Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
THE EFFECT OF THREAT CONTROLS
ON SOCIAL COOPERATION
An attempt to induce the negative emotional and uncooperative behavioral patterns inherent to patients diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder by inflicting uncontrollable
physical threat upon healthy probes
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Clinical Psychology
Student: Sahra Schuppan, ID 10341927 Instructor: Dr. Henk Cremers
Word Count: 6443 Date of Submission: 22.08.2017
2
“True happiness is to enjoy the present,
Without anxious dependence
Upon the future,
Not to amuse ourselves with either hopes or fears
But to rest satisfied with what we have, which is sufficient,
For he that is so wants nothing.
The greatest blessings of mankind are within us
And within our reach.
A wise man is content with his lot,
Whatever it may be, without wishing for what he has not.”
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
“Letters from a Stoic”
3 Table of Contents Abstract ... 4 Introduction ... 5-9 Method ... 11-14 Results ... 15-17 Discussion ... 18-21 Acknowledgements ... 22 References ... 23-25 Declaration of Originality ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4
ABSTRACT
The current study investigates the potential induction of negative emotional and uncooperative behavioral patterns that are inherent to patients diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). The healthy participants in this study were exposed to either a controllable or uncontrollable (hence “unfair”) version of a reaction time task where negative feedback was given by minor electronic impulses on the lower arm. All participants
subsequently performed a social cooperation game on a computer. We hypothesized that uncontrollable threat is comparable with the emotionally disruptive states and disturbed cooperation patterns that BPD patients display in clinical practice. Through the investigation of the effects of an uncontrollable threatening experience on social cooperation, we aimed to investigate a BPD patient’s behavior in social interactions and the disorder itself. The results show that the group that was exposed to the uncontrollable threat did not significantly differ from the control group in terms of social cooperation whatsoever. Further research with a larger sample size is required to showthis effect in the general population, and to avoid a rejection of the initial hypothesis on the basis of statistically insignificant results.
5
INTRODUCTION
Individuals who suffer from psychological disorders often display problematic social interactions skills particularly after receiving negative feedback (Yanos, Rosenfield, & Horwitz, 2001). Those who suffer from anxiety disorders tend to avoid threatening situations overall (‘flight’; Perkins, Kemp, & Corr, 2007). Individuals diagnosed with mood disorders often show apathetic behavior (‘freeze’; Schmidt, Richey, Zvolensky & Maner, 2008) while people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) show more aggressive patterns of emotional disruption (‘fight’ ; Perkins et.al., 2007). “Learned helplessness” (LH; Seligman, 1972) is the most significant psychological theory aimed at explaining the apathetic reactions to uncontrollable physical threat that is displayed in most human mood disorders (‘freeze’). This also applies to Anxiety Disorders if the threatening situation (‘flight’ -> ‘freeze’) is unavoidable. LH pioneered the scientifically valid explanation for the phenomenon of ‘giving
up’ after exposure to a random, uncontrollable physical threat. Seligman conducted his
animal study that showed dogs that received physical punishment at random reverted to a state of apathetic behavior. This is best explained by an inability to control the pain that was inflicted upon them, and because they learned that response to the pain proved to be
ineffective. This experiment is semantically, conceptually, and philosophically linked to human mood disorders as shown in psychological studies over the last several decades (e.g.: Chorpita, & Barlow, 1998; Depue, & Monroe, 1978; Willner, 1986; Hammack, Cooper, & Lezak, 2012). This shows a total surrender and capitulation as a way to react to an
uncontrollable threat.
Compared to the general population, patients with BDP display completely different behavioral patterns when faced with uncontrollable and physically threatening situations. One way that this manifests itself is that individuals with BPD oftentimes disrupt a social
6
interaction as soon as they receive negative feedback (Hill, Pilkonis, Morse, Feske, Reynolds, Hope & Broyden, 2008).
Willingness to engage in social cooperation is linked to the materialistic gain of resources, and more importantly receiving positive feedback and respect (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Individuals with BPD appear to be hypersensitive regarding negative feedback (Korn, La Rosée, Heekeren, & Roepke, 2016). This often results in distorted and problematic behavior both when beginning a task that requires social cooperation as well as maintaining social cooperation while completing a task (King-Casas, Sharp, Lomax-Bream, Lohrenz, Fonagy, & Montague, 2008).
