psychology research...publication information: psychology research is published monthly in hard copy...

Psychology Research

Volume 9, Number 8, August 2019 (Serial Number 98)

David Publishing Company

www.davidpublisher.com

D DAVID PUBLISHING

Publication Information: Psychology Research is published monthly in hard copy (ISSN 2159-5542) and online (ISSN 2159-5550) by David Publishing Company located at 616 Corporate Way, Suite 2-4876, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, USA.

Aims and Scope: Psychology Research, a monthly professional academic journal, has three main columns: General Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Applied Psychology, which cover all sorts of psychology researches on Biopsychology, Cognitive Psychology and Psycholinguistics, Child Psychiatry, Clinical Psychology, Community Psychology, Comparative Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Personality Psychology, Physiological Psychology/Psychobiology, Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology, Social Psychology, Psychological Statistics, Psychology of Human Resource Management, Psychometrics, Counseling Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Interpersonal Relation Psychology, Culture Psychology, Philosophical Psychology, Management Psychology, Psychology Research Methods, Advertising and Transmitting Psychology, Public Psychology, Consumption Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, Abnormal Psychology, Group Psychology, Literary Psychology, Labor Psychology, Aerospace Psychology, Traveling Psychology, Medico-Psychology, Color Psychology, Decision-making Psychology, Love Psychology, Positive Psychology, Criminal Psychology, Sport Psychology, Peace Psychology, as well as other issues.

Editorial Board Members: Hanna Brycz Sharma Basu Elena Fabiola R. Ledesma Ungsoo Samuel Kim Abootaleb S. Shamir Sanja Tatalovic Vorkapic

Arcady Putilov Di You Konstantin Chichinadze Tal Dotan Ben Soussan Hari Narayanan. V. Neelam Kumar

Yulia Solovieva Siddharth Agarwal Firoz Kazhungil Sefa Bulut Said Suliman Aldhafri Chao-Ming Cheng

Alina Georgeta Mag Sefa Bulut Said Suliman Aldhafri Shamil Tashaev

Manuscripts and correspondence are invited for publication. You can submit your papers via Web submission, or E-mail to [email protected] and [email protected]. Submission guidelines and Web submission system are available at http://www.davidpublisher.com.

Editorial Office: 616 Corporate Way, Suite 2-4876, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, USA Tel: 1-323-984-7526, 323-410-1082; Fax: 1-323-984-7374, 323-908-0457 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Copyright©2019 by David Publishing Company and individual contributors. All rights reserved. David Publishing Company holds the exclusive copyright of all the contents of this journal. In accordance with the international convention, no part of this journal may be reproduced or transmitted by any media or publishing organs (including various websites) without the written permission of the copyright holder. Otherwise, any conduct would be considered as the violation of the copyright. The contents of this journal are available for any citation. However, all the citations should be clearly indicated with the title of this journal, serial number and the name of the author.

Abstracted/Indexed in: Database of EBSCO, Massachusetts, USA CrossRef Hein Online Database, W.S.HEIN, USA Chinese Database of CEPS, American Federal Computer Library Center (OCLC), USA Chinese Scientific Journals Database, VIP Corporation, Chongqing, P.R.C. Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

Excellent papers in ERIC ProQuest/CSA Social Science Collection, Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), USA Summon Serials Solutions PBN (Polish Scholarly Bibliography) Google Scholar J-Gate SCRIBD Academic Key Pubicon Science

CiteFactor Electronic Journals Library Scientific Indexing Services Newjour Scholarsteer Sherpa/Romeo Pubget WZB (Berlin Social Science Center) ResearchBible S-Journal Index

Subscription Information: Price (per year): Print $520

David Publishing Company 616 Corporate Way, Suite 2-4876, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, USA Tel: 1-323-984-7526, 323-410-1082; Fax: 1-323-984-7374, 323-908-0457 E-mail: [email protected]

David Publishing Companywww.davidpublisher.com

DAVID PUBLISHING

D

Psychology Research

Volume 9, Number 8, August 2019 (Serial Number 98)

Contents General Psychology

Understanding Relational Dysfunction in Borderline, Narcissistic, and Antisocial Personality Disorders: Clinical Considerations, Presentation of Three Case Studies, and Implications for Therapeutic Intervention 303

Genziana Lay

Saving Resources for Future Demands―The Role of Instruction, Cognitive Load and Metacognition 319

Agnieszka Fanslau, Mirosław Brejwo, Hanna Brycz

Developmental and Educational Psychology

Haptic Perception of Physical and Functional Properties of Table Tennis and Badminton Rackets in Children and Elderly 329

Danny Ferreira, David Catela

Haptic Perception and Motor Behaviors in Infants Users of Ergonomic Pacifiers 335

Andreia Correia, Cláudia Elias, Diana David, Inês Cabral, Mónica Telo, David Catela

Applied Psychology

The Superstar Paradox—How Overachievers Miss the Mark in Life and at Work 339

Keren Eldad

Psychology Research, August 2019, Vol. 9, No.8, 303-318 doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2019.08.001

Understanding Relational Dysfunction in Borderline,

Narcissistic, and Antisocial Personality Disorders: Clinical

Considerations, Presentation of Three Case Studies, and

Implications for Therapeutic Intervention

Genziana Lay

Private Psychotherapy Practice, Sassari, Italy

Personality disorders are a class of mental disorders involving enduring maladaptive patterns of behaving, thinking,

and feeling which profoundly affect functioning, inner experience, and relationships. This work focuses on three

Cluster B personality disorders (PDs) (Borderline, Narcissistic, and Antisocial PDs), specifically illustrating how

relational dysfunction manifests in each condition. People with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) experience

pervasive instability in mood, behavior, self-image, and interpersonal patterns. In relationships, they tend to

alternate between extremes of over-idealization and devaluation. Intense fear of abandonment, fluctuating affect,

inappropriate anger, and black/white thinking deeply influence how they navigate personal relationships, which are

often unstable, chaotic, dramatic, and ultimately destructive. They have a fundamental incapacity to self-soothe the

explosive emotional states they experience as they oscillate between fears of engulfment and abandonment. This

leads to unpredictable, harmful, impulsive behavior and chronic feelings of insecurity, worthlessness, shame, and

emptiness. Their relationships are explosive, marked by hostility/contempt for self and partner alternating with

bottomless neediness. Manipulation, lying, blaming, raging, and “push-pull” patterns are common features.

Individuals with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) exhibit a long-standing pattern of grandiosity and lack of

empathy. They have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, are self-absorbed, feel entitled, and tend to seek

attention. Scarcely concerned with others’ feelings, they can be both charming and exploitative. Oversensitive to

criticism, they are prone to overt or covert rage, gaslighting and self-referential thinking. Antisocial Personality

Disorder (APD) is marked by impulsive, callous, and irresponsible behavior with no regard to be manipulative,

parasitic, aggressive, cold, cruel, and self-serving. In addition to analyzing relational dysfunction in each disorder,

this paper presents three relational case studies (BPD-couple, NPD-parent/child, APD-various relations) and

discusses treatment implications.

Keywords: dysfunction, personality disorders, Cluster B, borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, relationships

Introduction

Personality disorders (PDs) are a class of mental disorders involving enduring maladaptive patterns of

behaving, thinking, and feeling which profoundly affect functioning, inner experience, and relationships. These

Genziana Lay, Dr., Private Psychotherapy Practice, Sassari, Italy.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D

BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS

304

patterns are usually evident by late adolescence, remain stable over time, and generate psychological distress.

There is typically impairment in personality functioning in the areas of identity, self-direction empathy, and

intimacy. In the DSM-V, pathological personality traits are organized into five trait domains: negative

affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism, each of which is further illustrated with

trait facets reflecting aspects of the domain itself. This trait system has been shown to correlate well with the

Five Factor Model (Oldham, 2015).

There are 10 different personality disorders grouped into three clusters based on descriptive resemblances

within each cluster. Cluster A is the odd, eccentric cluster and includes Paranoid Personality Disorder, Schizoid

Personality Disorder, and Schizotypal Personality Disorders. The common features of these are social

awkwardness, social withdrawal, and distorted or delusional thinking. Cluster B is called the dramatic,

emotional, and erratic cluster and includes Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder,

Histrionic Personality Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. The common denominator among these is

a pattern of problems with impulse control, relationships, and emotional regulation. Cluster C is called the

anxious, fearful cluster. It includes the Avoidant, Dependent, and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorders.

These three personality disorders share a high level of anxiety and rigidity.

Because personality disorders are, by definition, pervasive and influence perception, behavior, thinking,

and emotional processing, they inevitably have a profound effect on the person’s close relationships. This work

focuses on three Cluster B personality disorders (Borderline, Narcissistic, and Antisocial Personality Disorder),

specifically illustrating how relational dysfunction manifests in each condition. People with Borderline

Personality Disorder (BPD) experience pervasive instability in mood, behavior, self-image, and interpersonal

patterns. In relationships, they tend to alternate between extremes of over-idealization and devaluation. Intense

fear of abandonment, fluctuating affect, inappropriate anger, and black/white thinking deeply influence how

they navigate personal relationships, which are often unstable, chaotic, dramatic, and ultimately destructive.

They have a fundamental incapacity to self-soothe the explosive emotional states they experience as they

oscillate between fears of engulfment and abandonment. This leads to unpredictable, harmful, impulsive

behavior and chronic feelings of insecurity, worthlessness, shame, and emptiness. Their relationships are

explosive, marked by hostility/contempt for self and partner alternating with bottomless neediness.

Manipulation, lying, blaming, raging, and “push-pull” patterns are common features. Individuals with

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) exhibit a long-standing pattern of grandiosity and lack of empathy.

They have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, are self-absorbed, feel entitled, and tend to seek attention.

Scarcely concerned with others’ feelings, they can be both charming and exploitative. Oversensitive to criticism,

they are prone to overt or covert rage, gaslighting and self-referential thinking. Antisocial Personality Disorder

(APD) is marked by impulsive, callous, and irresponsible behavior with no regard to be manipulative, parasitic,

aggressive, cold, cruel, and self-serving.

In addition to analyzing relational dysfunction in each disorder, this paper presents three relational case

studies. Case 1 examines the dysfunctional relational pattern experienced by a couple with one partner suffering

from Borderline Personality Disorder. Case 2 examines the maladaptive, distressing characteristics of the

relationship between a mother with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and her daughter and the lasting effects on

the child as she grows into adulthood. Case 3 illustrates the pathological features of relatedness with family,

intimate partners and society at large expressed by a young man with Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Treatment implications are discussed for each.


305

Personality Disorders: Conceptualization and Diagnostic Framework

As defined in the alternative model presented in the DSM-V, personality functioning is assessed by

considering the degree to which there is an intact sense of self (clear, coherent identity and effective

self-directedness) and healthy interpersonal functioning (capacity for relatedness, empathy, and intimacy)

(Oldham, 2015). The hallmark features of personality disorders are distorted thinking patterns, problematic

emotional responses, over or under-regulated impulse control, and persistent interpersonal difficulties.

Broadly speaking, three domains can be considered when clinically evaluating personality disorders. As

outlined in Otto Kernberg’s model, these relate to reality testing, sense of self and defenses (Hoermann,

Zupanick, & Dombeck, 2018). The first thing to be considered is whether the person has intact reality

testing—essentially assessing their capacity to distinguish between real and imagined, as well as between

internal and external. When reality testing is impaired, the person will find it challenging to separate real events

occurring around him or her from subjective perceptions. Obvious examples of this include hallucinations,

delusions, and severely distorted emotional/cognitive processing. A person suffering from Paranoid Personality

Disorder, for example, will develop a mental framework of beliefs and perceptions in line with a distorted,

personal sense of reality that is usually menacing, persecutory, and bizarre.

The second consideration concerns an integrated sense of self and others. The foundations for this are set

in childhood through interaction with significant others. If they are largely functional and core emotional needs

are met, the child builds an inner blueprint of him/herself and others, as well as of how healthy relationships

operate, that is adaptive and healthy. However, when the building blocks for this are marked by dysfunction,

deprivation, and/or disruption, the child may develop a fragile, volatile, contradictory, and maladaptive sense of

self, others and relationships. With an integrated sense of self, one is able to distinguish between self and others,

and accurately perceive personal characteristics and differentiate personal perceptions, feelings, and thoughts

from those of others. Moreover, one can understand and tolerate having contradictory feelings and beliefs about

the same person. For example, it is possible to be angry and know someone is angry at you without feeling any

love or respect in that relationship has vanished and will result in permanent change (abandonment, hostility,

etc.)—an essential premise for any healthy relationship. In contrast, a fragmented sense of self leads one to

confusing, highly distressing relational experiences wherein conflict, disappointment, or even self-doubt can

destroy any sense of security or emotional continuity and subjective feelings become blurred with real

interactions. For example, this is commonly observed in people with Borderline Personality Disorder who

experience splitting and have extreme reactions to any perceived sense of abandonment.

The third consideration has to do with the person’s defenses and whether they are predominantly mature

or primitive (Hoermann, Zupanick, & Dombeck, 2018). Defenses are simply strategies (often unconsciously

enacted) people use to manage internal conflict between competing feelings, fears, impulses, and urges and to

cope with emotional demands and stressful circumstances. Primitive defenses, conceptually, are the

psychodynamic counterpart of maladaptive coping mechanisms; mature defenses are akin to healthy coping

strategies. A person enacting primitive defenses may try to rearrange reality or ignore social demands in a

disorganized effort to self-soothe that only leads to more distress and relational dysfunction. In contrast,

someone who can count on more mature defenses is more adaptable and psychologically solid when confronted

with distressing stimuli. For example, a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder may tend to relate to

others as split-off projections of their fluctuating sense of self (from grandiose to deeply precarious),


306

manipulating them and attempting to conform reality to their inner experience. Children of Narcissists may in

fact feel a blurred distinction between self and caregiver in the sense that their own perceptions and needs are

distorted through the lens of the dysfunctional parent’s constant overwriting of their experience for their own

benefit.

