Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment © 2015 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 6, No. 4, 310 –314 1949-2715/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000129

BRIEF REPORT

The Impact of Validation and Invalidation on Aggression in Individuals

With Emotion Regulation Difficulties
Nathaniel R. Herr, Alyssa C. Jones, Danielle M. Cohn, and Danielle M. Weber
American University

For individuals with difficulty regulating their emotions, aggression has been found to be a particularly
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

problematic interpersonal behavior. Invalidation (i.e., rejection of one’s emotional experience) is thought
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

to play a role in the etiology of disorders of emotion regulation, and it may be a trigger for aggressive
behaviors. The present study experimentally manipulated validation and invalidation after a sad mood
induction among individuals with few versus many difficulties regulating their emotions. Subsequent
aggression was measured using an in-laboratory behavioral task. Results indicate that, among individuals
with many difficulties regulating their emotions, validation led to significantly less aggression than did
invalidation. However, among individuals with few difficulties regulating their emotions, aggressive
behaviors were generally low and did not differ after validation as compared with invalidation. The
findings suggest that validation of emotional experiences may help to prevent aggressive behaviors
among individuals with difficulties regulating their emotions.

Keywords: emotion regulation, emotion dysregulation, validation, invalidation, aggression

Aggressive behavior is a particularly salient interpersonal prob-
lem among individuals with difficulties regulating their emotions.
For instance, higher rates of aggressive behaviors have been found
among individuals with diagnoses or many symptoms of border-
line personality disorder (BPD; e.g., Fossati et al., 2005; Hatzitas-
kos, Soldatos, Sakkas, & Stefanis, 1997), a disorder in which
emotion dysregulation is a core feature (e.g., Koenigsberg et al.,
2002; Linehan, 1993). Evidence suggests that factors in the social
environment, such as interpersonal stress, mediate the link be-
tween emotion dysregulation and aggressive behaviors (Herr,
Keenan-Miller, Rosenthal, & Feldblum, 2013). However, addi-
tional research is needed to determine if there are certain interper-
sonal events that play a causal role, interacting with individuals’
difficulties regulating their emotions, to trigger— or prevent—
aggressive behaviors.
One interpersonal context relevant to emotion dysregulation is
an invalidating environment; that is, one in which an individual’s
emotions and thoughts are responded to with overreactions, rejec-
tion, criticism, and neglect from others, especially caregivers
(Linehan, 1997). Invalidation has been identified as an etiological
factor in the development of emotion dysregulation (e.g., Linehan,
This article was published Online First June 8, 2015.
Nathaniel R. Herr, Alyssa C. Jones, Danielle M. Cohn, and Danielle M.
Weber, Department of Psychology, American University.
The authors thank Christopher D. Hughes, Kaitlin R. Lehmann, and
Emma Faith for their research support on this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathaniel
R. Herr, Department of Psychology, American University, Asbury 321A,
4400 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20016. E-mail:
nherr@american.edu
1993; Selby & Joiner, 2009). Studies have shown that having one’s
emotions invalidated as a child may be a risk factor for relationship
problems among those with BPD (Selby, Braithwaite, Joiner, &
Fincham, 2008), and parental invalidating behaviors have been
associated with poorer emotion regulation in adolescents (Buck-
holdt, Parra, & Jobe-Shields, 2014; Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2014).
Individuals with emotion regulation problems also appear to be
invalidated more often than those without these difficulties. For
instance, individuals with higher baseline negativity receive less
support and validation when making negative emotional disclo-
sures to romantic partners (Forest, Kille, Wood, & Holmes, 2014)
and friends (Forest & Wood, 2012).
Invalidation can also have an immediate impact on one’s emo-
tional state, which may increase the risk for aggressive responding.
For instance, students who were invalidated after describing their
emotional reaction to a stressor exhibited increased negative affect
and physiological reactivity (Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011). Likewise,
invalidation by a romantic partner was found to predict depressive
symptoms within adult dyads (Leong, Cano, & Johansen, 2011).
Furthermore, Fruzzetti, Shenk, and Hoffman (2005) suggest that
invalidation may lead to increased expression of secondary emo-
tions (e.g., anger and shame) when the primary emotion (often
sadness) may be more difficult to express. Acting on these sec-
ondary emotions could be a source of aggression among individ-
uals with difficulties regulating their emotions. However, no study
has experimentally examined the impact of invalidation on aggres-
sive responding among individuals with difficulties regulating
their emotions. This is particularly important given the increased
rates of aggressive behavior among individuals with difficulties
regulating their emotions (e.g., Fossati et al., 2005; Hatzitaskos et
al., 1997).