This begs the question as to why BPD patients react so differently to uncontrollable physical threat compared to the general population, and why BDP patients do not take refuge in an apathetic state when presented with a threat as described in the LH-theory. As defined by The Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; 2013) several components of a BPD diagnosis include a patient’s fierce attempt to avoid rejection,
impulsive maladaptive behavior, and a pattern of instable and distressing relationships. This therefore affects related reliability (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Many attempts have been made to explain these unstable behavioral patterns in BPD. Amongst other possible explanations, “Rejection Sensitivity” (RS) can lead to that
maladaptive social behavior. RS is best described as the, “disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection” (Berenson, Gyurak, Ayduk, Downey, Garner, Mogg, & Pine, 2009). RS may therefore inflict hypervigilance, and an excessive awareness for detecting potential rejection cues. Various approaches to psychological therapy explored this hypervigilance (i.e. Psychoanalysis, Schema Therapy, Cognitive-Emotive Therapy, Behavioral Therapy et.al.). In the psychoanalytic, defense mechanisms such as acting out, emotional hypochondriasis, and undoing were activated in BPD patients when
7
they engaged in social interaction (Zanarini, Weingeroff, & Frankenburg, 2009). This shield of defenses manifested in the Borderline Personality Organization by Otto Kernberg (1986). Especially acting out and emotional hypochondriasis lead to the disruption and distortion of social cooperation when engaging in task. These defenses lead to devaluation and a feeling of omnipotence, which can lead to disturbed social behavior. Due to Kernberg’s approach, the emotional disruption is a result of “splitting of the Ego” and dividing others’ motives in social interactions into dichotomous measures. These measures tend to be classified as “the
Good” and “the Bad.” This means that regarding social situations, the other engaging
individual is either evaluated as either good, or bad based on how negative their feedback is perceived by the BPD patient. This splitting causes uncooperative and disruptive social behavior every time “The Bad” gateway is activated. This matters because it causes severe impairment regarding the completion of a cooperative task as well as sudden disruption of cooperation.
The described hypervigilance for negative feedback within BPD patients has also been investigated by Schema-Therapists (Sieswerda, Arntz, Mertens, & Vertommen, 2007). This study indicates that BPD patients react highly to negative social cues. The BPD patients, whilst being reactive to both negative and positive social cues on an “Emotional Stroop Task”, were shown to be especially reactive to the negative cues. This pattern could be rooted in childhood related trauma that groups into negative social interaction schemes when the same cues are triggered in a present situation, and by automatic repetition of this experience. Sieswerda et.al (2007) concludes that this may be due to intense fear of abandonment and rejection. Another study shows that BPD patients display “hypersensitivity to social threat in early, reflexive stages of information processing and enhanced threat-driven reactive
aggression, leading to uncooperative social behavior” (Bertsch, Gamer, Schmidt, Schmidinger, Walther, Kästel, & Herpertz, 2013).
8
In summary, BPD patients appear to display what is often perceived as aggressive and uncooperative behavior when interacting with other people. Their behavior may stem from dichotomous splitting into “the Good” and “the Bad”, or triggers from their childhood which are kept active by automatic repetition and the negative interpretation of social situations.