A categorical diagnostic system for personality disorders has some shortcomings. For example, in the

DSM-IV the threshold required to make a diagnosis was arbitrary, yet the impression was conveyed that overall

a given disorder is either present or it is not, rather than conceptualizing it as a symptom and trait pattern with

varying gradients of severity (Oldham, 2015). Inclusion in a category involves satisfying in each case one-half

plus one of a group of diagnostic criteria; this is known as polythetic assessment (Esbec & Echeburúa, 2015). A

downside of this system is that it generates a marked level of heterogeneity within similar diagnoses. For

example, there are 256 ways that five out of nine criteria for the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder

can be configured, and two patients could receive this diagnosis but share only one criterion (Oldham, 2015).

While the APA Board of Trustees voted to sustain the DSM-IV diagnostic system for personality disorders

in the main section, the DSM-5 also includes an alternate new model in Section III referred to as “Emerging

measures and models”. In this conceptualization, essential criteria to define any personality disorder are

significant impairment in personality functioning and pathological personality traits (Oldham, 2015). A “level

of functioning” scale is indicated and, based on research data, “moderate impairment” is identified as the

appropriate threshold to indicate the presence of a personality disorder (Oldham, 2015). A new diagnosis called

Personality Disorder-Trait Specified was also established in the DSM-V, replacing Personality Disorder Not

Otherwise Specified in DSM-IV. This diagnosis indicates that a patient meets the general criteria for a

personality disorder and has a pathological trait profile that can include characteristics of different disorders

and trait facets (Oldham, 2015). In this conceptualization, the DSM-V covers other specified and unspecified

personality disorders with mixed personality characteristics and other PDs not included in standard

classification (for example, depressive PD or psychotic/sadistic PD) (Esbec & Echeburúa, 2015).

Personality characteristics and patterns reminiscent of diagnostic criteria for PDs without significant

distress and impairment can be considered personality style and not a full expression of the disorder. As defined

in the alternative model, personality functioning consists of the degree to which there is an intact sense of self

(coherent identity and effective self-directedness) and adaptive interpersonal functioning (with capacity for

empathy and intimacy). Pathological personality traits are organized into five trait domains (negative affectivity,

detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism), each of which is further explicated by a set of trait

facets reflecting aspects of the domain itself.

This trait system has been shown to correlate well with the Five Factor Model (Oldham, 2015; Thomas,

Yalch, Krueger, Wright, Markon, & Hopwood, 2012).

Some theorists have pointed out that the extreme expressions of neuroticism, extraversion, openness,

agreeableness, and conscientiousness on both the high and low ends are associated with characteristics of

personality disorders (Trull & Widiger, 2013).


307

Table 1

Higher Order Domains and Corresponding Personality Trait Facets

Higher order domain Personality trait facets

Negative affectivity Emotional lability, anxiousness, separation insecurity, submission, hostility, perseverance, depressivity, suspiciousness, restricted affectivity

Detachment Social withdrawal, avoidance of intimacy, anhedonia, depressivity, restricted affectivity, suspiciousness

Antagonism Manipulativeness, deceitfulness, grandiosity, attention seeking, callousness, hostility

Disinhibition Irresponsibility, impulsivity, distractibility, risk taking, lack of exacting standards

Psychoticism Odd beliefs and experiences, eccentricity, cognitive and perceptual dysregulation

Sources: Esbec & Echeburúa, 2015.

Figure 1. Traits and behaviors associated with 5 major personality dimensions (Trull & Widiger, 2013).

Based on this conceptualization, one might hypothesize that an individual with antisocial personality

disorder exhibits low levels of neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness; likewise, it could be posited

that someone with borderline personality disorder displays high extraversion and high neuroticism.

Borderline Personality Disorder

Borderline Personality Disorder involves a pervasive pattern of instability in self-image, emotions, and

interpersonal relationships as well as elevated impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and manifested in a

variety of contexts. As outlined in the DSM, not all possible features of the disorders are always present

concurrently, but different combinations therein concur to create a constellation of unstable, volatile symptoms

which cause intense distress and disrupt relationships.

People with Borderline Personality Disorder tend to have intense yet unstable interpersonal relationships:

They are deeply concerned with real or imagined abandonment. They fluctuate between extremes of idealization


308

and devaluation. Their sense of self tends to be equally unstable. Lack of integration of the concept of self and

others leads to identity diffusion and primitive defenses centering around splitting and its derivatives

(projective identification, denial, primitive idealization, omnipotence, omnipotent control, devaluation)

(Kernberg, 2001).

Reactions to daily life are marked by emotional instability and volatile feelings: Intense anger, episodic

sadness, and overwhelming anxiety are common. Impulsive behavior, often including self-harming or

self-damaging behavior, is frequent; it is not unusual for this to take the form of addiction to substances, sex, food,

or thrill-seeking. Borderlines frequently are plagued by chronic feelings of emptiness and have a higher rate of

suicidal behavior than average. In the relational sphere, which is arguably the most affected with borderline

personality disorder, there is a tendency to form relationships quickly and intensely. Because of paradoxical

instability (Sperry, 1995), a fluctuation between clinging/idealization and devaluation/abandonment terror

instances; relationships are emotionally volatile and often explosive. These individuals seem to shift back and

forth from hope to despair, blaming others for internal turmoil and experiencing a sense of lack of control of both

intrapsychic states and outside circumstances. A sensitivity to rejection is so intense that even a slight stressor can

lead to abandonment depression; being alone and frustration are scarcely tolerated, and social adaptiveness is

superficial. There is a marked external locus of control and difficulty learning from past experience. During times

of perceived intense stress, manifestations of paranoid ideation, dissociation, and micro-psychotic episodes may

be present.

Behaviorally, borderlines are prone to dramatic or self-harming gestures, including suicide attempts and

self-damaging behavior (addictions to substances, sex, food, etc., as well as provocation of conflict, risk-taking,

and self-injury). Having difficulty with self-soothing and stability, irregularities in the sleep wake cycle

common. It has been argued that they have underdeveloped evocative memory so that they have trouble

recalling images and feeling—states to soothe them during turmoil (Sperry, 1995), leading to hyperbolic

reactions characterized by a loss of emotional control and outward projection of rage and despair.

Borderline personality disorder is associated with an inflexible, impulsive cognitive style with rigid

abstractions (Sperry, 1995), leading patients to view others in an idealized yet dichotomous manner (all good or

all bad) depending on internal interpretations of external circumstances. As is typical with personality disorders,

there is no healthy integrated sense of self. People with BPD have a diffused sense of identity and experience a

blurring of lines between inner states and traits and other people’s feelings and intentions. A fragmentation of

self leads to confusion about boundaries, preferences, and self-directedness.

Antisocial Personality Disorder

An individual with Antisocial Personality Disorder usually exhibits an early-onset, pervasive pattern of

lack of regard for rules and well-being of others. Instead, they are driven by self-gratification fueled by a sense

of superiority, which often amounts to predatory behavior. There is a remarkable lack of capacity for remorse,

real intimate bonding or true empathy. The person may indeed have a cognitive capacity to understand what

others are feeling, but in APD this is known as “cold empathy” because it is not accompanied by appropriate

emotions, but rather used as material for more effective manipulation of people and situations. To these

individuals, life is a game, they are masters above the rules, and others are means to an end- vulnerable, weak,

and justifiably prey. An antisocial personality disordered individual operates in what has been termed as a

presocialized emotional world, wherein feelings are experienced in relation to the self but not to others and


309

capacity to experience feeling states like reciprocal pleasure, gratitude, empathy, sympathy, affection, guilt, or

remorse that require whole object relations. Emotional life is dominated by feelings of anger, sensitivities to

shame or humiliation, envy, boredom, contempt, exhilaration, and pleasure through dominance (sadism)

(Gabbard, 2014). Clearly there are different gradients of severity, but at the core, this is the foundation of the

antisocial personality.

From a behavioral standpoint, people with APD tend to be impulsive, irritable, and aggressive—though

this is sometimes hidden beneath a mask of self-serving self-control and moderated by the need for

manipulation, which sometimes requires long-term planning. There is often a history of rule-breaking,

unwillingness to honor commitments. They often exhibit thrill-seeking and competitive behavior, with a

reckless disregard for safety and for the needs of others. Skilled liars, they are chronically deceitful and distrust

others. Though they typically exhibit remarkable charm, their relationships tend to be superficial because they

are not capable of emotional intimacy and eschew commitment and reciprocity.

Cognitively, people with APD tend to be externally oriented and inflexible. They tend to be intelligent and

skilled at reading social cues, people, and situations. However, their contempts of rules and authority, combined

with a deep-seated sense of entitlement, allow them to rationalize and justify their aggressive and/or

manipulative behavior.

From an emotional standpoint, their feelings could be described as shallow; a certain emotional “register”

(warmth, tenderness, compassion, genuine love) is associated with weakness and kept at bay. The capacity for

tolerating frustration and boredom is remarkably low. Guilt and shame are not part of their emotional

experience.

An antisocial personality style shares some behavioral and emotional characteristics with APD, but it is

certainly less malevolent and extreme in its manifestations. Like all personality continuums, at one end of the

spectrum there are traits and tendencies mitigated by some self-regulatory or moderating factors; at the other, a

deeply pathological organization of personality which pervades behavior, relationships, and emotional

processing. For example, someone with an antisocial personality style may tend to live in the present and

seldom feel guilt or regret while an individual with antisocial personality disorder may focus on instant

gratification and feel justified in exploiting others without remorse. Similarly, an antisocial personality style

can be associated with courage and boldness to the point of recklessness, but with antisocial personality

disorder this often translates into disregard for anyone’s safety, physical or emotional (Sperry, 1995).

From a relational standpoint, gaslighting is one of the hallmarks of antisocial personality disorder. In this

form of psychological abuse, false or self-serving information is presented in such a way that the target doubts

his/her own perceptions and memories. Similar to brainwashing, it can cause someone to gradually lose their

sense of self as their view of reality is consistently called into question and understandable feelings and

reactions are met with shaming and/or aggression. The target begins to feel uncertainty and unpredictability

which are the norm and retreats into a defensive stance of distress and attempts to please or contain. The more

confused and distraught the target becomes, the more the APD individual feels satisfaction and pleasure.

Eventually, the aggressor loses interest and begins to further devalue and, finally, discard the victim (McGregor

& McGregor, 2013). APD individuals engage in manipulative or abusive cycles repetitively and compulsively

in order to experience feelings of exhilaration and contempt (which has been termed contemptuous delight),

only fueling his or her feeling of grandiosity (Birch, 2015). There is a marked lack of compassion; remorse and

empathy are seen as vulnerability. Though there are narcissistic qualities, the APD individual sees himself as


310

superior—there is no underlying inferiority complex (as is often observed with narcissists). His stance can best

be described as predatory and self-involved to the point of malevolent grandiosity—life is a game and others

are pawns meant to entertain him or be of use to him. Beyond this core state of pernicious narcissism, sense of

self is weak: APD individuals are excellent shape-shifters and adapt to whatever behavior or attitude is

self-serving in a given situation.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissistic Personality Disorder involves a long-standing pattern of grandiosity or inflated self-image, a

constant need for admiration, and poor empathy beginning in early adulthood and expressed in multiple areas.

Deeply wrapped up in self-referential thinking, people with Narcissistic Personality disorder feel entitled and

are scarcely aware of or concerned with the feelings and perspectives of those around them. They can be prone

to interpersonally exploitative behavior. Oversensitive to criticism, they typically believe others are envious of

him/her and take on arrogant behaviors and attitudes. Their inflated sense of self causes preoccupations with

fantasies of hyperbolic success as well as a belief they deserve to associate with the best of the best and indeed

can only be understood by high-status people or institutions. At the core, a narcissist knows he or she is

special—empathy and intimacy are difficult because their sense of self is not permeable but rather fixed around

a pervasive belief in their superiority.

From a behavioral standpoint, individuals with NPD usually appear boastful, self-centered, and

domineering in conversation. They may act in a pompous or exhibitionistic manner, always seeking attention

and admiration in an arrogant or even bossy fashion, or, at times, in an eccentric, larger-than-life show of

entitlement. Their attitude can sometimes appear endearing and charming, but they can quickly become

inpatient, insensitive, and prone to disdainful rage when faced with criticism. They may exploit others

interpersonally to satisfy their own needs and feel entitled to do so in a very spontaneous manner since they are

at the center of the universe. From a schema therapy standpoint, a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder

can be seen as operating within the impaired limits domain, which includes entitlement.

Cognitively, they tend to process their experience through themes and images rather than facts (Sperry,

1995). In an effort to presence their illusions of grandeur they are willing to twist the facts and justify any

thought or belief in line with their exaggerated sense of self-importance.

Affectively, they typically behave in a nonchalant or even charmingly striking manner—unless they are

challenged or they perceive their confidence or superiority is under attack. They are likely to respond with

rageful, dramatic behavior or act like they are being victimized. Their relationships remain superficial insofar

that they never allow anyone to “get under their skin”, even by experiencing deep empathy and compassion.

Borderline Personality Disorder: Relational Dynamics and Case Study 1

Susanna (age 36) and Sam (age 42) came into my office seeking couples’ therapy following a particularly dramatic fight which ended with a demonstrative suicide attempt on Susanna’s part. Overwhelmed by years of intense, cyclical conflict, both partners declared they felt deeply attached to one another and did not want the relationship to end but felt exhausted and pessimistic about being able to change their dynamic. They explained that they went through “honeymoon “phases of total symbiosis, doing everything together and feelings “like one person”—then, something would happen to precipitate conflict, leading to an explosive stage in which “things that should never be said or done happen”, followed by a cooling period in which Susanna felt deep shame, insecurity and emptiness while Sam retreated into a feeling of impotence and detachment he associated with both relief and guilt.