310
 VALIDATION, AGGRESSION, AND EMOTION REGULATION
An additional consideration is the impact that validation (the
converse of invalidation) has on emotional states. Validation has
been defined as communicating to an individual that “her [or his]
responses make sense and are understandable within her [or his]
current life context or situation” (Linehan, 1993, p. 222). Fruzzetti
and Shenk (2008) show that validation can lead to a reduction in
the negative affect associated with having strong emotions, can
promote more disclosures of emotional states, and can improve
emotion regulation skills by allowing for better experiencing of the
emotion. Psychosocial treatments, such as dialectical behavior
therapy, often implement validation as a therapeutic mechanism of
change for individuals with emotion regulation difficulties. In
these treatments, an emotion can be validated when the therapist
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
conveys that the patient’s emotion is understandable, even if
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
resultant behaviors are invalid because they are not effective for
reaching the patient’s goals (Linehan, 1993, 1997). Although val-
idation is generally seen as a fundamental clinical tool, there has
been little empirical research on its effectiveness in interpersonal
interactions. In one such study, Cano, Barterian, and Heller (2008)
found that validating behaviors within couples were positively
correlated with marital satisfaction and perceived spousal support.
In addition, Kim and Kim (2013) found that, among undergradu-
ates, validation can be effective in lowering negative mood and
aggression. Although these results support the proposed benefits of
validation, to date no empirical work has examined the impact of
validation on those with many difficulties regulating their emo-
tions—a group that may have a particular need for validation.
The primary aim of the present study was to experimentally ex-
amine how validation and invalidation of an emotional experience
(sad mood) differentially affect aggression among individuals who are
high versus low in difficulties regulating their emotions. Although
invalidation has been both distally linked to the development of BPD
(e.g., Selby et al., 2008) and observationally connected to emotion
dysregulation (e.g., Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2014), and validation is a
cornerstone of many therapeutic approaches (e.g., Linehan, 1993), to
date no study has experimentally examined (a) the immediate behav-
ioral impact of validation and invalidation or (b) how this impact may
differ based on an individual’s ability to regulate his or her emotions.
We chose aggression as the behavior of interest because it has been
identified as a key interpersonal problem among individuals with
BPD, a disorder in which emotion dysregulation is a central feature.
Although Kim and Kim (2013) found that validation may lower
aggression, they did not examine invalidation or the moderating effect
of an individual’s ability to regulate his or her emotions. Therefore,
we hypothesized a main effect of validation/invalidation such that
invalidation would lead to higher levels of aggressive behavior among
all participants as compared with validation. We also hypothesized an
interaction between emotion regulation and validation/invalidation
such that the magnitude of the hypothesized difference in aggression
after validation versus invalidation would be significantly greater
among individuals with difficulties regulating their emotions than
among those without difficulties regulating their emotions.
Method
Participants
Data for the present study are from a sample of undergraduates
at a medium-sized Mid-Atlantic private university who partici-
311
pated in and completed all procedures for this study. A total of 345
students completed the screening questionnaire. Because this study
sought to compare individuals who have greater than average
difficulty regulating their emotions to those who do not, we re-
cruited two groups of participants: one group that included partic-
ipants at or below the approximate mean Difficulties in Emotion
Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) score reported in
undergraduates (DERS ⱕ81) and one group that included partic-
ipants at or above 1 SD above this mean (DERS ⱖ100). Initially,
73 participants were selected for the study; however, 3 were
excluded because of equipment failure and 1 was excluded be-
cause of randomization error, leaving a final sample of 69 under-
graduate participants, with 39 in the low DERS group (mean
DERS ⫽ 66.1; SD ⫽ 8.2) and 30 in the high DERS group (mean
DERS ⫽ 113.9; SD ⫽ 10.6). For comparison, Neacsiu, Herr, Fang,
Rodriguez, and Rosenthal (2015) found a DERS mean of 114.1
(SD ⫽ 26.7) among individuals diagnosed with BPD, 92.1 (SD ⫽
23.6) among individuals diagnosed with other Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition, DSM–IV)
disorders, and 60.7 (SD ⫽ 11.6) among healthy controls. Further-
more, participants in the present study completed the BPD sub-
scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 1991), a
well-established 24-item self-report scale of BPD symptoms. Us-
ing norms for college students, the low DERS group’s mean of
23.8 (SD ⫽ 9.9) was average for the population (T score ⫽ 51)
whereas the high DERS group’s mean of 33.6 (SD ⫽ 8.4) was 1
SD above the population mean (T score ⫽ 61). Forty-two (61%) of
the participants were women, and the mean age of the sample was
20 years (SD ⫽ 3.10 years). Of the participants, 39 (57%) indi-
cated their ethnicity as White or Caucasian, 8 (12%) as Asian or
Pacific Islander, 8 (12%) as Hispanic/Latino/Latina, 7 (10%) as
Black or African, 1 (1%) as Native American or American Indian,
and 5 (7%) as other. Five students did not indicate their ethnicity.