While LH and RS offer theoretical explanations for emotion dysregulation in BPD, they have not yet been investigated in experimental studies. This paper aims to investigate a “simulation” of the emotion dysregulation in BPD using a healthy sample and study its effect on social cooperation. The participants in this study were randomly exposed to either
controllable or uncontrollable physical threat and subsequently performed a social
cooperation task (Trust Game) that has previously shown to reliably measure uncooperative behavior in BPD (King-Casas e.a., 2008). We offer two possible explanations as to why this can be considered a “simulation” of BPD. One will be named the “neural explanation” (NE) and the other “the psychological explanation” (PE). The PE acts of the assumption that BPD is caused by childhood neglect (Perseius, Ekdahl, Åsberg, & Samuelsson, 2005). This neglect may lead to increased attention-seeking behavior in adulthood, which results in severe
emotional struggle in uncontrollable situations (Zanarini, Williams, Lewis, & Reich, 1997). Completing the vicious cycle the attention seeking paired with the emotional pain that may have its origin in childhood neglect leads to dysfunctional interpersonal relationships (Niedtfeld, Schulze, Kirsch, Herpertz, Bohus & Schmahl, 2010). One possible explanation for this may be that BPD patient’s perception of physical and emotional pain clearly deviates from the healthy individual’s response to the exact same experience. BPD patients seem to experience emotional pain with the same severity as healthy individuals experience actual physical pain. This may stem from a significantly lower threshold for actual physical pain that BPD patients, on the other hand, experience (Schmahl, Bohus, Esposito, Treede, Di Salle, Greffrath, & Hennig, 2006). The NE on the other hand offers a more neuronal
9
explanation for the emotional distress that BPD patients deal with when they engage in social interactions. It consists of the findings that emotional distress in BPD inflicts stronger
activation of the amygdala, insula and the anterior cingulate cortex (Holm, & Severinsson, 2008). Interesting enough, the very same brain regions are activated in rats that received random and hence uncontrollable electric shocks (Gao, Ren, Zhang, & Zhao, 2004). This inability to control physically threatening situations seems to activate the very same brain regions that control fear and reflective anxiety activated in BPD patients who experience emotional distress. Those findings offer a more neurological explanation as to why the simulation of a BPD-like mindset in distress might be possible.
While there are many theoretical angles that suggest a link between the effect of controllability and social cooperative behavior, the reactions to uncontrollable physiological threat as proposed by LH, PE and NE have not yet been investigated experimentally. Induced uncontrollable physical threat we hypothesize to cause difficulties while continuing social cooperation while engaging in a task. We thus expect that the negative mood induction may possibly have an effect social cooperation. In other words, we hypothesize that the
participants in the uncontrollable physical threat (the no-control group) will show
uncooperative, BPD-like, patterns on a social cooperation task later on. As this study is one of the first to investigate this matter, follow-up research will be necessary in order to understand what triggers emotional disruptive pattern in social cooperation. While most studies describe an observed behavior, it would be interesting to investigate how this emotional disruption evolves. The effect of uncontrollable threat on social cooperation in healthy individuals has not yet been studied. If it is possible to artificially put a healthy individual into such state of emotional instability these findings may help understand BPD patients better. This paper thus aims to investigate the effect of uncontrollable physical threat on social cooperation and intends to be of assistance in establishing an experimental design to
10
test this hypothesis further. Nevertheless, this study hopefully initiates further research and help improve psychotherapy for BPD.
METHOD
Participants
The raw sample comprised 56 individuals between 19 and 67 years old. All
participants came to a lab facility at the REC- L at the Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA). Participants were recruited using the UvA websites, social media and bulletins at the UvA campus. An a priori power analysis indicated that at least 60 subjects were required for each of the two groups in order to have an 80% power for detecting when employing the
traditional .05 criterion of statistical significant effect (King-Casas et.al, 2005). All participants received cash or course credit in exchange for their participation. Four participants were excluded from the sample due to faulty measurements. Six participants were excluded due to extreme values. Therefore, participants refer to the 46 remaining participants.
Variables
The dependent variables are the mean investment (MIV), the mean repayment (MRP) and the ratio of MIV divided by MR (MIVMRP) per participant on the trust game. The data comes from a social cooperation computer game that simulates exchanging money to two participants in order to maximize a mutual amount (see procedure section below). “Group” is the independent variable in this study. The two groups consist of a control group (CG) and a no-control group (NG). CG participants received minor electric impulses on a reaction time task that was linked to their performance on that task. They received a minor electric shock for reactions on a task that were too slow. NG participants received the electronic impulses
11
irrespective of their performance. The impulses were based on the performance of a CG participant. This differs from earlier in the study when a computer program randomized the impulses.
Procedure
Prior to their participation, all participants were briefed about the procedure and signed an informed consent form. The ethical commission gave its consent in advance. The
participants were randomly assigned to either the CG or the NG by a computer program. Participants in both groups completed a Physical-Threat-Delay reaction time task (PTD). The CG received electric impulses for too slow reactions, and the NG received
uncontrollable, electric impulses not linked to their own performance. Afterwards both s completed the social cooperation task, which in this instance was the trust game. This game will be described in more detail in the Materials section. Additionally, all participants
completed a short online version of the NEO- PI-R, the NEOFFI (Hoekstra, Ormel & De Fruyt, 2003) to assure the homogeneity of the corresponding personality traits. A short description of the Five Personality Domains in relation to Personality Disorders is described by Costa, P. T., & McCrae (1992).