311

After the assessment phase, it became clear that Susanna suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder. While Sam certainly had some maladaptive defenses, his sense of self appeared to be quite solid. Susanna was raised by a single mother who became involved with several different partners. Each time she and Susanna would move into the man’s home; the little girl would try to adapt to the new situation only to be uprooted again when her mother ended the relationship. Susanna found herself competing for her mother’s attention and also faced unpleasant dynamics (i.e., one stepfather figure was unreliable and emotionally absent, leading Susanna’s mother to be preoccupied, other-directed, and rely on her young daughter for comfort) and traumatic events (another stepfather figure sexually abused her from age ten to thirteen). During adolescence, Susanna developed self-injurious behavior (cutting) and bulimia. By age 25, she had attempted suicide (by ingesting excess medication) three times. In the current relationship, lasting for five years, she and Sam lived together and worked together (she was an administrative assistant at his large warehouse company). They spent a great deal of time together, though Sam desired some degree of independence (going out with male friends, pursuing his hobby of running marathons, spending time with his step-sister, a very significant affective figure for him). Susanna, on the other hand, became irrationally fearful and angry whenever Sam turned his attention to anything other than their relationship. This inevitably led to fights which usually took on the form of jealous raging and demonstrative self-injurious behavior on Susanna’s part (getting drunk and staying out all night, cutting, blaming, raging, breaking objects, threatening suicide). In the cooling period, however, Susanna was plagued by shame and emptiness, and retreated into a state of subjugation associated with further relational turmoil. For example, Susanna (who presents as flirtatious and sexually provocative) normally interacts with male co-workers in a way that makes her feel powerful (“I can get them to do anything, I know how to play my cards”), but when she is experiencing shame and emptiness (after fighting with Sam), she experiences them as sexually threatening, yet is unable to contain unwanted behaviors by said co-workers (compliments, physical proximity) and also unable to ask for Sam’s Support. Sam experiences this as lack of trust and he minimizes her experiences. The most recent fight, which precipitated their request for therapy, occurred when Susanna became rageful and jealous while Sam was helping to plan her step-sister’s wedding. It culminated with Susanna accusing Sam of having sex with his own step-sister. Sam’s reaction this time was uncharacteristically intense: he wrote her an email saying he could not go on this way, that she was “crazy” and that he was thinking about how much happier he would be on his own. After directing her rage and despair at Sam, Susanna ingested a large quantity of pills and sent a picture to Sam (who was temporarily staying at his mother’s house for the weekend) with the caption “hope you’re happy you killed me”. Sam alerted emergency services and Susanna’s life was saved, but these recent events left them both deeply shaken.

Salient Themes in Therapeutic Intervention

Susanna’s volatile reactions with Sam are a result of her fragmented sense of self and the pervasiveness of

splitting as a primitive defense. According to “object relations theory”, their minds retain good representations

separately from bad representations, creating two separated (split-off) representations of the same “other” rather

than a single cohesive whole. Therefore, instead of understanding that their experience of a loved one has

changed, they instead believe the person has changed and feel intensely threatened and/or hurt by perceived

injury or disinterest. This polarized view of self and others is associated with extremes of perception (Hoermann,

Zupanick, & Dombeck, 2018). Therefore, facilitating awareness of this dynamic and fostering a more balanced

processing of perception became a therapeutic priority. For Susanna, imagery work was extremely helpful.

Mental rehearsal, anticipatory thinking, memories, and many other features of our minds entail the presence of

mental imagery. Neuroscientific research indicates that mental images—including pre-experiencing

(imagining/picturing a situation) and re-experiencing (memory) activate the same brain mechanisms as does

physical experience (imagery can be used to recall, transform, visualize, re-route, re-assess, and more).

Engaging with imagery can lead to insight, memory, and perception that is not accessible through verbal routes

alone. An added benefit is that the client is encouraged to become open to imagination, flexibility, expression,

and mentalization. This can even be modeled through language, by asking questions like “how do you picture

that?”, “where would you say you feel that in your body?”, “if that were some sort of creature or alien, what

would it look like?” (referred to emotion or other abstraction). Susanna was able to form a mental map which


312

helped her navigate the splitting reaction. Together with Sam, she formed a core mental image she could

associate with what, through couples processing, they could agree represented their core commitment and

affection for one another. The image was one of the two of them rowing the same boat on a serene lake.

Susanna practiced going back to this image and associating it with self-soothing during times of irrational fear

that Sam was an enemy determined to abandon or destroy her. Next, she pictured her primordial fear and rage

(which emerged when she felt threatened with abandonment or distancing)—she was able to identify it as thick

black smoke that blinded her and made it difficult to breathe. Over time, she became skilled at mentally

circumscribing this black cloud in a confined space in her solar plexus and not diffused everywhere inside and

outside herself (as she had previously pictured it). Cognitively understanding splitting, combined with

mastering these images, allowed her to face her overwhelming reactions as something she could have an effect

on, instead of feeling overtaken by an external locus of control and deep despair.

Schemas are psychological constructs largely outside of conscious awareness that underlie our beliefs,

identity, and emotional lenses. They are formed in childhood and adolescence and are repeatedly activated

throughout the lifetime in a variety of relational and intrapsychic settings (including memories and anticipatory

thinking). Maladaptive schemas can also be seen as self-defeating affective, behavioral and relational patterns

sparked by deep-seated psychological wounds (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2006). When maladaptive

schemas are activated, a person experiences an intense emotional, cognitive, and behavioral response known as

a mode (Farrett et al., 2014). Modes are specific clusters of cognitions, feelings, and behaviors characterized by

intense emotional arousal that are activated by internal stimuli (memories, anticipatory thinking) or external

stimuli (interpersonal interactions, observed reality) and filtered through one’s encoded schemas. Maladaptive

coping modes are survival responses to trauma or unmet needs, including flight, fight, and freeze responses.

They activate in connection with the person’s schemas and incorporate his/her defenses. For example, Susanna

often activated an abandonment/instability schema combined with a vulnerability to harm schema in a

misguided unconscious effort to protect the vulnerable child from loss, uncertainty, and pain.

When maladaptive schemas are activated, a person experiences an intense emotional, cognitive, and

behavioral response known as a mode. Modes are specific clusters of cognitions, feelings, and behaviors

characterized by intense emotional arousal that are activated by internal stimuli (memories, anticipatory

thinking) or external stimuli (interpersonal interactions, observed reality) and filtered through one’s encoded

schemas.

Susanna’s early experiences caused her to internalize multiple dysfunctional parent and inner child modes,

so it was important to address her core unmet needs and help her become conscious of how her interactions

with others triggered deep reactions that were outside the scope of the here and now.


313

Table 2

Client’s Modes and Associated Features (Susanna) Mode type Mode Root Key associated feelings/features

Innate child Vulnerable child

Unmet attachment needs (incl. safety, secure base, nurturance, attention, protection, acceptance, empathy, love)

Sadness, loneliness, anxiety, overwhelming pain and fear. Can spill into maladaptive coping modes

Innate child Angry/Impulsive child Unmet needs for guidance, validation of feelings and needs, freedom to express self and feelings

Venting, anger, explosive behavior, “tantrum” like acting out

Dysfunctional parent Avoidant protector Caregiver has authority but is emotionally unavailable, distant, or unreasonable

Pushes others away, lacks spontaneity, breaks connections, withdraws, isolates, and avoids

Dysfunctional parent Compliant surrenderer Caregiver is ineffective, damaged, weak, or traumatized

Surrenders to all schemas, acting as if true. E.g.: if schema is self-sacrificing, gives up own needs; if it is defectiveness/shame, accepts self as failure and does not try

Sources: Farrell et al., 2014.

From a schema therapy standpoint, a person with borderline personality disorder can be seen as operating

within the impaired autonomy and performance domain, which includes various schemas that are activated

within the relational dyad. The therapist facilitates understanding of how each partner’s dynamics and triggers

interact, especially in the domains of autonomy/dependence continuum, emotional regulation issues, “permitted”

vs. “taboo” behaviors and emotions, and coping styles/ basic needs.

Impaired Autonomy and Performance Domain

Table 3

Client’s Schemas and Corresponding Maladaptive Beliefs and Relational Dynamics (Susanna)

Schema (Susanna) Maladaptive belief (Susanna)

Relational dynamic

Dependence/incompetence I am unable to handle things without help

Susanna is demanding, nagging, clinging—Sam feels suffocated, resentful.

Failure to achieve I am a loser now and will always fail

Susanna is periodically paralyzed by self-doubt and a sense of emptiness. Sam feels helpless and angry when rationalizing with her does no good.

Subjugation I must comply with others or face adverse consequences

At work, Susanna is unable to contain unwanted behavior of co-workers but also unable to ask for Sam’s Support. Sam experiences this as lack of trust and he minimizes her experiences.

Abandonment/instability Sam will leave me and I will be destroyed irreversibly

Susanna is irrationally jealous, suspicious accusatory, and fearful whenever Sam takes any space from the relationship. She reacts volatily and dramatically. Sam alternates between angry defensiveness and anxiety/feelings of suffocation/non-verbalized resentment.

Enmeshment I must constantly be at the forefront of Sam’s life or this relationship is doomed

Susanna clings to Sam and sabotages his independent initiatives and relationships. Sam begins to be deceitful and, over time, feels helpless and guilty as well as resentful.

Vulnerability to harm Terrible things are going tohappen no matter what I do

Susanna projects her deep anxiety onto most situations, becoming dramatic and hyperbolic—expecting Sam to contain her emotions and absorb them. Sam first expends energy to accommodate/reassure her; eventually he retreats into a self-induced indifference he also feels guilty about (leading to reduction of emotional intimacy).

This conceptualization helped us focus on and address specific dynamics which led to conflict in the dyad.


314

Splitting and loss of control were addressed so that dramatic conflict in the pair bond was reduced.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Relational Dynamics and Case Study 2

Jane (age 25) initially came into therapy stating she had a “food addiction” and was feeling depressed. Having recently graduated from university, she had not yet found a job was living with her mother Sissy (age 51). Jane complained of feeling worthless, lonely, unable to find direction. She had over-achieved academically and felt she was now a “failure” in her current situation. She described feeling guilty about having disappointed her mother, who was a classical pianist of some success. I conducted a full assessment focusing on attachment and schemas. At third session, without forewarning, Jane arrived with her mother, insisting she could “help her explain”. Sissy announced “this is so hard for me. I worked so hard and now having a daughter like this—how do you think I feel?” When I inquired about what she meant, she looked at Jane and quipped “well, like a hog in heels!” Jane did not seem angered by this; rather, she began to justify how she was getting help for being “weak with food”. It became clear through therapeutic work that Sissy had begun exhibiting a pattern of grandiosity and self-referential thinking early in life. Her daughter was viewed as a failed extension of herself—she verbally expressed concern and distress for Jane’s situation, but perceived everything in a self-referential manner. There was a great deal of underlying anger directed at Jane; her daughter’s academic achievements were underplayed and attention focused on how she “made her look”. Sissy reported Jane had been a “wonderful child” but had “lost her way”. Early on, Jane had attuned herself to her mother’s overwhelming needs, introjecting her anxiety and doing everything in her power to please and unburden her. As she grew, however, her dawning autonomy caused Sissy to become increasingly verbally abusive and guilt-inducing, whilst projecting a grandiose, almost heroic image of herself unto the outside world. Jane’s emotional needs were not met—indeed, she was routinely shamed for them and made to feel they caused her mother suffering, exhaustion and embarrassment. Her hurtful behavior was usually turned around in a way that made her appear victimized—for example, she would undermine or insult Jane and say “sorry you’re so sensitive” or “sorry you don’t appreciate having an honest mother, after all I’ve done for you”. I was able to eventually direct Sissy to a separate therapist (she declined) and continue work with Jane. Schema therapy helped her identify her internalized working models, her damaged sense of self, and her maladaptive coping styles. She was able to recognize the affects her relationship with her narcissistic mother had on her and begin working in earnest on herself as a separate individual deserving of her own perceptions, desires and needs.


Just as individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder, narcissists are prone to gaslighting. In their case,

however, manipulation for pleasure is not the underlying motivation; rather, gaslighting becomes instrumental

to maintaining a grandiose view of self. Because they are so deeply self-centered, rather than taking the

perspectives and needs of others into consideration, they will endeavor to conform the perceptions of loved

ones to their own views. Thus, people in close contacts with a narcissist may begin to doubt their own sense of

reality and unconsciously retreat into a space where their needs and perceptions are secondary (or even

irrelevant) compared to the narcissist’s. Jane was exhibiting signs of long-standing traumatic bonding with her

mother. We drew from a combination of cognitive restructuring and schema work to help her sort her own

identity, needs, and wishes from her narcissistic mother’s, repairing her capacity for independently interpreting

inner and outer states without feeling guilt and shame for doing so without looking at the world through her

mother’s emotional lens.

Insecure avoidant attachment develops when a caregiver is physically and emotionally unresponsive the

child’s needs. This is typically seen in relationship dyads marked by neglect. The child learns that he/she has no

power to influence the external world or to engage others and that expressing his/her needs is a pointless,

frustrating exercise. These children may become passive, depressed, and even developmentally delayed. They

learn that acknowledging or displaying distress may lead to punishment, rejection, or disappointment and

become accustomed to self-soothing/self-nurturing behaviors which can sometimes translate into proneness to


315

maladaptive or addiction-based behaviors. These children may exhibit a world view of “pseudo independence”

wherein they consciously believe they are self-reliant but are in fact deeply preoccupied with unmet needs and

a sense of lack of control. Jane was able to understand how her attachment to Sissy had affected her sense of

self; she formulated goals and worked on healthier self-soothing (instead of overeating) and finding situations

and relationships that maximized her potential/inner resources instead of fueling her sense of powerlessness and

intrinsic defectiveness.

Table 4

Client’s Modes and Associated Features (Jane) Mode type Mode Root Key associated feelings/features

Dysfunctional parent Demanding parent Unrealistic demands and standards, disregard for child’s individual wishes and needs, projection

Sets exceedingly high expectations for self, pressures self, has a harsh, negative, shame-based stance towards self, dissatisfied, fears failure

Innate child Vulnerable child

Unmet attachment needs (incl. safety, secure base, nurturance, attention, protection, acceptance, empathy, love)

Sadness, loneliness, anxiety, overwhelming pain and fear. Can spill into maladaptive coping modes and addiction

From a schema standpoint, Jane took stock of her internalized dysfunctional parent and vulnerable child

and we worked on repairing these inner working models by nurturing a healthy adult mode characterized by

independence, self-awareness, boundaries, and permission to develop intimate relationships.