Measures
Demographics. Participants’ age, sex, and ethnicity were col-
lected.
DERS. The DERS (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) is a 36-item
self-report questionnaire created to comprehensively assess levels
of emotion dysregulation over six dimensions: nonacceptance of
emotional responses, difficulty engaging in goal-directed behav-
iors when experiencing negative emotions, difficulty controlling
impulses when experiencing negative emotions, lack of emotional
awareness, limited access to emotion regulation strategies that are
perceived as effective, and lack of emotional clarity. Respondents
rate each item on a five-point Likert-type scale based on how much
each statement applies to them from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost
always). The DERS has been shown to have acceptable construct
and predictive validities and good retest reliability (␳1 ⫽ 0.88, p ⬍
.01; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). For the present sample, internal
consistency was also high (␣ ⫽ .87).
Aggression Questionnaire. The Aggression Questionnaire
(AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992) is a 29-item self-report questionnaire
designed to specifically measure trait aggression across four do-
mains: hostility, anger, physical aggression, and verbal aggression.
Respondents rate each item on a five-point Likert-type scale rang-
ing from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (completely like me), and the
ratings are summed to produce an overall score (or summed within
 312 HERR, JONES, COHN, AND WEBER
subscales to produce the subscale scores). High internal consis-
tency was found in the present sample (␣ ⫽ .80).
Procedure
Upon arriving at the laboratory for their appointment, partici-
pants completed a series of questionnaires, although only the AQ
was used in the present study. After completing the questionnaires,
participants were given instructions for the Point Subtraction Ag-
gression Paradigm (PSAP; Cherek & Dougherty, 1997). The PSAP
has been used as a behavioral measure of aggression in previous
research (Dougherty, Bjork, Huckabee, Moeller, & Swann, 1999),
and it has been externally validated in a sample of aggressive
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Casat, Pear-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
son, Van Davelaar, & Cherek, 1995) and ecologically validated in
a sample of violent and nonviolent male parolees (Cherek,
Moeller, Schnapp, & Dougherty, 1997). For participants, the goal
of the PSAP was to earn as many points as possible, which in the
present study were traded for entries in a gift card drawing. In
addition, participants were told that they would be playing along-
side an opponent of the same gender whom they would not be
meeting and who would be able to steal points from the participant.
In fact, there was no human opponent, and participants simply saw
their points decreasing at random intervals during the game. While
playing the PSAP, participants could choose between three but-
tons, which could only be pressed one at a time: “A” to earn points,
“B” to subtract points from their opponent, or “C” to attempt to
protect their points from attacks. Participants were told that if their
opponent subtracted money from their account, it would be added
to their opponent’s account. However, if participants subtracted
money from their opponent’s account (Button B), the money
would not be added to their own account. Thus, as in previous
studies, the measure of aggression in the PSAP was the number of
times a participant chose to press Button B, a choice that led to no
tangible rewards for participants and that cost them time that could
have been used adding points to their own score.
After reading the instructions and clarifying any questions with
the experimenter, participants played a 2-min trial run of the game
to ensure that they understood how to play. Then, they completed
a visual analog scale (VAS) to indicate their current sadness (Time
1 Sadness) by placing a mark along a horizontal line labeled Not
at All to Extremely on its ends.
Next, participants underwent a computerized sad mood induc-
tion that has been found to significantly increase ratings of sadness
(Robinson, Grillon, & Sahakian, 2012). A sad mood, rather than
anger, induction was chosen because we sought to examine the
impact of emotional invalidation on aggression and not the impact
of the emotional experience itself, in which anger would be a
particularly potent precipitant of aggression. The induction con-
sisted of 60 self-referential statements (e.g., “I just do not care
about anything. Life just isn’t any fun.”) presented on a dark blue
background that were accompanied by sad music selected by
participants and that participants were asked to read and consider
how the statements applied to their own life. Because of institu-
tional review board (IRB) concerns, two sentences relating to
death in the original induction were changed slightly to remove the
risk of inducing suicidal ideation. The experimenter left the room
for the duration of the mood induction, which lasted for roughly 12
min.
