Monika O L G A Jańczak

Aim: This article addresses the problem of explaining emotional pathology (levels of personality organization) using the concepts of theory of mind (ToM) and mentalization. Although these terms are used interchangeably to describe the "ability to interpret the behavior of others in terms of mental states," they do not have identical status in emotional disorders. ToM refers to a "cold" knowledge, whereas mentalization requires the activation of relational and emotional representations, as well as processing of emotional experience (whether reflection or defense). The aim of the study was to compare the cognitive (ToM) and affective (mentalization) aspects of "understanding the behavior of others in terms of mental states" in the clinical group--consisting of patients with borderline personality organization (N = 30); and the control group (N = 30). Method: The Borderline Personality Inventory was used as a diagnostic questionnaire for the organization of personality, the Strange Stories Test was employed to measure ToM, and the Mental States Task instrument measured mentalization. Results: With respect to mentalization, different patterns of results were obtained: the activation of overwhelming mental states and primitive defenses in the clinical group; as well as the inhibition of the recognition of mental content by defenses, such as denial and suppression of emotions, in the control group. No differences were observed in ToM between groups. Conclusions: In explaining the personality organization levels, only the affective, and not the cognitive, aspects of "understanding the behavior of others in terms of mental states" are significant. People with borderline personality organization, as well as healthy individuals, use "cold" knowledge about internal states. However, the activation of relational and emotional representations triggers different mental states in both groups.

It has been suggested that mentalization in individuals with pathological personality structure changes dynamically depending on the situation and the type of relationship in which mentalizing is being processed (Fonagy et al., 2013). Therefore mentalization can be specified as a stable trait as well as a changeable state depending on the context - activation of the specific internal working models of attachment. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between the attachment system and the ability to mentalize in borderline individuals. Method: Sample of 58 people with borderline personality organization participated in experimental study. Mentalization was measured in the neutral condition and in the condition of the activation of the attachment system, using coding system for the interviews (Metacognition Assessment Scale – Revised, Carcione, Dimaggio, Conti, Fiore, Semerari, 2010). The questionnaire was used to assess specific attachment styles in a variety of cl...

This article aim to describe borderline personality organization from the defense mechanisms constellation point of view . A brief theoretical review has been provided, and results of classical and more recent empirical studies in this area have been presented. The author’s own research on defense mechanisms in individuals with BPO has been described. The results correspondent with accepted theoretical assumptions, namely, that individuals with BPO are characterized by using primitive defense mechanisms, and with a concomitant using of more developmentally mature defenses.

errata: W Tabeli 3. pojawił się błąd dotyczący kolejności skrótów odnoszących się do trzech organizacji osobowości (opis w tekście oraz wartości podane w tabeli są prawidłowe). Prawidłowa kolejność to: PNB, PBN, PBN, PNB. Prawidłowa wersja tabeli dostępna do pobrania w pliku pdf jako dodatek do artykułu. This article presents pilot study verifying the assumption of O. Kernberg’s object relation theory concerning psychotic, borderline and neurotic personality organization. Three personality organization were characterized by the level of diffusion or integration identity, by dominance of primitive defensive operation centering around splitting or deny and by capacity for reality testing. These variables were tested by the following methods: Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (Adams, Bennion, Huh, 1989), Strength Ego (Barron, 1953) and Inventory of Defense Mechanisms (Gleser, Ihilevich, 1969) The research involved 30 patients with clinical diagnosis psychotic disorders (schizoph...

It is accepted that an insecure attachment style underlies borderline personality organization (BPO). The attachment system is not, however, a simple, unified structure; Bowlby (1969) was the first to notice that internal working models of attachment remain specific to each later relationship with one's different attachment figures despite the fact that they are based on the experience of the mother-child relationship in early childhood. Based on this assumption the study was designed to assess the differences in hierarchical structure of attachment representations in a non- clinical sample of borderline individuals (n= 140) and a control group (n= 140). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures (ECR-RS) was used to assess attachment patterns in a variety of close relationships. Significant differences between the BPO and a control group were observed concerning the level of attachment avoidance and anxiety and in the structure of the attachment figures’ rep...