Materials
All participants completed the Physical-Threat-Delay reaction time task (PTD). In this task the participants first saw basic geometric shapes: a circle and a triangle that indicated the trial type (shock/ safe; 1500 ms). The triangle indicated a slow reaction might give an electric shock (“shock trials”) while the circle indicated that no shock would be administered whatsoever (“safe trials”). Subsequently, a square was presented (target; 150-500 ms) and participants had to press the arrow-down key on the computer keyboard as soon as this target appeared. The response was directly followed by a visual feedback, and
12
target (hit; green square) or not (miss; red square). CG participants received a shock in shock trials for too slow reactions; whereas participants in the NG group received shocks at either miss or hit trials by yoked order (at the same trial that a previously linked CG participant had reacted either too slow or not). Therefore, participants in the NG completed the same task, but received the shocks irrespective of their performance on it. This led to the shocks to be perceived as random, and uncontrollable to the NC participants.
All participants received electric impulses through an electrode on their lower arm. At the start, the researcher attached the electrodes on the non-dominant arm (i.e. writing hand) of the participant as the dominant arm was used for pressing the response buttons on the
keyboard. Peripheral Nerve Stimulator (model DS7A by Digitimer Ltd.) administered the shocks. The maximum intensity of the shocks was individually assessed with each participant prior to the task to assure the physical integrity of the participant. The procedure of
discovering the maximum intensity of the shock is called “Shock- Workup”(SW), where a researcher starts with no shock (0 mA), increasing the intensity of the impulses stepwise (0.5 mA) until the participant reported the level to be aggravating. The SW was conducted
between the trial task and the main task of the PTD.
Both s then completed the Trust Game. This task is an alternated version of the classical “Prisoners’ Dilemma” (Kreps, Milgrom, Roberts, & Wilson, 1982) and has been used by King-Casas et.al. (2008) for assessment of the social cooperation patterns that BPD patients display. The version used in this study measures the degree of an individuals’ social cooperation by creating a fixed-term relationship with another party. For this study, the computer employed a tit-for-tat strategy when engaging with the participant. Additionally, there were two random trials of low investments to mimic behavior from the King-Casas (2008) study. This was due to constrain the participant (trustee) to either decide to maintain or to end the cooperation. The best strategy for raising the mutual amount generally is through
13
reciprocal altruism. Each player gets 20 points per round. With reciprocal altruism a high percentage of the given amount is given back to the opponent player and he is trusted to reciprocate, as the given amount will be tripled after both players had their turn. The strategies are “trust” or “non-trust” on the part of the investor. The trustee can decide if he wants to reciprocate the trust or defect (on a continuous scale) in eight rounds total. The mean for the interaction is calculated on a continuous scale. For a schematic representation see
Figure 1.
The Dutch Version of the NEO –Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) was conducted to assess the personality structure of the participants and detect the individuals with a BPD-like personality structure (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This short personality inventory is based on self-measurement and rates the Big- Five personality traits, which contain extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism. This test is basically a short
14
version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The
Big-Five personality dimensions are used to predicate an individual’s personality. This
questionnaire consists of statements that the participant has to evaluate in five scales (ranging from ‘completely agree’ to ‘completely disagree’). This test contains 60 items with each 12 items per dimension. The scores are summed up and are translated into norm scores. There are scoring norms for three age s: teenagers from 13 to 25 years, 25 to 50 years, and from 50 years up (Hoekstra, De Fruyt, & Ormel, 2007).
Analysis
The data was analyzed using SPSS package (version 20.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). We conducted an Independent Samples T-tests were conducted to compare the MR, MIV, MIVMR (DV measure) in the NG and CG (IV measure). We expected a significant difference between the group means showing that participants in the experimental group were less cooperative in the trust game than individuals in the control group due to the randomness of the physically threatening experience. For a manipulation check, we conducted an
independent T-test to detect possible differences between the two groups. To test the influence of the independent variable (group) on the dependent variable (MIV, MRP,
MIVMR) we conducted three Independent Samples T-Tests that compared the MIV and MRP per group and the percentage of return on the investment after having received negative feedback (MIVMR). An additional T-Test was conducted to compare the means for the reported level of seriousness as part of the debriefing after the study (MSER).