When the induction was finished, the experimenter returned,
and participants completed the VAS again (Time 2 Sadness).
Then, the experimenter collected the VAS (without examining the
score) and, based on predetermined study randomization, either
validated (“That task makes a lot of people really sad”) or inval-
idated (“That doesn’t usually make people so sad”) the partici-
pants’ sadness ratings. Among low DERS participants, 20 were
randomized to validation and 19 to invalidation; among high
DERS participants, 14 were validated and 16 were invalidated.
Immediately after the validation/invalidation, the experimenter
said, “Okay, the other participant is ready, so we can begin the
Point-Subtraction game you learned earlier.” The experimenter
proceeded to set up the PSAP and then briefly left the room,
ostensibly to check on the other participant. After a moment, the
experimenter returned and told participants that their opponent was
ready and they could begin playing. The experimenter then left the
room, and participants played the PSAP for 10 min. After the
PSAP was completed, the experimenter returned, participants
filled out the VAS (Time 3 Sadness), and then they were debriefed,
at which time they were informed about the deceptions in the study
and were asked whether they believed the deception. Although
some participants noted suspicions that there was not a human
opponent in the PSAP, none reported being certain. In addition, all
participants reported hearing the experimenter’s validation or in-
validation, but none reported being aware of the inauthenticity of
the comment.
Results
To determine if the sad mood induction was effective, a
repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted
with high versus low DERS group as a between-group factor and
Time 1 Sadness (immediately before the mood induction) versus
Time 2 Sadness (immediately after the mood induction) scores on
the VAS as a repeated-measures factor. Significant main effects
were found showing that the high DERS group was significantly
sadder than the low DERS group across time points, F(1, 67) ⫽
7.97, p ⫽ .006, and sad mood significantly increased after the sad
mood induction for all participants, F(1, 67) ⫽ 65.7, p ⬍ .001. The
interaction between group and mood was not significant, F(1,
67) ⫽ 0.05, p ⫽ .824, indicating that the high versus low DERS
groups did not differ in the degree to which the sad mood induction
increased sad mood. As evidence that using the PSAP for 10 min
is a valid measure of aggression, the Pearson correlation between
trait aggression (measured with the AQ; M ⫽ 72.2, SD ⫽ 14.8) and
aggressive responding in the PSAP (measured by the number of B
presses; M ⫽ 133.2, SD ⫽ 134.7) was significant, r(69) ⫽ .283,
p ⫽ .018.
Sex differences among individuals in the high versus low DERS
groups were examined with a Pearson ␹2 analysis, which was
marginally significant, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 69) ⫽ 3.46, p ⫽ .063, indicating
that women made up a higher percentage of the high DERS group
(73%) than the low DERS group (51%). Group differences in trait
aggression were also examined with a one-way ANOVA, in which
the high and low DERS groups were compared on mean total AQ
scores. The high DERS groups had marginally higher trait aggres-
sion (M ⫽ 76.0, SD ⫽ 15.7) than did the low DERS group (M ⫽
69.2; SD ⫽ 13.6; t(67) ⫽ 1.93, p ⫽ .058). Therefore, sex and trait
aggression were entered as covariates in the following analysis to
 VALIDATION, AGGRESSION, AND EMOTION REGULATION
control for their effects. To test whether invalidation and validation
after the sad mood induction would have differing effects on
aggression, as measured by B presses in the PSAP, among indi-
viduals with versus individuals without difficulties regulating their
emotions, a 2 (low vs. high DERS) ⫻ 2 (validation vs. invalida-
tion) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run, with sex and
trait aggression included as covariates. All statistical assumptions
of ANCOVA were examined and met for this analysis. Results
(depicted in Figure 1) showed that although there was a main
effect indicating that those who were invalidated were more ag-
gressive than those who were validated, F(1, 63) ⫽ 9.62, p ⫽ .003,
there was also a significant interaction between DERS group and
the validation manipulation, F(1, 63) ⫽ 5.44, p ⫽ .023. This
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
interaction indicated that for individuals with low DERS scores,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
whether they were validated or invalidated made little difference in
their aggressive behavior; however, for individuals with high
DERS scores, their aggression was significantly higher when they
were invalidated than when they were validated. Pairwise compar-
isons indicated that aggression among high DERS individuals who
were invalidated was significantly higher than aggression among
low DERS individuals who were invalidated (p ⫽ .041; ␩2 ⫽ .07;
small-to-medium effect) and high DERS individuals who were
validated (p ⬍ .001; ␩2 ⫽ .17; medium effect).