Książka jest próbą syntezy dotychczasowego stanu wiedzy na temat mechanizmów powstawania zaburzeń osobowości z perspektywy teorii relacji z obiektem, teorii przywiązania i wywodzącej się z niej koncepcji mentalizacji. Mentalizacja to bardzo ważna i złożona umiejętność, która z jednej strony obejmuje rozumienie samego siebie, refleksję nad własnymi emocjami i przekonaniami oraz umiejętność radzenia sobie z problemami natury psychologicznej; z drugiej strony odnosi się do rozumienia innych osób oraz wnioskowania o ich emocjach i intencjach. Psychologowie i psychoterapeuci wskazują, że istotnym problemem osób z poważną patologią struktury osobowości jest „nie-mentalizowanie” w relacji z partnerem, rodzicami czy przyjaciółmi, co powoduje duże trudności w utrzymaniu satysfakcjonujących, trwałych relacji. W książce podjęto próbę teoretycznej i empirycznej analizy tego zjawiska, polegającego na zmianie poziomu mentalizacji w kontekście bliskich relacji interpersonalnych w grupie osób borderline.

This article addresses the problem of explaining emotional pathology (levels of personality organization) using the concepts of theory of mind (ToM) and mentalization. Although these terms are used interchangeably to describe the "ability to interpret the behavior of others in terms of mental states," they do not have identical status in emotional disorders. ToM refers to a "cold" knowledge, whereas mentalization requires the activation of relational and emotional representations, as well as processing of emotional experience (whether reflection or defense). The aim of the study was to compare the cognitive (ToM) and affective (mentalization) aspects of "understanding the behavior of others in terms of mental states" in the clinical group--consisting of patients with borderline personality organization (N = 30); and the control group (N = 30). The Borderline Personality Inventory was used as a diagnostic questionnaire for the organization of personality...

The aim of this work is to describe structural differences between two personality organizations distinguished by O. Kernberg: psychotic and borderline personality organization. For these reasons, it may be useful to answer the question if both analyzed groups differ from each other in terms of defense mechanisms, level of identity integration and ability of reality testing. A group of 30 patients were diagnosed as a borderline personality organization and the other group of 30 patients were diagnosed as a psychotic personality organization. Both groups differ significantly from the other in terms of sex, age and level of education. On a basis of statistical analysis all of the hypotheses were verified. The borderline group achieves better results better in reality testing, which is consistent with claims of Kernberg’s theory. The hypothesis of higher level of identity integration in a group of borderline patients was partly confirmed. The results of defense mechanisms questionnaire...

Książka jest próbą syntezy dotychczasowego stanu wiedzy na temat mechanizmów powstawania  zaburzeń osobowości z perspektywy teorii relacji z obiektem, teorii przywiązania i wywodzącej się z niej koncepcji mentalizacji. Mentalizacja to bardzo ważna i złożona umiejętność, która z jednej strony obejmuje rozumienie samego siebie, refleksję nad własnymi emocjami i przekonaniami oraz umiejętność radzenia sobie z problemami natury psychologicznej; z drugiej strony odnosi się do rozumienia innych osób oraz wnioskowania o ich emocjach i intencjach. Psychologowie i psychoterapeuci wskazują, że istotnym problemem osób z poważną patologią struktury osobowości jest „nie-mentalizowanie” w relacji z partnerem, rodzicami czy przyjaciółmi, co powoduje duże trudności w utrzymaniu satysfakcjonujących, trwałych relacji. W książce podjęto próbę teoretycznej i empirycznej analizy tego zjawiska, polegającego na zmianie poziomu mentalizacji w kontekście bliskich relacji interpersonalnych w grupie osób borderline.

It is suggested that mentalization in individuals with pathological personality structure changes dynamically depending on the situation and the type of relationship in which mentalizing is being processed (Fonagy et al., 2013). Therefore mentalization can be specified as a stable trait as well as a changeable state depending on the context - activation of the specific internal working models of attachment. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between the attachment system and the ability to mentalize in borderline individuals. Method: Sample of 58 people with borderline personality organization participated in experimental study. Mentalization was measured in the neutral condition and in the condition of the activation of the attachment system, using coding system for the interviews (Metacognition Assessment Scale – Revised, Carcione, Dimaggio, Conti, Fiore, Semerari, 2010). The questionnaire was used to assess specific attachment styles in a variety of close relationships (The Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures Questionnaire, Fraley et al., 2011). Results: The results indicate a complex pattern of relationships between the level of the ability to mentalize and the attachment system in borderline individuals. Activation of the attachment system causes a change in the mentalizing ability, although the group is not homogeneous in terms of the dynamics of the changes observed. The impairments, as well as improvements in mentalizing capacity are observed in the study.

Objectives
This article addresses the problem of explaining emotional pathology (levels of personality organization) using the concepts of theory of mind (ToM) and mentalization. Although these terms are used interchangeably to describe the “ability to interpret the behavior of others in terms of mental states,” they do not have identical status in emotional disorders. ToM refers to a “cold” knowledge, whereas mentalization requires the activation of relational and emotional representations, as well as processing of emotional experience (whether reflection or defense). The aim of the study was to compare the cognitive (ToM) and affective (mentalization) aspects of “understanding the behavior of others in terms of mental states” in the clinical group—consisting of patients with borderline personality organization (N = 30)—and the control group (N = 30).