15
RESULTS
The sample comprised a total of 48 participants. There were 21 participants in the CG and 23 participants in the NG. The average age of the participants was 26.64 (SD = 8.64). The distribution of sex concluded of 32 female and 10 male participants (SD = 7.26). Four participants reported blank on the gender section.
Measures of Social Cooperation
The dependent variables (MIV, MR, MIVMR) were measured on a continuous scale and the independent variable consisted of two independent groups (NG and CG). Also the assumption of the independence of observations was met as the participants were assigned to either the NC or the CC. Two outliers were detected and removed from the sample due to extreme values. The testing sample comprised 46 participants. The assumptions for normal distribution, and homogeneity of variances were met for all variables.
An Independent Samples T-Test was conducted to compare the two groups as
between-subject factor (CG and NG) and the mean investment (MIV) and mean repayment
(MRP) as the dependent variables.There was no significant difference regarding the scores of the CG (M = 8.92, SD = 3.20) and NG (M = 8.31, SD = 2.94); t (44) = 0.66, p = 0.51 in terms of MIV. This shows that the two groups also did not significantly differ in terms of the investment by the computerized investor. There was also no significant difference regarding the scores of the CG (M = 9.61, SD = 5.72) and NG (M = 8.57, SD = 5.57); t (44) = 0.62, p = 0.54 in terms of MRP. This shows that the two groups did not differ in terms of repayment after having received negative feedback by the computerized investor. Also the mean repayment divided by the mean investment (MIVMR) did not significantly differ in the CG
16
(M = 0.98, SD = 0.34) compared to the NG (M = 0.94, SD = 0.30); t (44) = 0.44, p = 0.66. The results show that individuals in the CG did not have a greater ratio of investment and repayment to maximize the mutual amount than did the participants in the NG after having received negative feedback. Table 1 shows an overview of the found means per group. Table 1
The means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the MIV, MR and MIVMR per group.
CG (N = 23) M (SD) NG (N = 23) M (SD) Variables MIV 8.92 (3.20) 8.31 (2.94) MR 9.61 (5.72) 8.57 (5.57) MIVMR 0.94 (0.34) 0.94 (0.30)
Measures of Personality Traits
To test the effect of personality traits, NEOFFI- scores on the dimensions of neuroticism and agreeableness were analyzed to assure the homogeneity of the sample. A BPD-like profile consists of a high score on the dimension of neuroticism and a low score on the dimension of agreeableness. The cut-off score was determined as individuals who scored 7.00 or higher than the mean for Neuroticism (M = 5.63, SD = 1.67), and 4.00 or lower on Agreeableness (M = 6.81, SD = 1.16) were assigned to have a BPD-like profile. As there were only two subjects with a BPD-like profile detected, all participants were kept in the sample, as they did not appear to be outliers during the analysis.
17
Additional Measures
We conducted an additional independent sample T-Test to compare the mean
seriousness (MSER) with the two groups as between- subject factor (CG and NG) and MSER as the dependent variable.The dependent variable was measured on a continuous scale, and the independent variable consisted of two independent s (NG and CG). The assumption of independence of observations was met as the participants were assigned to either the NC or the CC. Three outliers were detected and removed from the sample. The testing sample for MSER thus comprised 43 participants. The assumptions for normal distribution and
homogeneity of variances were met. There also was no significant difference regarding the scores of the CG (M = 2.15, SD = 1.38) and NG (M = 2.76, SD = 1.44); t (40) = -1.40, p = 0.17 in terms of the level of seriousness. This shows that the two groups did not significantly differ in their level of reported seriousness. The overall seriousness ranged from 0 (not serious at all) to 10 (very serious) and the found means display a very low level of overall seriousness for both s while obtaining the study. See Table 2 for an overview of the found results.