Discussion
The present study was the first to experimentally examine the
impact of validation and invalidation of an emotion (sadness) on
aggressive behavior among individuals with many versus few
difficulties regulating their emotions. The results of the study show
that, among individuals with many difficulties regulating their
emotions, invalidation led to significantly more aggression than
did validation. However, among individuals with few difficulties
regulating their emotions, aggressive behaviors were generally low
and did not differ after validation as compared with invalidation.
Although the main effect of validation/invalidation was signifi-
cant, the effect was nearly entirely concentrated in the high DERS
Figure 1. Interaction between difficulties regulating emotions and vali-
dation versus invalidation in predicting aggressive behavior on the PSAP.
313
group. Furthermore, because trait aggression was controlled for in
these analyses, the higher level of aggression seen among those
with high DERS scores who were invalidated is not simply a result
of high trait-level aggression. These results were mostly in line
with our hypotheses, but we did not anticipate the exact pattern of
the results. Specifically, we did not expect that when participants
were validated, aggression would be equal between the high versus
low emotion dysregulation groups. This finding suggests that
individuals with difficulties regulating their emotions are not more
aggressive in all contexts, and that validating these individuals’
emotional experiences may be an effective way to prevent reactive
aggression. Although this idea may seem obvious in light of the
emphasis placed on validation in many therapeutic approaches
(e.g., Linehan, 1993), to our knowledge this is the first time this
connection has been experimentally demonstrated.
Because there was not a “neither validate nor invalidate” con-
dition in this study, we are unable to distinguish whether, among
individuals with difficulties regulating their emotions, it is valida-
tion that prevents aggression, invalidation that causes aggression,
or both. Previous research using the PSAP without a validation/
invalidation manipulation found that individuals with BPD were
more aggressive than individuals in a control group (Dougherty et
al., 1999). This suggests that the results of the present study may
best be considered evidence of validation being a factor in pre-
venting the expected aggression among individuals with difficul-
ties regulating their emotions.
There are several limitations that must be acknowledged in the
present study. First, the sample included only undergraduates,
which limits the generalizability of the study. It is possible that
aggressive responding is affected by age and sociodemographic
characteristics; thus, future studies should seek to replicate these
findings in a more diverse sample. Likewise, this study examined
a nonclinical sample, which could also affect generalizability.
Although individuals with many difficulties regulating their emo-
tions are likely to be higher on the BPD continuum, future inclu-
sion of a group of individuals diagnosed with BPD would help to
determine if validation and invalidation have a similar impact on
aggression, or if our results are further amplified, in a clinical
sample.
Future research on the connection between validation/invalida-
tion and aggression should work to determine if the target of
aggression is an important factor. In the present study, the inval-
idation is delivered by a different person (the experimenter) than
the person who is the target of aggression (the unseen opponent).
Additional variations of this study could determine if aggression
would be different when directed at the invalidating person. Future
studies should also seek to identify emotions that may occur after
validation and invalidation and that may mediate the aggressive
response. Although anger is an emotion commonly associated with
aggression, shame may also play a key role. Because the invali-
dation statement used in the present study “abnormalizes” a par-
ticipant’s sadness reaction compared with others’ reactions, shame
may be a more likely response to that invalidation than anger.
Conversely, the normalizing validation statement may serve to
decrease shame (rather than anger) that was produced by the sad
mood induction.
This study has implications for individuals who present to
treatment with problems stemming from aggression. For thera-
pists, this experimental evidence that validation may prevent ag-
 314 HERR, JONES, COHN, AND WEBER
gressive behaviors in the therapy room among patients who have
emotion regulation difficulties is a reminder to utilize this strategy
when patient aggression is interfering with therapy. Likewise,
group and family therapies can emphasize validation techniques
during interactions with a patient when aggression is a problem in
those relationships. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that a patient who
has problems regulating emotions will be validated by other people
at all (or even many) times in their life. As such, strategies that
increase self-validation (e.g., Fruzzetti et al., 2005) may also be
essential in reducing aggressive behaviors among patients with
difficulties regulating their emotions.
References
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., & Jobe-Shields, L. (2014). Intergenerational
transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of
emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing
behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 324 –332. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452– 459. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452
Cano, A., Barterian, J. A., & Heller, J. B. (2008). Empathic and nonem-
pathic interaction in chronic pain couples. The Clinical Journal of Pain,
24, 678 – 684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0b013e31816753d8
Casat, C. D., Pearson, D. A., Van Davelaar, M. J., & Cherek, D. R. (1995).
