in Major Depression and Borderline Personality Disorder. Clin Psychol Sci. 2023:21677026231160709.

  104. Wolgast M, Lundh L-G. Is distraction an adaptive or maladaptive strategy for emotion regulation? A person-oriented Approach. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2017;39(1):117–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Zhang X, Li J, Xie F, Chen X, Xu W, Hudson NW. The relationship between adult attachment and mental health: a meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2022;123(5):1089–137.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Dagan O, Facompré CR, Bernard K. Adult attachment representations and depressive symptoms: a meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2018;236:274–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Smith M, South S. Romantic attachment style and borderline personality pathology: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2020;75:101781.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Caldwell JG, Shaver PR. Exploring the cognitive-emotional pathways between adult attachment and ego- resiliency. Individual Differences Research. 2012;10(3):141–52.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Sharp C. The social–cognitive basis of BPD: a theory of Hypermentalizing. In: Sharp C, Tackett JL, editors. Handbook of Borderline personality disorder in children and adolescents. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. pp. 211–25.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Hesse E. The adult attachment interview: protocol, method of analysis, and selected empirical studies: 1985–2015. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2016. pp. 553–97.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Sharp C, Vanwoerden S. Hypermentalizing in borderline personality disorder: a model and data. J Infant Child Adolesc Psychother. 2015;14:33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Pascuzzo K, Cyr C, Moss E. Longitudinal association between adolescent attachment, adult romantic attachment, and emotion regulation strategies. Attach Hum Dev. 2013;15(1):83–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Kim S, Sharp C, Carbone C. The protective role of attachment security for adolescent borderline personality disorder features via enhanced positive emotion regulation strategies. Personal Disord. 2014;5(2):125–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Fonagy P, Target M. Playing with reality: III. The persistence of dual psychic reality in borderline patients. Int J Psychoanal. 2000;81(Pt 5):853–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Sharp C, Wall K. DSM-5 level of personality functioning: refocusing personality disorder on what it means to be human. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2021;17(1):313–37.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Sharp C et al. Fulfilling the promise of the LPF: Comment on Morey. (2022). Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 2022;13:316 – 20.

  117. Ronningstam E. Intersect between self-esteem and emotion regulation in narcissistic personality disorder - implications for alliance building and treatment. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation. 2017;4(1):3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. De Meulemeester C, Lowyck B, Luyten P. The role of impairments in self–other distinction in borderline personality disorder: a narrative review of recent evidence. Neurosci Biobehavioral Reviews. 2021;127:242–54.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Vater A, Schröder–Abé M. Explaining the link between personality and relationship satisfaction: emotion regulation and interpersonal Behaviour in Conflict Discussions. Eur J Pers. 2015;29(2):201–15.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Tepeli Temiz Z, Elsharnouby E. Relationship satisfaction and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: examining the Associations with interpersonal emotion regulation strategies. Cogn Therapy Res. 2022;46(5):902–15.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Schalkwijk F. The conscience and self-conscious emotions in adolescence: an integrative approach. Routledge; 2015.

  122. Brans K, Koval P, Verduyn P, Lim YL, Kuppens P. The regulation of negative and positive affect in daily life. Emotion. 2013;13(5):926–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Joormann J, Siemer M. Emotion regulation in mood disorders. Handbook of emotion regulation, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2014. 413–27.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Swee MB, Hudson CC, Heimberg RG. Examining the relationship between shame and social anxiety disorder: a systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;90:102088.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Hofstede Insights. Country Comparison 2023 [Available from: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=iran.

  126. Pishghadam R, Firooziyan Pour Esfahani A, Firooziyan Pour Esfahani A. The dominance of shame or sin-oriented culture in the iranian society. J Iran Cult Res. 2020;13(3):95–130.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Sznycer D, Xygalatas D, Agey E, Alami S, An X-F, Ananyeva KI et al. Cross-cultural invariances in the architecture of shame. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018;115(39):9702-7.

  128. Brown B. Daring greatly: how the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Penguin Books Ltd; 2015.

  129. Chan D. So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences. New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2009. pp. 309–36.

    Google Scholar 

  130. King-Casas B, Sharp C, Lomax-Bream L, Lohrenz T, Fonagy P, Montague PR. The rupture and repair of cooperation in borderline personality disorder. Science. 2008;321(5890):806–10.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to warmly thank the participants for their time and effort.

Funding

Unfunded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Shahid Shahriari Square, Daneshjou Boulevard, Shahid Chamran Highway, Tehran, Iran

    Ahmad Asgarizadeh & Saeed Ghanbari

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Carla Sharp

Authors
  1. Ahmad Asgarizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carla Sharp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeed Ghanbari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AA designed the study, collected the data, conducted the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript. CS contributed to the design, edited the manuscript, and added her area of expertise. SG supervised the entire research process and provided guidance throughout.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeed Ghanbari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to taking part. The ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University approved this study (IR.SBU.REC.1401.006).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asgarizadeh, A., Sharp, C. & Ghanbari, S. Shame-coping clusters: comparisons regarding attachment insecurities, mentalizing deficits, and personality pathology, controlling for general emotion dysregulation. bord personal disord emot dysregul 10, 25 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-023-00231-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-023-00231-2

Keywords

Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation

ISSN: 2051-6673