Table 2
The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the MSER per group
CG (N = 21) M (SD) NG (N = 22) M (SD) Variable MSER 2.15 (1.38) 2.76 (1.44)
18
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to investigate the effect of threat controls on social cooperation. The results showed no statistically significant effect of threat controls on social cooperation as the two groups did not significantly differ in terms of mean investment, and mean repayment. As this study did not contain a sufficient number of participants, it formed an infirm testing sample. The participants in the control group showed similar results to the participants in the no-control group. The results are a typical example of an insufficient sample size. Moreover, the low-level of seriousness that the participants reported during the study poses a plausible explanation for the poor results. The results are for a typical example for design biases such as inclusive bias. The sample comprised only individuals that obtained the study for cash or course credit, and therefore explains the low overall seriousness of the sample. This study does not show that it is possible to create a BPD-like mindset in healthy individuals.
This study was novel in trying to create a BPD-like mindset and the results show that there is room for improvement regarding the re-execution of this experiment. This study aimed to establish a group that “simulates” the emotional state of an individual with BPD and the disruption of social interaction that is shown in BPD-patients. Even if this study did not succeed in showing sufficient results, we tried to establish a design and procedure to possibly show this effect in future research. If a uniform testing procedure were to be established to investigate this matter in future research, it could possibly still show an effect.
When viewing the shortcomings of previous studies, most of the former studies only use BDP patients, and do not include healthy participants in the study. This makes results more difficult to generalize to the whole population.
King Casas et.al. (2008) show in their study that the participants with BDP, in fact, show even less socially cooperative patterns. This does not provide much novelty as clinical
19
manuals that were already published also describe these patterns for BPD patients.
Additionally, this creates statistical errands as participants may be aware of their disorder and act accordingly, which could especially be the case for patients with BDP (Korfine & Hooley, 2000). This may also lead to biased results such as attention biases, and self-fulfilling
prophecies (von Ceumern-Lindenstjerna, Brunner, Parzer, Mundt, Fiedler & Resch, 2010). Another shortcoming of previous research is that they generally have more female
participants. This is due to more females being diagnosed with BPD and testing samples with BPD patients subsequently being dominated by female participants (Nater, Bohus,
Abbruzzese, Ditzen, Gaab, Kleindienst & Ehlert, 2010). To show a universal effect that can be generalized to the population, both genders should be included in studies on BPD.
As the non-statistically significant results indicate, our study appears to also have shortcomings. For example, the sample concluded of only 46 participants instead of the minimum of 60 as calculated by the a priori power analysis. A low power in a study heightens the chance of type 2 errors. This means that the found effect exists in the general population, but a study cannot show it. In further research a larger sample is needed to be able to test the hypothesis accurately, and be able to reflect to the general population.
Moreover, some participants reported that they did not believe that they were playing against an actual person at the social cooperation task. It seems logical that one may not take a social interaction game seriously if they don’t think they are interacting with a real person. This issue could be addressed by using a real person that is instructed to give negative feedback.
Another possible problem is that the timeframe for this study was too narrow for the participants to process and evaluate the emotional disruption created by the physically threatening experience. The experiment manipulation was possibly not strong enough and participants did not get disturbed in their self-image enough to get upset. Further research could address this issue by testing the participants in a repeated-measures design. One
20
possible explanation could be that the BPD-like mindset needs some time to process, evaluate, establish and subsequently yield to avoidance of rejection in future interactions. Even the dogs in Seligman’s study of “Learned Helplessness” (1972) did not give up after the first unfair punishment, but by repetition of that negative experience. It seems that being exposed to the same uncontrollable negative experience is crucial for establishment of a certain mindset.
Another shortcoming of this study is that the threatening experience may have not been threatening enough. As the participants chose the intensity of the electric impulses themselves, there are two possible problems that result. One is that the participants
experienced the impulses during the shock trial and were therefore not really shocked by the experience during the experiment itself. The other problem is that people will not willingly expose themselves to physically threatening situations if they are avoidable, as Thorndike proved in his famous “Law of Effect” (Thorndike, 1933). Thus, it may be that the participants did not really choose a shock intensity that felt like punishment to them. Additionally,
problems with the ethical commission could arise, as it is unethical to expose subjects to physical pain. Further research should aim to find a method to make the experience more threatening without violating ethical guidelines. A solution could be virtual reality (VR) as it seems to work very well in treatment of psychological disorders. Freeman, Pugh, Antley, Slater, Bebbington, Gittins & Garety (2008) conducted a VR study to test paranoid thinking in a social setting. A similar approach could be useful to combine a social setting with an experienced threat. The threat could be induced simulating a social exclusion setting. For example, a 3-D version of the trust game could be created where an exchange of money could take place in a live setting. In this case an animated player could be the opponent player that acts uncooperative both by returning the investment as well as by exhibiting body language
21
cues of rejection. Moreover, this experience could be intensified through the use of repellent body language, and by mimicking or avoiding eye contact.