Antisocial Personality Disorder: Relational Dynamics and Case Study 3

James (age 19) was court mandated to go into therapy as part of a juvenile rehabilitation program he had started at age 17. Because he was a minor at the time he committed his crimes and stood trial for them, the legal system allowed him an opportunity to keep a clean record by following a 24 month program which included permanence in a monitored group home, psychological care, volunteering, attending a skill-building course in screen printing and regular checkups by social services. Once he turned 18, he was able to leave the group home and return to his parents’ home while still continuing to follow the rest of the program. The court forwarded his file, which contained his history and official statements made by his parents, cousin, ex teachers at various points in time. James had been a hyperactive child, boisterous and both mischievous and charming. By age 8, however, he began getting into fights in school and by 12 he had been caught shoplifting several times. Around this time he also was involved in an incident with two older kids that caused alarm for his parents and the whole town: they hung a dog on the edge of a nearby pine forest. By age 14, James had developed a steady pattern of bullying, fighting and stealing. At home, he refused to follow rules and often became enraged or leave without permission and stay out the whole night. Although he was highly intelligent, his school attendance began to suffer as he often skipped school and hung around older kids, smoking, drinking and breaking into cars to steal whatever they could find. He also stole from the family home, his grandmother’s house (he took jewelry with sentimental value and pawned it) and his school. At home, he would often behave in a spiteful, cruel manner. He was particularly inclined to bully his younger sister, four years his junior. He routinely broke her belongings and filmed her reaction on his cell phone. On one occasion, he twisted her arm behind her and told her to play a game to see how long she could last without screaming—this actually caused the little girl to fracture her wrist. He would constantly play “games” meant to elicit shock, anger, or discomfort in his immediate family. For example, pour vinegar or salt in whatever his mother was cooking to render it inedible and then say he was “just kidding”. He taunted his father about having had a mild heart attack, calling him “half assed”. At age 17, he and an older friend stole a minivan, broke into their school and stole several computers, and went driving and drinking until they caused a hit-and-run accident that nearly cost a young couple their lives. After this spree, he was arrested and mandated to undergo the 24 month program. After leaving the group home and returning to his parents’, James seemed to be keeping a low profile. During intake, he struck me as well-spoken, extroverted and relaxed. He stated he was glad to be home and enjoying more freedom, insisting he felt happy and “just bored”. He attempted to ask me several questions and complimented me on my pendant, my desk lamp, my “friendliness”. After


316

several sessions, we began making references to his juvenile record and early experiences. James’ demeanor changed. While discussing his present he distanced himself from any rageful or ill-spirited feelings; when answering questions about his past, he would first express he “wasn’t like that anymore” and “used to be immature”. After this caveat, he would become more soft-spoken, almost seductive as he recounted more and more incidents, in increasing detail and unsolicited precision. It was soon evident that he took great pleasure in discussing his criminal acts, and especially the reactions (shock, pain, shame, fear) he got from his “games” with people. As I attempted to set limits and pointed out that he seemed to be quite invested in trying to shock others—perhaps myself included, he became genuinely angry. Gone were the compliments and smiles—now I was “dumb” for “thinking I could know what he thought”. Over time, James often made comments about me “putting words in his mouth”, denied things he had stated only minutes early, and attempted to ask me personal questions. When I asked him questions or made observations he felt threatened by, he would typically fall silent for several seconds and then make some sort of cryptic statement such as “oh, sorry, I was just thinking about how easy it is to cut the breaks on someone’s car” or shocking proclamation “I think my little sister is a little slut”. It was not possible to engage him in any meaningful schema work, as he alternatively indulged or mocked anything that was said. We started focusing on basic cognitive behavioral techniques after he agreed that “thinking more sharply” could be of interest to him. He insisted every example or concept specifically tie back to how he could outsmart or “convince” others to do what he wanted. My attempts at re-directing work towards his own inner mechanisms and maladaptive thinking were met with resistance. He seemed to be most comfortable making statements that he expected me to disapprove or limit. It was no longer just about past actions; he would tell me he was cheating on his girlfriend with a number of girls; he discussed having fake profiles on social media to “make things interesting” and described pitting people against each other or framing acquaintances for cheating. He once told me he “missed his chance to bang Emma” (his sister) when he was still a minor. When he failed to elicit the desired reactions in me, he would devalue me and attempt to discuss my personal life. Therapy was discontinued when he was arrested—this time as an adult—after being accused of sexually and physically assaulting a young woman in his parents’ neighborhood.


The therapy relationship was exemplary of Antisocial Personality Disorder dynamics—James was eager to

shock, outsmart, and domineer. He used manipulative and gaslighting tactics meant to make me question my

memory and understanding of his statements. When challenged, there were displays of covert aggression

(making dramatic, vaguely menacing statements) and attempts to divert attention through shocking remarks.

Both his stories, told in increasing, unsolicited detail, and his cognitive and emotional demeanor made it quite

plain that he derived pleasure and satisfaction in trying to elicit intense, distressing emotions in others (fear,

shock, shame, pain). James displayed remarkable resistance to personal insight, insisting in trying to twist any

input meant to modify or question his own maladaptive behavior into nothing more than information he could

master in order to outsmart other people. His well-spoken intelligence was striking and charming, and, at first ,

he behaved in a complimentary, idealizing manner. As he tested my reaction to his increasingly psychological

and physically violent stories, I confronted him with my observation that he seemed to be quite invested in

trying to shock others—perhaps myself included. He became genuinely angry and antagonistic. Gone were the

compliments and smiles—now I was “dumb” for “thinking I could know what he thought”. From then on, his

resistance to alliance and empathy was expressed through contempt, attempts at baiting and denying, and

vilification of any vulnerability.

Gabbard (2014) argues that identification is most apparent in treatment when the psychopathic patient

attributes certain negative characteristics to the clinician and then attempts to control the clinician, perhaps

through overt or covert intimidation. James endeavored to do this by making ominous, covert threats and by

attempting to direct attention towards my personal life and character. The therapeutic relational dynamic

centered around the theme of control.


317

Conclusion

Disordered personality functioning profoundly affects areas of identity, self-direction empathy, and

intimacy. Because personality disorders are, by definition, pervasive and influence perception, behavior,

thinking, and emotional processing, they inevitably have a profound effect on the person’s close relationships.

This work focuses on three Cluster B personality disorders (Borderline, Narcissistic, and Antisocial Personality

Disorder), specifically illustrating how relational dysfunction manifests in each condition.

This work examines aspects of Borderline, Antisocial, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, discussing

themes of self-image and relational dynamics. Case Study 1 presented a case of a couple with the female

partner suffering from borderline personality disorder. Relational dynamics characterized by her maladaptive

schemas and coping mechanisms were unstable, volatile, and dramatic. There was a cyclical dynamic of

symbiotic demand → jealous rage at any perceived threat → explosive conflict with self-harm by Susanna →

cooling phase marked by shame, emptiness (hers) and distancing inducing guilt/relief (his) → new perceived

threat of abandonment. Through attachment and schema work, splitting and loss of control were addressed so

that dramatic conflict in the pair bond was reduced.

Case Study 2 involved a young woman with a narcissistic mother. The daughter complained of food

addiction, depression, and feelings of worthlessness; her narcissistic mother attempted to overtake the

therapeutic process. It was evident that the young woman’s relational experience with her entitled, grandiose,

shaming, gaslighting parent had a profound effect on her sense of self and efficacy. Schema work helped her

identify and process internalized working models of vulnerable child and dysfunctional parent and she was able

to move towards emotional independence.

Case Study 3 described a young man exhibiting antisocial personality disorder. He had a long history of

dishonest, violent and reckless behavior, and a pervasive attraction for causing distressing feeling-states in

others. He was court-ordered to be in therapy, and the therapeutic relationship became quite exemplary of the

APD relational dynamic. He played out a psychopathic pattern: charming/seducing → gaslighting/controlling

→ devaluing, resisted personal insight, and sought pleasure in efforts to elicit shock and distress. His

acceptance of intervention was limited to cognitive notions he felt he could master and later use to outsmart

others; attempts at empathic alliance were met with contempt and baiting/denying; interventions apt to

modify/question his maladaptive behavior led to covert aggression.

Clearly, interpersonal dynamics are profoundly affected by disordered personality organization. An

analysis of and intervention upon the relational sphere these individuals operate in can be therapeutically

beneficial and conceptually illuminating.

References Birch, A. (2015). Psychopaths and love. Online edition consulted via Kindle. Esbec, E., & Echeburúa, E. (2015). The hybrid model for the classification of personality disorders in DSM-5: A critical analysis.

Psiquiatr, 43(5), 177-186. Gabbard, G. O. (2014). Gabbard’s treatments of psychiatric disorders (5th ed.). M. D. Gabbard, (Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Amer

Psychiatric Pub. Hoermann, S., Zupanick, C. E., & Dombeck, M. (2018). The dimension of personality organization. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions Kernberg, O. F. (2001). Borderline personality disorder: A psychostructural nosology. In International encyclopedia of the social

& behavioral sciences (pp. 1285-1290). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.


318

McGregor, J., & McGregor, T. (2013). The empathy trap: Understanding antisocial personalities. London: SPCK: Sheldon Press. Oldham, J. (2015). The alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. World Psychiatry, 14(2), 234-236. Sperry, L. (1995). Handbook of diagnosis and treatment of the DSM-IV personality disorders. Levittown, PA: Brunner/Matzel. Thomas, K., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R., Wright, A., & Hopwood, J. (3 September 2012). The convergent structure of DSM-5

personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191112457589 Trull, T., & Widiger, T. (2013). Dimensional models of personality: The five-factor model and the DSM-5. Dialogues

ClinNeurosci, 15(2), 135-146. Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2006). Schema Therapy: a Practitioner’s Guide. New York, NY: The Guilford

Press.


Saving Resources for Future Demands―The Role of Instruction,

Cognitive Load and Metacognition

Agnieszka Fanslau, Mirosław Brejwo, Hanna Brycz

University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland

Two studies test the hypothesis of conserving resources while performing depleting physical tasks and the

modifying role of metacognitive self (MCS). A total of 216 undergraduate students performed two types of

physical tasks (a body support on forearms―the first experiment; and a cold water test―the second experiment) in

anticipation vs. no anticipation of the future task conditions. Among individuals with high-MCS much weaker

persistence could be observed than among those with low-MCS. These results support theories of adaptive goal

disengagement suggesting that how individuals apply their resources may stem from other reasons than ego

depletion.

Keywords: conserving resources, ego depletion, metacognitive self, biases

Self-Control

Self-regulation revolves around establishing and fulfilling human goals that give meaning to life. The most

important element for effective self-regulation is self-control. It allows people to control impulses, and alter

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Finally, to resist temptations that may pose a threat to important goals. It

relies mostly on controlled processes, thanks to which individuals regulate urges, sustain attention, or follow

rules.

Series of studies that have been conducted over two decades demonstrated the fact that the ability to

self-control derives from a source comparable to a kind of strength rather than skill or knowledge (Baumeister,

Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000).

Therefore, it is prone to exhaustion. In other words, the source of self-control is limited in the sense that

drawing from it causes a period of limited performance until it regenerates, as does the strength of the muscle

used. A limited resource from which every act of self-control draws becomes depleted through use (Baumeister

et al., 2007). This phenomenon is called ego depletion. The self’s resources become drained presumably

because the first act of self-control depletes some common resources that are needed to perform better at the

second act of self-control. Ego depletion has been linked to multiple behavioral problems, including overeating

(Vohs & Heatherton, 2000), ineffective self-presentation (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005), intellectual

underachievement (Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003), or impulsive overspending (Vohs & Faber, 2007).

Acknowledgement: The research was financed by National Science Centre grant 2013/11/B/HS6/01463 awarded to Hanna Brycz.

Agnieszka Fanslau, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Social Science Department, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland. Mirosław Brejwo, MA, Ph.D. Student, Social Science Department, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland. Hanna Brycz, Ph.D., Full Professor, Social Science Department, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D

SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS

320

What is more, every act of self-control can be seemingly unrelated to each other.

For instance, regulating one’s emotions can reduce performance on subsequent tasks, such as squeezing a

handgrip exerciser, sustaining mental representations in working memory, or naming the colour of printed

words in a Stroop task (Johns, Inzlicht, & Schmader, 2008; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Schmeichel,

2007).

However, certain characteristics of an individual or group of people may provide greater sensitivity on the

one hand, or resistance on the other hand, to the effects of ego depletion. For example, high trait self-control

demonstrates a protective effect on behavior post-depletion (Dvorak & Simons, 2009). Moreover, individuals

high on conscientiousness, as well as facet level self-discipline and deliberation make less dysregulated choices

after being depleted (Maples-Keller, Berke, Miller, & vanDellen, 2016).

Subjective perceptions of resource depletion and personal or lay beliefs about willpower may predict

performance patterns in the sequential tasks as well in such a way that believing that willpower is unlimited can

eliminate the effect (Jobm Dweck, & Walton, 2010). Moreover, the degree to which individuals view specific

self-regulatory challenges as effortful has been shown to moderate the effect of ego depletion such that only

individuals who report needing to use effort to engage in self-control demonstrate behavioral disinhibition

(vanDellen, Hoyle, & Miller, 2012). Individual differences in self-monitoring, mood, and self-affirmation can

mitigate against poorer self-control either (Alberts, Martijn, & de Vries, 2011; Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, &

Muraven, 2007; Schmeichel & Vohs, 2009).

