Professional Documents
Culture Documents
borderlinedisorders.com
TAXONOMY OF
PERSONALITY DISORDERS:
CONTRASTING THE DSM AND
OBJECT RELATIONS
APPROACHES
1970s: Gunderson and Kernberg
• Gunderson (Gunderson & Kolb, 1978): Collected clinical
descriptors manifested in the observable behavior of
borderline patients; these would form the criteria for DSM-
III (1980)
• Kernberg (1975): focused on the disturbed behaviors and
the internal representations of self and others, suggesting
these mental representations were identifiable, organized,
and driving behavior
• In 1980, we began the investigation of TFP targeted to
both the observable behaviors and the internal
organization
Results of the Phenomenological
Approach
• Search for the organization behind the 8-9 trait-like criteria
in DSM
• Heterogeneity among those who met the criteria for the
disorder
• Confused and unclear phenotype disrupts the search for
underlying neurobiological factors
Ideas Behind the Development of DSM-5
• Notable difficulties with DSM-IV: heterogeneity within the
PD diagnosis; rampant PD comorbidity; reliability but little
validity
• Hyman(2011):
• Too much emphasis on categories
• Genes and neurobiology don’t result in clear categories
• …schizophrenia and bipolar disorder might better be
conceptualized as interactions among continuous dimensions
rather than well-bound categories
• Bring personality theory to bare on personality disorder
diagnoses
Basic Emotional Systems (Pankseep, 2011)
PANIC/
separation
SEEKING/
CARE/
expectancy
nurturance
system
PLAY/joy
LUST/sexuali
RAGE/anger
ty
FEAR/
anxiety
Emotional Operating Systems Filtered
Through Lens of Object Relations
Negative
affect
Distorted Deficient
cognitive efforfful
appraisal control
Confllicted,
intense
Interactions
with others
Personality Disorder: DSM-5, Section 3
• Moderate or greater impairment in personality
(self/interpersonal) functioning
• One or more pathological personality traits
• Negative affectivity vs emotional stability
• Detachment vs. extraversion
• Antagonism vs. agreeableness
• Disinhibition vs. conscientiousness
• Psychoticism vs. lucidity
• Impairments are relatively stable across time
Level of Self and Interpersonal
Functioning: DSM-5, Section 3
• Self-functioning
• Identity
• Self-direction
• Interpersonal functioning
• Empathy
• Intimacy
Levels (Least to Most Severe) of
Personality Organization - Kernberg
Coping Identity Defense Object Aggress Moral
Rigidity s Relation -ion Values
s
Normal Flexibility Normal Normal Normal Modulat- Present
ed
Mild Rigidity Normal High Level Conflicts Present
(Neurotic) Defenses
Severe Inconsis- Identity Primitive Poor Varying Variable
(High tent Diffusion Defenses degrees of
Level aggress-
BPO) ion
Most Inconsis- Identity Primitive Poor Aggress- Lacking
Severe tent Diffusion Defenses ion toward
(Low Level others
BPO)
FIGURE 1
Therapy
Begins
N.B.: (or not)
Often a Sense of Urgency
• Neurotic organization
• High level borderline organization
• Low level borderline organization
Personality Organization
Figure 1
Relationship between familiar, prototypic, personality types and structural diagnosis.
Severity ranges from mildest, at the top of the page, to extremely severe at the bottom. Arrows indicate range of severity.
*We include avoidant personality disorder in deference to the DSM. However, in our clinical experience, patients who have been diagnosed with avoidant
personality disorder ultimately prove to have another personality disorder that accounts for avoidant pathology. As a result, we question the existence of
avoidant personality as a clinical entity. This is a controversial question deserving further study.
Structural Interview (Kernberg, 1984)
• Focus on the patient’s thinking and functioning in the present
time
• Begins with standard questions:
• What brings you here?
• What are your current difficulties?
• What do you expect from treatment?
• In general, where are you now?
• Key questions assessing representations of self and others:
• Describe yourself as a unique individual
• Describe a significant other in detail
• Interviewer’s stance: therapeutic neutrality
• Sequential use of clarification, confrontation, beginning
interpretations
The Structural Interview
• Combination of traditional psychiatric interview,
with assessment of personality organization
• Standard sequence to the interview
• Yield from the interview:
• Psychiatric diagnoses
• Personality organization
Symphora Tape: Structural Interview