In summary, this study tries to establish an experimental framework to inflict emotional disruption via physical threat to healthy participants, and thus create a BPD-like mindset on healthy probes. If the social interaction patterns inherent to BPD patients can be experimentally created in healthy individuals in a controlled experimental setting, the findings could help to further understanding of the disruptive social patterns that BPD patients show. If healthy people could experience what it feels like to have BPD, they could have more understanding for how someone with BDP operates in social cooperation under the guise of threat.
22
I would like to thank all the participants for their participations in the study. I would like to thank the UvA staff members who were always supportive and supplied me with late lab hours, cheap coffee, and dry towels after biking through Amsterdam rain.
I would like to thank my fellow students for their feedback, cooperation and friendship. I am also grateful to the Dr. Henk Cremers for his professional guidance, his non- authoritarian approach and incredible patience.
I would like to thank my friends for listening to complaints and giving me out of the box insight on my thesis and the process.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank my family: my parents, my stepmother, my grandmother and my sisters and brother for supporting me spiritually throughout writing this thesis and my life in general.
23
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
Berenson, K. R., Gyurak, A., Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., Garner, M. J., Mogg, K., ... & Pine, D. S. (2009). Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 1064-1072.
Bertsch, K., Gamer, M., Schmidt, B., Schmidinger, I., Walther, S., Kästel, T., ... & Herpertz, S. C. (2013). Oxytocin and reduction of social threat hypersensitivity in women with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry.
von Ceumern-Lindenstjerna, I. A., Brunner, R., Parzer, P., Mundt, C., Fiedler, P., & Resch, F. (2010). Attentional bias in later stages of emotional information processing in female adolescents with borderline personality disorder. Psychopathology, 43(1), 25-32.
Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The development of anxiety: the role of control in the early environment. Psychological bulletin, 124(1), 3.
Coifman, K. G., Berenson, K. R., Rafaeli, E., & Downey, G. (2012). From negative to positive and back again: polarized affective and relational experience in borderline personality disorder. Journal of abnormal psychology, 121(3), 668.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PR) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
Currie, J., & Widom, C. S. (2010). Long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect on adult economic well-being. Child maltreatment, 15(2), 111-120.
Costa Jr, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. American Psychological Association.
Depue, R. A., & Monroe, S. M. (1978). Learned helplessness in the perspective of the depressive disorders: Conceptual and definitional issues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 3. Freeman, D., Pugh, K., Antley, A., Slater, M., Bebbington, P., Gittins, M., ... & Garety, P. (2008).
Virtual reality study of paranoid thinking in the general population. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 192(4), 258-263.
Gao, Y. J., Ren, W. H., Zhang, Y. Q., & Zhao, Z. Q. (2004). Contributions of the anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala to pain-and fear-grouped place avoidance in rats. Pain, 110(1), 343-353.Chicago
24
Hammack, S. E., Cooper, M. A., & Lezak, K. R. (2012). Overlapping neurobiology of learned helplessness and grouped defeat: implications for PTSD and mood disorders.
Neuropharmacology, 62(2), 565-575.
Hill, J., Pilkonis, P., Morse, J., Feske, U., Reynolds, S., Hope, H., ... & Broyden, N. (2008). Social domain dysfunction and disorganization in borderline personality disorder. Psychological medicine, 38(1), 135-146.
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). NEO-FFI Big Five persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst [NEO-FFI Big Five personality questionnaire].
Holm, A. L., & Severinsson, E. (2008). The emotional pain and distress of borderline personality disorder: A review of the literature. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 17(1), 27-35.
Korfine, L., & Hooley, J. M. (2000). Directed forgetting of emotional stimuli in borderline personality disorder. Journal of abnormal psychology, 109(2), 214.