Saving Resources

Because of the crucial but limited nature of self-control, people must be reasonable in managing it (as with

other limited resources) (Hobfoll, 2002). The way to do this can be saving resources for future demands, which

sometimes means that people perform poorly at the current task. In other words, they may be motivated to

conserve self-control resources, and the motivation to save these resources can be increased by their loss in the

past, as well as by the anticipated high requirements of future tasks (Muraven, Shmueli, & Burkley, 2006). It is

not true, therefore, that any deficiency in self-control indicates a failure in self-regulation―self-control may fail

not because resources have been exerted, but because the individual is more interested in using them in the

future (for more important tasks). Hence, it appears that the reason self-control fails, especially after the

previous exertion of self-control, is because people become more unwilling (they simply choose not to regulate

themselves), and not less able, to exert self-control. This is a certain paradox of self-regulation: Human

foresight and a desire to use self-control can lead to its breakdown, at least in some situations. For example,

when participants in a study worked hard, because they had been asked to do so, they may not feel like working

very hard afterwards. It can be due to the belief that they were engaged enough in the study and deserved a

break. Another way to think of this is that after engaging in an initial act of self-control, people feel justified in

slacking off (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002). Moreover, the following task itself can be perceived as too effortful,

energy consuming, or boring to exert too much strength on it―that may reflect the notion that initial effort

rather demotivates people from continuing and expending further effort.

Some personality traits or physical condition may moderate the effect of ego depletion as well. Special

abilities like the need for cognitive closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), or metacognition, provide individual

differences to internal or external motivation to pursuit the given task at hand. The role of kind of motivation

together with metacognitive processes may alter, attenuate, or reverse ego depletion phenomena.


321

Metacognition

Studies on the capability to gain conscious insight into one’s thinking processes are a domain of

psychology and do not have a very long history (Flavell, 1979: “cognition of one’s cognition”; Efklides, 2008:

metacognitive experiences; Koriat, 2000: metamemory). Speculations on metacognition indicate its

considerable importance in decision-making metaability, forming and changing attitudes, achieving of

long-term objectives (See, Petty, & Fabrigar, 2008). The specific insight into one’s own behavior and bias plays

an exceptional role. To know how each psychological bias demonstrated in the literature is displayed in one’s

behavior is the criterion of perceiving oneself accurately. For example, a bias called the illusion of control

(Langer, 1975) consists in a deceptive confidence that our influence on the often random real-life events (such

as winning a lottery) is greater than it actually is. Every bias is in fact a certain statistical generalization. It is

known, however, that most of people manifest that tendency. When a group large enough is asked to assess

whether the given tendencies are or are not expressed in their behaviors, one can expect to find individuals

characterized by higher and lower accuracy of perceiving themselves in reference to the complex

self-knowledge. The higher accuracy is probably related with the earlier conscious perception and the

understanding of one’s behaviors, with seeking sensible reasons for these behaviors and with building a kind of

metaknowledge concerning the manifested biases. The effect of the process described requires earlier

reinterpretation and self-awareness (Gazzaniga, 2011). It is the knowledge about one’s knowledge on the

subject of biases in one’s own behavior.

Thus, in this study, we focus on a construct called “metacognitive self” (MCS), which reflects

self-awareness of biases. Metacognitive self is rooted in intrinsic motivation and a reflective, deliberate way of

thinking about oneself (Bar-Tal, Brycz, Dolinska, & Dolinski, 2017). High-MCS individuals (as compared with

low-MCS individuals) are more often motivated to use self-diagnostic information, which boosts

self-knowledge and psychological self-improvement (Brycz, Wyszomirska-Góra, Bar-Tal, & Wisniewski, 2014;

Brycz, Wyszomirska-Góra, Konarski, & Wojciszke, 2018). Moreover, experimental studies (Brycz &

Karasiewicz, 2011) have indicated that high-MCS individuals are more intrinsically motivated to work under

conditions of overload have a higher need for achievement and are more accepting of values, such as

self-directedness and achievement.

Metacognitive self also includes an emotional aspect. It is strongly and positively correlated with seeking

future goal-oriented self-experiences, which is crucial for emotion regulation (Brejwo, Brycz, & Imach, 2018).

Besides, MCS is positively correlated with a number of other similar constructs, such as Ghorbani, Watson, and

Hargis’s (2008) self-regulatory metacognition, and Beer and Moneta’s (2010) positive metacognitions construct.

Further studies have revealed negative correlations between the MCSQ-21 and MCQ-30 (Wells &

Cartwright-Hatton, 2004). The MCQ-30 measures maladaptive metacognitions, such as positive beliefs about

worry, a strong tendency for rumination, and other thoughts associated with depression and various psychiatric

disorders. Research has shown that the MCS plays an adaptive role, and is negatively correlated with

rumination and psychiatric disorders (Brycz, Konarski, Kleka, & Wright, 2019). These authors also found that

the higher the MCS is, the more conscious, agreeable, and emotionally stable the individual appears to be. Thus,

the MCS might be understood as the human ability to perceive the functioning of psychological rules, biases,

illusions, and is correlated with positive dispositions and emotions.

The goal of the two experiments presented beneath was to investigate the role of instruction (to save


322

resources vs. no instruction), ego depletion, and metacognitive self for the motivation to persist during physical

activities.

Study One

Predictions

Some research shows that high-MCS participants work more sturdily than low-MCS individuals (Brycz &

Karasiewicz, 2011). But latest studies pointed out the crucial role of autonomous motivation among high (but

not low) MCS participants (Brejwo et al., 2018). We predict that the following study may strengthen the thesis

about the need for autonomy in performing tasks successfully among them.

Participants and Procedure

A number of 115 participants (66 women) took part in the Study One. All of them were undergraduate

students of various courses of study between 18 and 28 years of age (M = 20.95; SD = 1.793). After giving

consent to participate in the study and a statement on the absence of health contraindications, they filled in the

short version of MCS questionnaire (MCS-24; Brycz & Konarski, 2016). Then, they took part in a group

warm-up led by physical education teachers. After that they were randomly assigned to either the experimental

or control conditions. They worked individually; each of the participants was asked to perform the exercise of

body support on the forearms for as long as possible. The measurement was made with an accuracy of one

second. Participants in the experimental group were additionally told (before they begun the exercise) that they

would take another test of performance (namely they would be asked to repeat the physical exercise). Therefore,

they anticipated the second trial. After completing the exercise participants from both the experimental and

control groups learned their times of performance (at this point, participants from the control group learned that

they would make a second attempt as well). After 30 seconds from the end of the first attempt, they began the

second one. Again, the measurement was made with an accuracy of one second. After that, participants were

thanked and debriefed. No one reported awareness of the conservation hypothesis.

Results

Analysis of homogeneity of variance with the Levene test for individual variables indicated no

significance, hence the parametric measurement was initially used. The results of linear regression analysis do

not indicate the presence of a strong effect of resource conservation, the impact of MCS on expended effort, or

the impact of interaction of explanatory variables (MCS × group) on resource conservation.

However, simple effects between the means measured by the t-test for dependent measurements (the same

people performed the first and second physical tasks) implemented using the bootstrap method with stratified

sampling prove, that low-MCS participants, in general, put more effort into completing the first and second

tasks (the result of the first trial―[minus] the result of the second trial M = 17.82) than high-MCS participants

(the result of the first trial―[minus] the result of the second trial M = 14.46), t = 4. 38, p < 0.001.

What is important, in the case of low-MCS subjects, the second task was performed significantly worse

than the first task (ego depletion)―the experimental group: M1stmeasure = 83.00 vs. M2ndmeasure = 65.00, t = 2.775,

p = 0.01; the control group: M1stmeasure = 96.00 vs. M2ndmeasure = 76.00, t = 2. 775, p = 0.011

In contrast, high-MCS subjects performed the second task significantly worse in the control group:

M1stmeasure = 79.65 vs. M2ndmeasure = 61.76, t = 3.302, p = 0.003, while they performed poorly both tasks in the

experimental group: M1stmeasure = 69.80 vs. M2ndmeasure = 62.00, ns. (see Figures 1 and 2).


323

Figure 1. The effect of ego depletion in relation to MSC level among participants-control group (Note: N = 62).

Figure 2. The effect of ego depletion in relation to MSC level among participants-experimental group (Note: N = 53).

Discussion

Saving resources induced by the instruction does not translate into an increase in the performance in the

second attempt in the experimental group most likely due to cognitive overload. The level of MCS modifies the

results in such a way that high-MCS participants in the experimental group perform sports tasks significantly

worse both in the first and in the second trial. In turn, low-MCS participants follow the instructions to perform

the task for as long as possible in the first attempt. And although the performance deterioration can be seen in

the second trial (the overload effect), they perform both physical tasks better than participants with high-MCS.


324

Study Two

Predictions

In line with the first study, we believe that the resource saving effect will not occur. The role of MCS

should remain the same as in the previous experiment. That is, high-MCS predisposes to a strong need for

autonomy. The motivation to follow external instructions may be higher among low-MCS (but not among high)

participants.

Participants and Procedure

A number of 101 participants (58 women) took part in the Study Two. All of them were undergraduate

students of various courses of study between 18 and 30 years of age (M = 21.49; SD = 2.023).

Students participated in the study individually. After giving consent to participate in the study and a

statement on the absence of health contraindications, they filled in the short version of MCS questionnaire

(MCS-24; Brycz & Konarski, 2016). They then were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control

conditions. The differences between these groups were that they received different instructions. The

experimental group learned that the task would be to keep the hand in cold water for as long as possible, and

then watch a video (described as very funny) and control their emotions while watching it (anticipated

self-control condition). The other half of the participants were instructed that the task would be to keep the

hand in cold water for as long as possible, and then watch a funny video, but without asking to inhibit their

reactions to it (anticipated non self-control conditions).

At this point, the participants were asked how much effort they expect to exert on the movie task (“How

much effort do you plan to exert on Task 3?” rated on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 = “No effort” to 10 =

“All my effort”), and how much energy that task would demand (“How much energy do you expect the last

task will require?” rated on an 11-point scale ranging from “very little” to “very much”). It was designed to

assess their perception of the future tasks.

The participants then were told to place their whole hand in cold water (4 degrees Celsius) and to keep it

still in it for as long as they could. They were also told that they should only remove their hand when they

could not bear the cold any more. Thus, participants were instructed to fight against the urge to remove the

hand. The experimenter started timing using a stopwatch the moment their hand was fully submerged and

stopped timing once the entire hand was removed from the water. The measurement was made with an

accuracy of one second. The water temperature was maintained using a mixture of ice and water. The room

temperature was maintained at 24 degrees.

After the task, they were asked whether they were trying to conserve strength for the final task (“How

much were you trying to conserve your energy for the third task?” rated on an 11-point scale ranging from “not

at all” to “very much”). They were also asked about their performance on the cold water task (“How much

effort did you exert to keep your hand in the water?” rated on an 11-point scale ranging from “no effort” to “all

my effort”).

After the cold water test, all participants were informed that there was no time left for the last task. Finally,

they were thanked and debriefed. No one reported awareness of the conservation hypothesis.


325

Results

Manipulation check. Consistent with the experimental design, participants viewed future task that

required self-control (emotion inhibition while watching a funny movie) as demanding more energy than future

task that was not described as requiring self-control. Participants in the future self-control condition reported

that they expected the second task to require more energy than did participants in the no future self-control

condition (ME = 6.68 vs. MC = 4.63; t(99) = - 3.944, p < 0.001). Likewise, participants who expected the second

task to be demanding, reported that it was important to conserve the energy for that task much more, than did

participants in the no future self-control condition (ME = 3.56 vs. MC = 2.65; t(99) = -1.66, p = 0.05). The

former also reported to save more energy for the second task than the latter (ME =3.20 vs. MC = 2.08; t(99) =

-2.197, p < 0.05)

Dependent measure. The time participants held their hand in the cold water was analyzed using the t-test.

We found that individuals who anticipated that the second task would be demanding for their self-control (the

experimental group), tended to remove their hand from the water sooner than those who did not expect to exert

self-control, ME = 87.68 vs. MC = 121.51; t(99) = 2.180, p < 0.05.

The main effect for the MCS was revealed as well. Participants with high level of MCS held their hands in

cold water for much shorter period of time than participants with low level of MCS, M/high = 78. 68 vs. M/low

= 130.065; F(1, 97) = 12.095, p = 0.001, eta2 = 0.111.

The interaction between the group and MCS was insignificant, F(1, 97) = 0.164, p = 0.687.

However, we found significant effects for the mean’s comparison. Low-MCS participants kept their hands

in cold water much longer in spite of the instructions (conserving resources M = 116.77 vs. no instruction M =

116.36, F < 1; t = 1.216, ns.) than their high-MCS counterparts (conserving resources M = 59.00 vs. no

instruction M = 98.36, F = 5.07, t = 2.07, p = 0.044).

Low-MCS individuals, who were told to perform a certain task, really did their best. High-MCS

participants followed the instruction and conserved their resources or simply they were not motivated enough to

perform the task very good. The second explanation seems more reasonable as even in a control group they

perform poorer (less time spent on keeping hand in cold water) than low-MCS participants either in the control

or experimental group (see Figure 3).

Discussion

The manipulation to conserve resources for future demands was successful only to some extent.

Participants who expected the second task to be demanding for their self-control (the experimental group)

tended to remove their hand from the water sooner than those who did not expect to exert self-control. However,

the instruction did not make any difference for individuals low in MCS―above all they followed the

instructions and kept their hands in cold water for “as long as they could”, regardless of whether they expected

to use resources in the next task or not. In turn, high-MCS participants withdrew their effort much sooner both

in the experimental and control conditions. It seems, therefore, that they are much more insensitive to outside

pressure than their low-MCS counterparts.


326

Figure 3. The effect of group and MCS level on cold water test results (Note: N = 101).

General Discussion

The results of both experiments support the thesis about the modifying role of individual differences

against ego depletion effects. In particular, we direct our attention to the metacognitive self (MCS), which

reflects the self-awareness of biases. The feature is rooted in intrinsic motivation and a reflective, deliberate

way of thinking about oneself (Bar-Tal et al., 2017). As in the case of emotional overload (Brejwo et al., 2018),

people with high-MCS are less involved in imposed tasks than people with low-MCS. Strong insight into one’s

biases goes hand in hand with openness to experience and extraversion. It can also be assumed therefore that

people with high-MCS work much better in conditions of autonomous choice, and much worse in a prescriptive

situation, which can be explained by Self Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Imposing

instructions and tasks is counterproductive in general, but for individuals with strong MCS, who display greater

self-awareness, introjected regulation predicts rapid dropout.