Methods
The Borderline Personality Inventory was used as a diagnostic questionnaire for the organization of personality, the Strange Stories Test was employed to measure ToM, and the Mental States Task instrument measured mentalization.

Results
With respect to mentalization, different patterns of results were obtained: the activation of overwhelming mental states and primitive defenses in the clinical group; and the inhibition of the recognition of mental content by defenses, such as denial and suppression of emotions, in the control group. No differences were observed in ToM between groups.

Conclusions
In explaining the personality organization levels, only the affective, and not the cognitive, aspects of “understanding the behavior of others in terms of mental states” are significant.

Cel
Projekt podejmuje problematykę wyjaśniania patologii emocjonalnej (poziomów organizacji osobowości) za pomocą pojęć: teorii umysłu (TU) i mentalizacji. Choć pojęcia te używane są zamienne do opisu „zdolności do interpretowania zachowania innych w kategoriach zawartości ich umysłu”, nie mają identycznego statusu w zaburzeniach emocjonalnych. TU odnosi się do „zimnej” wiedzy, zaś mentalizacja wymaga aktywacji
reprezentacji relacyjno-emocjonalnych oraz przetwarzania doświadczenia emocjonalnego (refleksji lub obron). Celem badań było porównanie poznawczych (TU) i afektywnych (mentalizacja) aspektów „rozumienia zachowania innych w terminach stanów mentalnych” w grupie klinicznej (pacjenci z organizacją osobowości borderline, N=30) i w grupie kontrolnej (N=30).

Metoda
Zastosowano kwestionariusz diagnostyczny poziomu organizacji osobowości ZOB Leichsenringa (1999) oraz Test Dziwne Historyjki (Happé, 1994) do pomiaru TU i Skalę Stanów Mentalnych (Beaulieu-Pelletier i in., 2013) do pomiaru mentalizacji.

Wyniki
W odniesieniu do mentalizacji uzyskano odmienny wzorzec wyników: w grupie klinicznej aktywację przeciążających stanów mentalnych i prymitywnych obron, w grupie kontrolnej zahamowanie rozpoznania treści mentalnych poprzez obrony typu zaprzeczenie i tłumienie emocji. Nie zaobserwowano żadnych różnic międzygrupowych w TU.

Wnioski
Dla wyjaśniania poziomów organizacji osobowości znaczenie mają tylko afektywne, w przeciwieństwie do poznawczych, aspekty „rozumienia zachowania innych w terminach stanów mentalnych”. Osoby z organizacją borderline tak samo jak osoby zdrowe używają “zimnej” wiedzy o stanach umysłu innych, jednak aktywacja reprezentacji relacyjno-emocjonalnych wyzwala odmienne stany mentalne w obu grupach.

This article presents pilot study verifying the assumption of O. Kernberg’s object relation theory concerning psychotic, borderline and neurotic personality organization. Three personality organization were characterized by the level of diffusion or integration identity, by dominance of primitive defensive operation centering around splitting or deny and by capacity for reality testing. These variables were tested by the following methods: Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (Adams, Bennion, Huh, 1989), Strength Ego (Barron, 1953) and Inventory of Defense Mechanisms (Gleser, Ihilevich, 1969) The research involved 30 patients with clinical diagnosis psychotic disorders (schizophrenic, psychotic disorders), 30 with anxiety disorders and neurosis and 30 with borderline personality disorder (assess by Leichsenring’s BPI). These groups was compared. The discriminative analyses show that three variables: diffusion identity, level of primitive or were mature defense mechanisms and capacity for reality testing explain about 67-87% qualification to one of three different groups of pathological personality organization.

It is accepted that an insecure attachment style underlies borderline personality organization (BPO). The attachment system is not, however, a simple, unified structure; Bowlby (1969) was the first to notice that internal working models of attachment remain specific to each later relationship with one's different attachment figures despite the fact that they are based on the experience of the mother-child relationship in early childhood. Based on this assumption the study was designed to assess the differences in hierarchical structure of attachment representations in a non- clinical sample of borderline individuals (n= 140) and a control group (n= 140). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures (ECR-RS) was used to assess attachment patterns in a variety of close relationships. Significant differences between the BPO and a control group were observed concerning the level of attachment avoidance and anxiety and in the structure of the attachment figures’ representations.