Methylphenidate effects on a laboratory aggression measure in children
with ADHD. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 31, 353–356.
Cherek, D. R., & Dougherty, D. M. (1997). The relationship between
provocation frequency and human aggressive responding. The Psycho-
logical Record, 47, 357–370.
Cherek, D. R., Moeller, F. G., Schnapp, W., & Dougherty, D. M. (1997).
Studies of violent and nonviolent male parolees: I. Laboratory and
psychometric measurements of aggression. Biological Psychiatry, 41,
514 –522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00059-5
Dougherty, D. M., Bjork, J. M., Huckabee, H. C. G., Moeller, F. G., &
Swann, A. C. (1999). Laboratory measures of aggression and impulsiv-
ity in women with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research,
85, 315–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(99)00011-6
Forest, A. L., Kille, D. R., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2014). Discount
and disengage: How chronic negative expressivity undermines partner
responsiveness to negative disclosures. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 107, 1013–1032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038163
Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not
working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the
benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23,
295–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429709
Fossati, A., Feeney, J. A., Carretta, I., Grazioli, F., Milesi, R., Leonardi, B.,
& Maffei, C. (2005). Modeling the relationships between adult attach-
ment patterns and borderline personality disorder: The role of impulsiv-
ity and aggressiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24,
520 –537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.4.520
Fruzzetti, A. E., & Shenk, C. (2008). Fostering validating responses in
families. Social Work in Mental Health, 6, 215–227. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J200v06n01_17
Fruzzetti, A. E., Shenk, C., & Hoffman, P. D. (2005). Family interaction
and the development of borderline personality disorder: A transactional
model. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 1007–1030. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1017/S0954579405050479
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emo-
tion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and
initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal
of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41–54. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94
Hatzitaskos, P. K., Soldatos, C. R., Sakkas, P. N., & Stefanis, C. N. (1997).
Discriminating borderline from antisocial personality disorder in male
patients based on psychopathology patterns and type of hostility. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185, 442– 446. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/00005053-199707000-00004
Herr, N. R., Keenan-Miller, D., Rosenthal, M. Z., & Feldblum, J. (2013).
Negative interpersonal events mediate the relation between borderline
features and aggressive behavior: Findings from a nonclinical sample of
undergraduate women. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment, 4, 254 –260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032212
Kim, E., & Kim, C. (2013). Comparative effects of empathic verbal
responses: Reflection versus validation. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 60, 439 – 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032786
Koenigsberg, H. W., Harvey, P. D., Mitropoulou, V., Schmeidler, J., New,
A. S., Goodman, M., . . . Siever, L. J. (2002). Characterizing affective
instability in borderline personality disorder. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 159, 784 –788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.159.5.784
Leong, L. E. M., Cano, A., & Johansen, A. B. (2011). Sequential and base
rate analysis of emotional validation and invalidation in chronic pain
couples: Patient gender matters. The Journal of Pain, 12, 1140 –1148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2011.04.004
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive– behavioral treatment of borderline
personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. M. (1997). Validation and psychotherapy. In A. C. Bohart &
L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy reconsidered: New directions in psy-
chotherapy (pp. 353–392). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10226-016
Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional man-
ual. Tampa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Neacsiu, A. D., Herr, N. R., Fang, C. M., Rodriguez, M. A., & Rosenthal,
M. Z. (2015). Identity disturbance and problems with emotion regulation
are related constructs across diagnoses. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
71, 346 –361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22141
Robinson, O., Grillon, C., & Sahakian, B. (2012). The mood induction
task: A standardized, computerized laboratory procedure for altering
mood state in humans. Protocol Exchange. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
protex.2012.007
Selby, E. A., Braithwaite, S. R., Joiner, T. E., & Fincham, F. D. (2008).
Features of borderline personality disorder, perceived childhood emo-
tional invalidation, and dysfunction within current romantic relation-
ships. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 885– 893. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0013673
Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2009). Cascades of emotion: The
emergence of borderline personality disorder from emotional and be-
havioral dysregulation. Review of General Psychology, 13, 219 –229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015687
Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). The impact of validating and
invalidating responses on emotional reactivity. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 30, 163–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011
.30.2.163
Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2014). Parental validating and invalidat-
ing responses and adolescent psychological functioning: An observa-
tional study. The Family Journal, 22, 43– 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1066480713490900