Conclusion

Two studies proved common effect of ego depletion. The instruction preventing from ego depletion does

not work in the first experiment. The results show a disputable role of conserving resources that should prevent

from ego depletion. Rather individual differences may play crucial role for the administration of resources’

conservation. High metacognitive self individuals (MCS) do not follow external orders at all, and they perform

the task at the lowest level. In contrary, low metacognitive self participants do their best when they are led by

external order. The level of self-awareness of biases matters. The more people are aware of their biases the

more autonomy they need for completing the task at hand.

References Alberts, H. J. E. M., Martijn, C., & de Vries, N. K. (2011). Fighting self-control failure: Overcoming ego depletion by increasing

self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 58-62. Bar-Tal, Y., Brycz, H., Dolinska, B., & Dolinski, D. (2017). When saying that you are biased means that you are accurate? The


327

moderating effect of cognitive structuring on relationship between metacognitive self and confirmation bias use. Current Psychology (pp. 1-7). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-017-9729-y

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x

Beer, N., & Moneta, G. B. (2010). Construct and concurrent validity of the positive metacognitions and positive metaemotions questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 977-982. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.008

Brejwo, M., Brycz, H., & Imach, M. (2018). Goal attainments and the role of metacognitive self in task accomplishment.

Psychology Research, 8(7), 289-298. Brycz, H., & Karasiewicz, K. (2011). Skala Metapoznawczego Ja: związki między metapoznaniem Ja a zdolnością do

samoregulacji (The metacognitive self scale: The relationship between metacognition of the self and the ability to self-regulate). Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.

Brycz, H., Konarski, R., Kleka, P., & Wright, R. (2019). The metacognitive self: The role of motivation and an updated measurement tool. Economics and Sociology, 12(1), 208-232. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-1/12

Brycz, H., & Konarski, R. (2016). Narzędzie do pomiaru Metapoznawczego Ja: MJ-24 (The metacognitive self measurement tool: MCS-24). Psychologia Społeczna, 4(39), 509-526.

Brycz, H., Wyszomirska-Góra, M., Bar-Tal, Y., & Wiśniewski, P. (2014). The effect of metacognitive self on confirmation bias revealed in relation to community and competence. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(3), 306-311.

Brycz, H., Wyszomirska-Góra, M., Konarski, R., & Wojciszke, B. (2018). Metacognitive self fosters drive for self-knowledge. The role of metacognitive self for the motivation to search diagnostic information about the self. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 49(1), 66-76. doi:10.24425/119473

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Dvorak, R. D., & Simons, J. S. (2009). Moderation of resource depletion in the self-control strength model: Differing effect of

two modes of self-control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 572-583. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation.

European Psychologist, 13(4), 277-287. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277 Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American

Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2011). Who’s in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. New York: Harper Collins. Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., & Hargis, M. B. (2008). Integrative self-knowledge scale: Correlations and incremental validity of a

cross-cultural measure developed in Iran and the United States. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied 142(4), 395-412. doi:10.3200/JRPL.142.4.395-412

Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324. Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion―Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect

self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1686-1693. doi:10.1177/ 0956797610384745 Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2008). Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: Examining the influence of

emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 137(4), 691-705. doi:10.1037/a0013834 Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a determinant of customer preferences toward frequency

program rewards. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 155-170. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.2.155.19084 Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and

Cognition, 9(2), 149-171. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0433 Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311-328. Maples-Keller, J. L., Berke, D. S., Miller, J. D., & vanDellen, M. (2016). Ego depletion and conscientiousness as predictors of

behavioral disinhibition: A laboratory examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 6-10. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.054

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247

Muraven, M., Shmueli, D., & Burkley, E. (2006). Conserving self-control strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 524-537. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.524


328

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 774-789. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774

Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 136(2), 241-255. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241

Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Self-affirmation and self-control: Affirming core values counteracts ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 770-782.

Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 33-46. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33

See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: Unique effects on information interest and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 938-955. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.938

Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 379-384.

VanDellen, M. R., Hoyle, R. H., & Miller, R. (2012). The regulatory easy street: Self-regulation below the self-control threshold does not consume regulatory resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 898-902. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.028

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 632-657. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632

Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537-547. doi:10.1086/510228

Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletion approach. Psychological Science, 11(3), 249-254. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00250

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049

Wells, A., & Cartwright-Hatton, S. (2004). A short form of the metacognitions questionnaire: Properties of the MCQ-30. Behavior Research and Therapy, 42(4), 385-396. doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(03)00147-5


Haptic Perception of Physical and Functional Properties of Table

Tennis and Badminton Rackets in Children and Elderly

Danny Ferreira

Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal

David Catela

Quality of Life Research Centre (CIEQV), Santarém, Portugal

Research Unity of the Polytechnic Institute of Santarém (UIIPS), Santarém, Portugal

The haptic perception affords detection of the physical and functional properties of an instrument actively sustained.

Fifty-seven children (8.82 ± 0.38 years old) and 64 elderlies (71.3 ± 4.46 years old) estimated the length and the

distance of the center of percussion for two table tennis rackets and a badminton racket. The eigenvalues of each

racket for length and distance from the wrist to the center of percussion were calculated. The present study

confirmed the results obtained with field tennis rackets, extending them to table tennis and badminton rackets, and

also to children. The elderlies preserved and children had the capacity of haptically detect physical and functional

properties of table tennis and badminton rackets. The weight of the rackets affected properties estimations. The

eigenvalues may be a valid tool for the definition of physical and functional properties of sport instruments,

allowing better adjustment to different motor development stages.

Keywords: haptic perception, rackets, eigenvalues, children, elderly

The haptic perception affords detection of the physical and functional properties of a sport instrument,

actively sustained without visual information (Turvey, 1996; Turvey & Carello, 1995). However, the estimation

of the physical property objects’ length increases with its weight (Kloos & Amazeen, 2002). The functional

property center of percussion is the area, in the strings of a racket, where the greatest amount of potency is

transmitted to the ball, and where the impact transfers less vibration to the hand that wields the instrument,

because the impact results in minimal reactive forces (Cooper, Carello, & Turvey, 1999). The purpose of a

racket is to strike a ball; therefore, the detection of this property is important for such an essential task.

It is possible to represent the resistance to the action of lifting and moving an object wielded through

eigenvalues. These values are obtained via a symmetric 3 × 3 matrix, whose large diagonal quantifies the

moments of inertia, reflecting the possible asymmetric mass distribution of the object (Fitzpatrick, Carello, &

Acknowledgement: This study was partially supported by the Park of Science and Technology of Alentejo (ALENT-07-0262-FEDER-001883), and by the Quality of Life Research Centre (CIEQV―Polytechnic Institute of Santarém branch).

Danny Ferreira, Physical Activity and Health MSc., Motor Behavior Department, Sport Sciences Higher School, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal.

David Catela, Associate Professor, Movement Sciences Ph.D., Child Development MSc., Motor Behavior Department, Quality of Life Research Centre (CIEQV), Santarém, Portugal; Applied Psychology Head Department, Research Unity of the Polytechnic Institute of Santarém (UIIPS), Santarém, Portugal.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D

330

Turvey, 19

Adult

Anderson,

children an

preferred t

kind of rac

analyze: (i

tennis and

actors’ mor

Participan

For ba

23 women

nine girls)

and parents

Materials

The p

participant

hand crank

distance w

participant

Figurepicturepercuss

Partic

cm, weight

and center

cm). Notic

of rackets a

The w

racket were

to the cent

R

994) and, cons

s and elderly

& Turvey, 1

nd adults with

those rackets

ckets or comp

) haptic capa

badminton r

rphologies.

nts

adminton rac

) participated

and 27 elder

s and children

and Procedu

protocol was

s held a racke

k to move a b

would you hi

s remained un

1. Experimente on the right shsion.

cipant perform

t―97 g, and

percussion―

e that the ligh

and estimates

wrist breath a

e collected fo

ter of percuss

RACKETS’ H

sequently, ins

y can detect

1999; Carello

h a field tenn

with lower m

paring childre

ability of chil

rackets; and

ket, 30 childr

d. For table t

rlies (71.3 ±

n gave their a

ure

s similar to

et in their rig

all, to indicat

it the ball?”)

naware of wh

tal conditions: thows the devic

med a trial pe

center of pe

―18 cm), and

ht table tenni

s of the locati

and thickness

or each partic

sion were cal

HAPTIC PER

strument prop

length and

o, Thuot, &

nis racket, wh

moments of

en haptic cap

ldren and eld

(ii) eigenval

ren (8.93 ± 0

tennis rackets

4.46 years ol

assent.

Carello et a

ht hand. The

te their estim

), for each ra

hich object th

table tennis racce that was use

er condition f

ercussion―18

d badminton (

is and the bad

ions were alte

, and the dist

ipant. The eig

lculated acco

RCEPTION IN

perties haptic

center of pe

Turvey, 200

hose center o

inertia value

pability with o

derly to detec

lues expressi

Method

.25 years old

s, the sample

ld, 22 women

al. (1999). W

racket was h

ates of the ce

acket (see F

hey were hold

cket (left) and bed to indicate th

for the three

8.1 cm), heav

(length―66.3

dminton rack

ernated betwe

tance from th

genvalues of

ording to Fitz

N CHILDRE

cally detected

ercussion in f

0). Beak, Da

of mass was m

s. However,

older groups.

ct the length a

ion according

d, 17 girls) an

e consisted of

n). Informed

With their fo

hidden by a cu

enter of percu

igure 1). No

ding.

badminton rackhe length and t

different rack

vy table tenni

3 cm, weight

kets had simil

een participan

he wrist joint

f each racket f

zpatrick et al.

EN AND ELD

d by the actor

field tennis r

avids, and Be

manipulated,

we have not

So, the purp

and the cente

g to different

nd 37 elderlie

f 27 children

consent was

orearm suppo

urtain. With t

ussion’s lengt

o time limita

kets (centre-left the distance for

kets: light tab

is (length―2

t―95 g, and

ar weights. T

nts.

t center to the

for length and

(1994), Stro

DERLY

.

rackets (Care

ennett (2000

and found th

t found studie

poses of this p

er of percussi

t rackets pro

es (8.93 ± 0.2

n (8.82 ± 0.38

s obtained fro

orted on a s

the left hand,

th and distanc

ation was im

and centre-righr the rackets’ ce

ble tennis (le

25.7 cm, weig

center percus

The order of p

e center of m

d distance fro

oop, Turvey,

ello, Thuot,

) compared

hat children

es for other

paper are to

ion of table

operties and

5 years old,

8 years old,

om elderlies

small table,

they used a

ce (“at what

mposed. The

ht). The entre of

ength―26.2

ght―176 g,

ssion―54.2

presentation

mass of each

om the wrist

Fitzpatrick,

RACKETS’ HAPTIC PERCEPTION IN CHILDREN AND ELDERLY

331

and Carello (2000), and Winter (1990).

Statistical Analysis

For statistical data treatment, Shapiro-Wilk test was used to verify normal distribution. For within

comparisons, Wilcoxon test (Z) was used; and for between comparisons, Mann-Whitney (U) test was used;

because of absence of homoscedasticity, both with Monte Carlo test verification, effect size (r), and Wilcoxon

rank-biserial correlation coefficient or Mann-Whitney Glass rank-biserial correlation (rrb) estimation. For

comparison among estimations and real measures, One Sample t-test was used, with Bootstrapping verification.

Kruskall-Wallis test (H) was used for comparison between rackets, with Kruskal Wallis effect size eta-squared

measure estimation (ɳ2H), followed by Mann-Whitney (U) test for posttest comparisons, both with Monte Carlo

test verification, and Jonckheere-Terpstra estimation (J-T), with Monte Carlo test verification. Confidence level

was 0.05, two-sided.

Results

Obtained eigenvalues sustained the theoretical model of Turvey and Carello (1995). Moreover, moments

of inertia, products of inertia, and consequently eigenvalues were different in the two age groups (see Tables 1

and 2), which highlight the interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic constraints. Elderly anthropometric

measures where greater than the children’s, and the extremity of each racket was more distant from their axis of

rotation than for children, resulting in greater eigenvalues.

Table 1

Eigenvalues Estimated for Length of Table Tennis and Badminton Rackets, for Weight and Length, by Age

Group (Children, Elderly)

Weight

Racket Light table tennis Heavy table tennis

Eigenvalues I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3

Elderly 11629.4 8414.4 3815.9 13896.3 11661.0 5265.5

Children 9678.6 7155.2 3120.5 10116.6 8479.4 4261.2

Length

Racket Badminton Light table tennis


Elderly 19495.0 15679.6 4146.0 10802.7 7703.7 3494.8

Children 13321.4 10685.8 2959.8 9120.4 6690.3 2803.6

Table 2

Eigenvalues Estimated for Center of Percussion of Table Tennis and Badminton Rackets, for Weight and

Length, by Age Group (Children, Elderly).

Weight

Racket Light table tennis Heavy table tennis


Elderly 9514.7 6889.9 3225.6 12698.2 11067.1 4596.2

Children 8156.7 5845.9 2907.8 8348.2 7653.8 3162.2

Length

Racket Badminton Light table tennis



332

Elderly 15072.1 11425.3 3977.3 8974.1 6497.4 2872.5

Children 9344.7 6888.2 2780.8 7624.2 5422.1 2575.6

The eigenvalues reflected topological differences between rackets, sustaining the hypothesis of differential

contributions of each eigenvalue for the perception of the topology of the racket (Fitzpatrick et al., 1994), e.g.,

the eigenvalue I1 is greater for the badminton rackets than for the table tennis ones, and I2 increases with weight

for the table tennis and the badminton racket (see Tables 1 and 2).

Accordingly, children and elderly significantly differentiated length and center of percussion in table

tennis and badminton rackets (see Table 3).