Kernberg, O. (1986). 14. Borderline Personality Organization. Essential papers on borderline disorders: one hundred years at the border.
King-Casas, B., Sharp, C., Lomax-Bream, L., Lohrenz, T., Fonagy, P., & Montague, P. R. (2008). The rupture and repair of cooperation in borderline personality disorder. science, 321(5890), 806-810.
Korn, C. W., La Rosée, L., Heeckeren, H. R., & Roepke, S. (2016). Social feedback processing in borderline personality disorder. Psychological medicine, 46(03), 575-587.
Levine, D., Marziali, E., & Hood, J. (1997). Emotion processing in borderline personality disorders. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 185(4), 240-246.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the
perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and individual Differences, 35(3), 641-658.
Nater, U. M., Bohus, M., Abbruzzese, E., Ditzen, B., Gaab, J., Kleindienst, N., ... & Ehlert, U. (2010). Increased psychological and attenuated cortisol and alpha-amylase responses to acute
psychosocial stress in female patients with borderline personality disorder. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(10), 1565-1572.
Niedtfeld, I., Schulze, L., Kirsch, P., Herpertz, S. C., Bohus, M., & Schmahl, C. (2010). Affect regulation and pain in borderline personality disorder: a possible link to the understanding of self-injury. Biological psychiatry, 68(4), 383-391.
25
Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432), 56-58.
Perseius, K. I., Ekdahl, S., Åsberg, M., & Samuelsson, M. (2005). To tame a volcano: patients with borderline personality disorder and their perceptions of suffering. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 19(4), 160-168.
Perkins, A. M., Kemp, S. E., & Corr, P. J. (2007). Fear and anxiety as separable emotions: an investigation of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. Emotion, 7(2), 252.
Schmahl, C., Bohus, M., Esposito, F., Treede, R. D., Di Salle, F., Greffrath, W., ... & Hennig, J. (2006). Neural correlates of antinociception in borderline personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(6), 659-666.
Seligman, M. E. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual review of medicine, 23(1), 407-412. Seres, I., Unoka, Z., & Kéri, S. (2009). The broken trust and cooperation in borderline personality
disorder. Neuroreport, 20(4), 388-392.
Sieswerda, S., Arntz, A., Mertens, I., & Vertommen, S. (2007). Hypervigilance in patients with borderline personality disorder: specificity, automaticity, and predictors. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(5), 1011-1024.
Thorndike, E. L. (1933). A proof of the law of effect. Science, 77(1989), 173-175. Unoka, Z., Seres, I., Áspán, N., Bódi, N., & Kéri, S. (2009). Trust game reveals restricted
interpersonal transactions in patients with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 399.
Willner, P. (1986). Validation criteria for animal models of human mental disorders: learned helplessness as a paradigm case. Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology and biological psychiatry, 10(6), 677-690.
Yanos, P. T., Rosenfield, S., & Horwitz, A. V. (2001). Negative and supportive social interactions and quality of life among persons diagnosed with severe mental illness. Community mental health journal, 37(5), 405-419.
Zanarini, M. C., Weingeroff, J. L., & Frankenburg, F. R. (2009). Defense mechanisms associated with borderline personality disorder. Journal of personality disorders, 23(2), 113-121.
Zanarini, M. C., Williams, A. A., Lewis, R. E., & Reich, R. B. (1997). Reported pathological childhood experiences associated with the development of borderline personality disorder. The American journal of psychiatry, 154(8), 1101.
26
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
Student: Sahra Schuppan Date of Birth: 28.06.1986
Title of Thesis: The Effect of Threat Controls on Social Cooperation
I declare herewith, that this above-mentioned work (essay, project, thesis etc.) is my own original work.
Furthermore, I confirm that this work has been composed by me without assistance;
I have clearly referenced in accordance with departmental requirements, in both the text and the bibliography or references, all sources (either from a printed source, internet or any other source) used in the work.
All data and findings in the work have not been falsified or embellished. This work has not been previously, or concurrently, used either for other courses or within other exam processes as an exam work.
This work has not been published.
I appreciate that any false claim in respect of this work will result in disciplinary action in accordance with university or departmental regulations.
I confirm that I understand that my work may be electronically checked for plagiarism by the use of plagiarism detection software and stored on a third party’s server for eventual future comparison.