Table 3

Estimates (cm) (M ± SD) for Table Tennis and Badminton Rackets (Light, Heavy), by Age Group (Children,

Elderly) and by Location (Length; Center of Percussion), and Comparison (Z, p) Between These Properties;

With Estimation of Effect Size (r) and Wilcoxon Rank-Biserial Correlation Coefficient (rrb)

Racket Light table tennis Heavy table tennis Badminton

Group Children (n = 27)

Elderly (n = 27)

Children (n = 27)

Elderly (n = 27)

Children (n = 30)

Elderly (n = 37)

Length 26.2 ± 7.85 26.5 ± 9.30 27.4 ± 5.78 31.4 ± 6.96 33.9 ± 10.82 42.0 ± 9.17

Center of percussion 22.3 ± 8.33 21.6 ± 8.69 22.2 ± 7.98 27.8 ± 10.61 26.7 ± 7.19 34.0 ± 10.61Z p

2.991 < 0.01

3.892 < 0.001

3.111 < 0.01

2.427 < 0.05

3.250 < 0.001

4.313 < 0.001

r rrb

0.58 0.47

0.75 0.91

0.60 0.55

0.47 0.33

0.60 0.58

0.70 0.98

Compared to elderlies, children also significantly underestimated badminton racket’ length (U(67) = 298.5,

p = 0.001, r = 0.40, rrb = 0.46) and center of percussion (U(67) = 298.5, p < 0.05, r = 0.31, rrb = 0.36).

Relative to real rackets measures, both children and elderlies significantly underestimated racket length (t(29) =

16.37, p < 0.001, t(36) = 16.11, p < 0.001, respectively), and center of percussion location (t(29) = 20.93, p <

0.001, t(36) = 10.50, p < 0.001, respectively). Probably, elderlies motor experience allowed them to be closer to

real racket properties than children (Chang, Wade, Stoffregen, & Ho, 2008); however, the lightness of the

Badminton racket may have affected both age groups (Beak et al., 2000).

In fact, the results from light and heavy table tennis rackets support the hypothesis that weight induced

overestimation of the length and the location of center of percussion (see Table 3), which was significant in

elderly (Z(27) = 2.46, p < 0.05, r = 0.47, rrb = -0.98; and Z(27) = 3.42, p < 0.01, r = 0.65, rrb = -0.98;

respectively) (Kloos & Amazeen, 2002). Additionally, for table tennis rackets no significant differences were

found between children and elderlies in length and centre of percussion estimations of the light one (U(54) =

353.5, ns, r = 0.03, rrb = 0.03; U(54) = 357.0, ns, r = 0.02, rrb = 0.02); however, for the heavier one, a

significant difference occurred for length estimation (U(54) = 239.0, p < 0.05, r = 0.30, rrb = 0.34), although

only a tendency for centre of percussion estimation (U(54) = 252.0, p = 0.06, r = 0.26, rrb = 0.31).

Yet, the badminton racket, which was so light as the lighter table tennis one, was perceived by the children

has the longest of all rackets (H(2) = 10.18, p < 0.01, ɳ2H = 0.10; for the light table tennis racket, U(57) = 254.0,

p < 0.05, r = 0.32, rrb = 0.37; for the heavy one, U(57) = 222.5, p < 0.01, r = 0.39, rrb = 0.45); also, sustained

by significant evolution of the perception of the length of the three rackets―light table tennis, followed by

heavy table tennis, followed by badminton (J-T(3,84) = 1554.5, p < 0.001). Additionally, the center of

percussion of the badminton racket was significantly perceived as the most distant (H(2) = 6.34, p < 0.05, ɳ2H =


333

0.05; for the light table tennis racket, U(57) = 281.0, p < 0.05, r = 0.27, rrb = 0.31; for the heavy one, U(57) =

259.0, p < 0.05, r = 0.31, rrb = 0.36); again, sustained by significant evolution of the perception of the length of

the three rackets―light table tennis, followed by heavy table tennis, followed by badminton (J-T(3,84) =

1457.5, p < 0.05). Elderlies also presented the same pattern of results, but with stronger statistical expression,

with the badminton racket estimated as the longest of all rackets (H(2) = 33.40, p < 0.0001, ɳ2H = 0.36; for the

light table tennis racket, U(64) = 124.0, p < 0.0001, r = 0.64, rrb = 0.75; for the heavy one, U(64) = 186.0, p <

0.0001, r = 0.53, rrb = 0.63); also, sustained by significant evolution of the perception of the length of the three

rackets―light table tennis, followed by heavy table tennis, followed by badminton (J-T(3,91) = 2172.0, p <

0.001). Additionally, the center of percussion of the badminton racket was significantly perceived as the most

distant (H(2) = 21.60, p < 0.0001, ɳ2H = 0.24; for the light table tennis racket, U(64) = 177.5, p < 0.0001, r =

0.55, rrb = 0.65; for the heavy table tennis one, U(64) = 336.5, p < 0.05, r = 0.28, rrb = 0.33); once more,

sustained by significant evolution of the perception of the length of the three rackets―light table tennis,

followed by heavy table tennis, followed by badminton (J-T(3,91) = 2011.5, p < 0.0001). These results are in

accordance with eigenvalues estimates (see Table 1). More importantly, these results highlight the differential

contribution of eigenvalues for the capability of haptic perception in the detection of physical and functional

properties of rackets, with different combinations of length and weight (Fitzpatrick et al., 1994).

Discussion

The present study confirmed the results of Carello et al. (1999), obtained with field tennis rackets,

extending them to table tennis and badminton rackets, and also to children.

The results indicate that the elderly maintain the capacities of haptic perception, in accordance with the

study of Carello et al. (2000), and that the children of this age group are able to use haptic perception to

distinguish physical and functional properties of badminton and table tennis rackets, even of different weight.

However, weight affected rackets’ properties estimation (Kloos & Amazeen, 2002).

Conclusion

The results of this study sustain the hypothesis that haptic perception affords detection of diverse

information, e.g., length and weight, and attunement of that information; differentiating lengths (Fitzpatrick et

al., 1994).

The eigenvalues may be a valid tool for the definition of physical and functional properties of sport

instruments, allowing better adjustment to different motor development stages (Beak et al., 2000).

References Beak, S., Davids, K., & Bennett, S. J. (2000). One size fits all? Sensitivity to moment of inertia information from tennis rackets in

children and adults. In S. J. Haake and A. Coe (Eds.), Tennis science and technology (pp. 109-118). Oxford, London: Blackwell Science.

Carello, C., Thuot, S., Anderson, K. L., & Turvey, M. T. (1999). Perceiving the sweet spot. Perception, 28(3), 307-320. Carello, C., Thuot, S., & Turvey, M. T. (2000). Aging and the perception of a racket’s sweet spot. Human Movement Science,

19(1), 1-20. Chang, C. H., Wade, M. G., Stoffregen, T. A., & Ho, H. Y. (2008). Length perception by dynamic touch: The effects of aging and

experience. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, 165-170. Cooper, M. M., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (1999). Further evidence of perceptual independence (specificity) in dynamic touch.

Ecological Psychology, 11(4), 269-281.


334

Fitzpatrick, P., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (1994). Eigenvalues of the inertia tensor and exteroception by the “muscular sense”. Neuroscience, 60(2), 551-568.

Kloos, H., & Amazeen, E. L. (2002). Perceiving heaviness by dynamic touch: An investigation of the size-weight illusion in preschoolers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 171-183.

Stroop, M., Turvey, M. T., Fitzpatrick, P., & Carello, C. (2000). Inertia tensor and weight-percept models of length perception by static holding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and Performance, 26(3), 1133-1147.

Turvey, M. T. (1996). Dynamic touch. American Psychologist, 51(11), 1134-1152. Turvey, M. T., & Carello, C. (1995). Dynamic touch. In W. Epstein and S. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition

(pp. 401-490). New York: Academic Press. Winter, D. A. (Ed.). (1990). Anthropometry. In Biomechanics and motor control of human movement (pp. 51-74). New York:

New York: Wiley Interscience Publication.


Haptic Perception and Motor Behaviors in Infants Users of

Ergonomic Pacifiers

Andreia Correia, Cláudia Elias, Diana David, Inês Cabral, Mónica Telo

Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal

David Catela

Quality of Life Research Centre (CIEQV), Santarém, Portugal

Research Unity of the Polytechnic Institute of Santarém (UIIPS), Santarém, Portugal

Babies react to changes in the characteristics of objects, presenting haptic recognition after a period of

familiarization. We aimed to verify if infants responded to the different spatial orientations of an ergonomic pacifier

in the mouth. With informed consent, 10 babies (271.6 ± 60.8 days), users of ergonomic pacifiers, revealed motor

behaviors that were divisible into three categories, sometimes through successive actions (i.e., perception-action

cycles were present): (i) repositioned correctly the pacifier, through different modes; (ii) repositioned it, but

incorrectly, through different modes; and (iii) rejected the pacifier. So, these babies detected the incorrect position

of the pacifier, and acted according to the principle of motor equivalence, since they implemented variations of a

solution for the same need.

Keywords: haptic perception, infants, mouth, ergonomic pacifier

Infants haptically react to changes in object characteristics (Rochat, 1987; Streri, Lhote, & Dutilleul, 2000),

being able to explore the space and be sensitive to different orientations of a rod by the hands (Gentaz & Streri,

2002). One-year-old babies show haptic recognition memory after a short period of haptic familiarization,

manipulating novel objects differently from familiar ones (Gottfried & Rose, 1980).

Non-nutritive sucking (NNS) is defined as sucking without the delivery of fluid, and is a naturally

occurring phenomenon recognized as a pacifying mechanism for preterm and term infants. Thumb sucking and

other sucking movements have been seen in human foetuses as early as the 12th week of gestation (Hepper,

Acknowledgement: This study was supported by the Quality of Life Research Centre (CIEQV―Polytechnic Institute of Santarém branch) and the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology (FCT).

Andreia Correia, Bachelor in Basic Education, Higher School of Education of Santarém, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal.

Cláudia Elias, Bachelor in Basic Education, Higher School of Education of Santarém, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal.

Diana David, Bachelor in Basic Education, Higher School of Education of Santarém, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal.

Inês Cabral, Bachelor in Basic Education, Higher School of Education of Santarém, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal.

Mónica Telo, Bachelor in Basic Education, Higher School of Education of Santarém, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal.

David Catela, Associate Professor, Movement Sciences Ph.D., Child Development MSc., Motor Behavior Department, Quality of Life Research Centre (CIEQV), Santarém, Portugal; Applied Psychology Head Department, Research Unity of the Polytechnic Institute of Santarém (UIIPS), Santarém, Portugal.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D

336

Shahidullah

Durin

irregular m

information

Salzarulo,

Oral e

months, wh

Capozzoli,

The p

the mouth;

of an ergon

Participan

The sa

days): five

0.85). Info

pacifier and

Materials

Infant

positions r

countercloc

Figurerotated

The o

awakened

O. Harriso

and the cam

midline an

limit. Duri

invited to a

the pacifier

it with his/h

h, & White, 1

ng familiariza

mouthing ora

n about the

1988).

exploration an

hile manual

& Dubiner,

urposes of th

; and if so, to

nomic pacifie

nts

ample consis

e females, bel

ormed consen

d did not cry,

and Procedu

ts’ own ergon

relative to the

ckwise (CCW

1. From the led 90º counter clo

order of the

and in a good

n, Croft, Har

mera position

d at approxim

ing the record

answer to the

r: “If you hav

her mouth or

IN

1991).

ation to hard

al activity,

object is de

nd mouthing

skills progres

1992).

his paper is to

o describe inf

er.

sted of 10 inf

longing to tw

nt was obtain

, sleep, or rej

ure

nomic pacifie

e standard or

W); and (iii) ro

eft to the right (ockwise (CCW

conditions w

d mood, usin

rrison, & Tro

ned diagonall

mately 50 cm

dings, there w

e following o

ve ever obser

r hand, grindi

NFANTS’ M

d nipples, tw

while the a

etected durin

increase up t

ss and divers

o verify wheth

fants’ motor

fants (decima

wo kindergart

ned. The asse

ect the exper

ers were plac

rientation: (i)

otated 180 de

(users view): stW).

was alternate

g their reclin

oyanovich, 19

ly, at mouth l

m (Banks, 198

was no verba

open question

rved your chi

ng it with his

MOUTH HAPT

wo-month-old

amount of N

ng mouthing

to the age of

sify between

her infants de

behaviors wh

Method

al age: 271.6

tens, users o

ent was assum

imenter’s pre

ced by the sa

) rotated 90

egrees (T) (se

andard position

d between p

ned chair at ap

999), in an e

level. The pac

80). Each infa

al, gestural o

n, relative to

ld playing wi

s/her teeth...),

TIC PERCEP

d infants rev

NNS increase

rather than

seven month

the ages of f

etect different

hen constrain

± 60.8 days,

f ergonomic

med if the ba

esence. The b

ame experim

degrees cloc

ee Figure 1).

n; rotated 90º cl

participants. D

pproximately

environment w

cifier was pre

ant made one

or facial inter

possible obs

ith his/her pa

, please, descr

PTION

vealed decrea

ed, supportin

during NNS

hs and then de

five and 11 m

t spatial orien

ned with diffe

minimum: 1

pacifier user

aby did not a

babies’ pacifie

menter in the

kwise (CW);

lockwise (CW)

Data were co

y 110-130 deg

with few obj

esented at the

e trial in each

raction with

erved behavi

acifier (for ex

ribe those beh

asing of the

ng the hypo

S (Pêcheux,

ecline until th

months (Ruff

ntations of the

erent spatial o

91 days, max

rs (sucking ra

avoid the exp

er was used.

babies’ mou

; (ii) rotated

); rotated 180º (

ollected with

grees (D. D. H

ects and min

e eye level of

h condition, w

the infant. P

iors of their i

xample, biting

haviours”.

amount of

othesis that

Lepecq, &

he age of 11

f, Saltarelli,

e pacifier in

orientations

ximum: 352

atio: 1.07 ±

perimenter’s

ths in three

90 degrees

(T); and

h the infant

Harrison, S.

nimal noise,

f the child’s

with no time

arents were

infants with

g it, rotating

INFANTS’ MOUTH HAPTIC PERCEPTION

337

Data Treatment

Face validity of coded behavioral categories was achieved by a panel, composed of experts in child

development, motor development, and education; and was based on video observations and discussion of

observers’ narrative records of participants’ motor behavior or sequences of motor behaviors.

Statistical Analysis

For statistical data treatment, Shapiro-Wilk test was used to verify normal distribution. For between

comparisons Mann-Whitney (U) test was used, with Monte Carlo Test verification and effect size r estimation.

For comparison among conditions, Friedman test (Q) was used, with effect size Kendall’s test value estimation

(W). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to assess relationship between variables (rho).

Confidence level was 0.05, two-sided.

Results

When confronted with pacifiers’ spatial constraints, all infants presented active motor behaviors, divisible

in four categories: (i) relocated the pacifier to the standard spatial position, through three possible

ways―turning it with the mouth; grasping it and turning it with the hand; or spitting it and putting it in the

mouth, with a total of 14 occurrences; (ii) relocated the pacifier, but to 180 degrees relative to the standard

spatial position, through the same actions named in (i), with a total of seven occurrences; (iii) pacifier rejection,

by the means of spitting it or biting it, with a total of 14 occurrences; and (iv) no attempt, keeping pacifier in

the same position and without occurrence of NNS, with four occurrences in the T condition, two in the CCW

condition, and one in the CW condition. Successful mouth turning behavior occurred eight times (in 30

possible trials), while successful grasp turning occurred twice. In some cases, infants made successive actions

to relocate the pacifier, e.g., in the CCW, a male infant with 221 days of age grasped and rotated the pacifier

and, also, rotated it with his mouth, and a female infant with 303 days of age spat it, grasped and put it back in

her mouth, then rotated it with her mouth. On request through open question (If you have ever watched your

child playing with his/her pacifier, for example, bite it, rotate it with its mouth or hand, grind it with its teeth...,

please describe those behaviors), parents mentioned the following: (i) forward and backward displacements

with the mouth; (ii) make it tremble with his/her mouth; (iii) grab it and look at it; (iv) bite it; (v) rotate it with

its mouth; and (vi) remove it and put it back in its mouth. No gender differences were found in the frequency of

the set of the categories in all conditions (Z = 0.876, p = 0.381, r = 0.28). No association was found between

decimal age and frequency of the set of the categories in all conditions (rho (10) = 0.267, p = 0.456). No

significant difference occurred between conditions on the frequency of motor behaviors in the defined

categories (Q = 4.571, p = 0.102, W = 0.23).

Discussion

The results reveal that these infants have detected the incorrect position of the pacifier in the mouth,

supporting the hypothesis that information about the object is detected during mouthing (Pêcheux et al., 1988).

An equifinality principle was present in their motor actions, i.e., they had variations of a motor solutions for the

same need, e.g., rotating the pacifier in both directions, clockwise and counter clockwise; or different solutions

for the same need, e.g., rotating the pacifier using their mouth or their hand. Some infants revealed the

capability to try to solve their problem through successive motor actions, meaning that a perception-action

cycle was present, i.e., after perceptual detection of incorrect pacifier position a motor action was made, and if

INFANTS’ MOUTH HAPTIC PERCEPTION

338

pacifier position detected was again incorrect a new motor movement was made. All these actions reveal that

infants detect and search for the ergonomic affordance of the pacifier, to have it comfortably inside their

mouths (cf., Rochat, 1987). The occurrence of this perception-action cycle proves that mouth haptic perception

is present and is used by infants to solve a spatial problem through motor actions. Based on parents’ reports,

pacifiers are taken as implements by the infant, using them for functional play, i.e., play essentially based on

motor and perceptual exploration of objects functional properties (Zelazo & Kearsley, 1980). The diversity of

actions revealed by infants and described by their parents is assumed to correspond to the emergence of

cognitive metamorphism (Zelazo & Leonard, 1983); meaning that the transition from reflexive nutritive

sucking to NNS, or from stereotyped movements to functional play, maybe a result of a conscious mental

representations of real-world objects (P. R. Zelazo & P. D. Zelazo, 1998).

Conclusion

These infants revealed capacity to detect perceptual information about an implement; and, use that

information to adjust implement and organismic constraints or to ludically explore implement properties and

motor actions with their tongue, teeth and mouth. Infants also revealed the capacity to explore different,

sometimes articulated, motor solutions for the same problem, with or without the involvement of hands, as

additional instruments for problem resolution. The results of this study support ecological and cognitivist

hypotheses of child perceptual development.

References Banks, M. S. (1980). The development of visual accommodation during early infancy. Child Development, 51(3), 646-666. Gentaz, E., & Streri, A. (2002). Infants’ haptic perception of orientations. Current Psychology Letters: Behaviour, Brain and

Cognition, 9, 61-73. Gottfried, A. W., & Rose, S. A. (1980). Tactile recognition memory in infants. Child Development, 51(1), 69-74. Harrison, D. D., Harrison, S. O., Croft, A. C., Harrison, D. E., & Troyanovich, S. J. (1999). Sitting biomechanics part I: Review of

the literature. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 22(9), 594-609. Hepper, P. G., Shahidullah, S., & White, R. (1991). Handedness in the human fetus. Neuropsychologia, 29(11), 1107-1111. Pêcheux, M. G., Lepecq, J. C., & Salzarulo, P. (1988). Oral activity and exploration in 1-2-month-old infants. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 6(3), 245-256. Rochat, P. (1987). Mouthing and grasping in neonates: Evidence for the early detection of what hard or soft substances afford for

action. Infant Behavior and Development, 10(4), 435-449. Ruff, H. A., Saltarelli, L. M., Capozzoli, M., & Dubiner, K. (1992). The differentiation of activity in infants’ exploration of

objects. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 851-861. Streri, A., Lhote, M., & Dutilleul, S. (2000). Haptic perception in newborns. Developmental Science, 3(3), 319-327. Wing, A. M. (2000). Motor control: Mechanisms of motor equivalence in handwriting. Current biology, 10(6), 245-248. Zelazo, P. R., & Kearsley, R. B. (1980). The emergence of functional play in infants: Evidence for a major cognitive transition.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1(2), 95-117. Zelazo, P. R., & Leonard, E. L. (1983). The dawn of active thought. In K. W. Fischer (Ed.), Levels and transition in children’s

development: New directions for child development (Vol. 21, pp. 37-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Zelazo, P. R., & Zelazo, P. D. (1998). The emergence of consciousness. In H. H. Jasper, L. Descarries, V. F. Castellucci, and S.

Rossignol (Eds.), Consciousness: At the frontiers of neuroscience (Vol. 77, pp. 149-165). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.


The Superstar Paradox—How Overachievers Miss the Mark in

Life and at Work

Keren Eldad

New York, USA

Extraordinary success can make you rich and powerful. It can also leave you incurious, blinkered, invulnerable,

deeply unhappy and ironically—mediocre. In my work, as an executive coach crisis-counselor, I have found that

the ruthless pursuit of over-achievement towards success, power, and money is playing a major role in the erosion

of people’s happiness. That premise is supported by clear evidence of unhappiness and dissatisfaction seen across

the board in western culture, limiting the phenomenon not only to those who are extremely successful, but to

anyone buying into “hustle culture1” and developing extreme anxiety by scrolling through the lives of others on

Instagram. In a society that still values over-achievement in the form of hard work above all2, this paper aims at a

central tenet of western societies that over-achieving paves the road to success and riches, which lead to happiness.

This talk will illustrate through proprietary and up to date global research show the opposite that over-achieving

tendencies in any department of life can limit happiness profoundly.

Keywords: the Superstar Paradox, happiness, over-achievement, work-life balance, significance, shame

A few years ago, a friend confessed to me that he was reluctant to attend his Harvard Business School

reunion because an old chum told him: “If you don’t make at least $2 million a year, you shouldn’t even

bother”.

By all objective standards, this man is an over-achiever who should be proud of his accomplishments

regardless of whether he had hit some arbitrary financial milestone in the mind of a colleague. When my friend

told me that he was actually considering not going to his reunion, I paused to think of all my clients who have

expressed similar concerns in earnest and wondered: Why does it seem for so many of us that the more we have,

the further we go, and the better we look on social media from the outside, the less happy and secure we really

feel on the inside?

To answer that question, I turned inward, and thought of my old self. While I’ve always done well,

comparatively speaking—meaning that I have met all or most of my social group’s expectations—I was

suffering not too long ago from that palpable sensation that my life lagged in comparison with the friends

whom I saw living it up on yachts all over Instagram. In fact, there’s an urban dictionary term for this

often-empty attempt to make our lives feel more grandiose on social media called “flexing on the (Insta)gram”.

Back then, I was caught in a relentless attempt to justify my self-worth by comparing my life and

Keren Eldad, MSc., Certified Professional Coach, Certified Executive Coach and Certified Behavior and Motivations Analyst,

and Top-Level Suicide Counsellor with Crisis Text Line, New York, USA. 1 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opinion/burnout-hustle-culture-gentrification-work.html. 2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-have-shifted-dramatically-on-what-values-matter-most-11566738001.

DAVID PUBLISHING

D

HOW OVERACHIEVERS MISS THE MARK IN LIFE AND AT WORK

340

accomplishments to others. And it messed everything up. My mission as a coach is to help Machiavellians who

“have it all” to align their life achievements with a healthy dose of compassion and self-acceptance so that they

can be happy and stop harming themselves and those around them. In the process, they find that they actually

become far more successful, too.

If you’re wondering if you’re trapped in trade-off mode, let me ask you a few simple questions:

Do you believe that you don’t yet have everything you want?

Does the success of others make you jealous, annoyed, or resentful?

Are you unhappy?

In a survey that I conducted with more than 1,000 people earning more than $200,000 with high degrees of

education, over 53% percent answered “yes” to all the above. Data on the nation’s professional psyche backs

my survey up: Even in our current bright economy, a surprising portion of professional Americans report

feeling unhappy3. In the mid-1980s, roughly 61 percent of workers told pollsters they were satisfied with their

jobs. Since then, that number has declined substantially, hovering around half. The low point was in 2010,

when only 43 percent of workers were satisfied, according to data collected by the Conference Board, a

nonprofit research organization4. The rest said they were unhappy, or at best neutral, about how they spent the

bulk of their days. Even among professionals like those in medicine and law, other studies have noted a rise in

discontent. This is what I call the Superstar Paradox5. It’s the paradoxical condition of “having it all”, yet being

objectively discontent.

Years of work with overachievers has compelled me to try to explain why this happens, or why so many

outwardly successful CEO and C-suite leaders just aren’t happy. It boils down to one truth: They haven’t

focused on happiness. Given that many contemporary overachievers have been growing businesses, building

wealth, winning awards, marrying trophy partners and socializing with A-list celebrities while not taking a

personal assessment of how content they are as they are conquering the next task, it’s not surprising that

happiness would have eluded them. After all, well-being comes primarily from following our passion and from

loving ourselves—and these are not things they teach in business school, nor something overtly evident on

Instagram. Somewhere along the way, overachievers confused the trappings of success with happiness, and

they got lulled into making false tradeoffs—tradeoffs such as marrying for comfort rather than joy or working

primarily for the highest pay grade rather than the sheer enjoyment of a job well done. The perceived positive

trade-off often results in dead-end issues of depression, isolation, and overall unhappiness.

We see the paradox all the time among executives who have all the trappings of external success—but

behind the veneer of success often are burned out souls who suffer from “pathologies” such as narcissism, fear,

anger, and depression, according to William & Mary Law School research by Jayne Barnard6. These

pathologies can have devastating effects not only on the health and psyche of the individual, but also on

organizations and subordinate employees. Though overachievers often are highly compensated, money isn’t

enough to offset the pressures of the corporate shark-eat-shark environment. The resulting pressure leads

“externally perfect” executives caught in the Superstar Paradox to explode in short-tempered anger directed at

subordinates and fear that stymies forward-thinking decision-making. These overachievers often experience

3 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/21/magazine/elite-professionals-jobs-happiness.html. 4 https://www.conference-board.org/blog/postdetail.cfm?post=6391. 5 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/15/4-ways-overachievers-are-sabotaging-their-career-how-they-can-stop.html. 6 https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2089&context=lsfp.


341

sleepless nights from work stress and often feel isolated at home and at work believing that they have no one in

which to truly confide—and depression sets in. When high-profile figures, such as iconic fashion designer Kate

Spade, TV celebrity Anthony Bourdain, or comedian Robin Williams commit suicide, we watch in stunned

amazement, wondering how those who have built both notoriety and fortune could possibly have been so

unhappy.

Not surprising, research suggests that CEOs may be depressed at more than double the rate of the general

public, with about seven percent of American adults reporting having at least one major depressive episode,

according to 2014 National Institute of Health data7. Further, prominent psychiatrist Michael Freedman found

that nearly half (49 percent) of the entrepreneurs in his study said they experienced mental health issues at some

point in their lives8. If overachieving entrepreneurs are suffering in silence from the Superstar Paradox, then

what behaviors are they modeling for younger generations? Unfortunately, the American Psychological

Association in a 2018 study reported that recent generations of college students have reported higher levels of

perfectionism than earlier generations, signaling even more troublesome times for upcoming entrepreneurial

overachievers9.

So why is this happening? The answer I have found through working with over-achieving individuals and

through research comes down to a plethora of effects, including:

Believing success only comes as it relates to power, money, or status;

Creating self-imposed benchmarks based on early perceptions of goals and success;

Fearing mistakes or being perceived as a failure;

Depending heavily on the opinions of others;

Seeking status through people pleasing and trying to be all things to all people;

Fostering mental arrogance/cognitive entrenchment—the sense that I have all the answers and my way is

right;

Lacking vulnerability, and embracing pretense and face-saving tactics;

Lacking empathy.

These findings are based on my years of work and research on C-suite executives and entrepreneurs at the

top of their fields. Unfortunately, even as overachievers come to terms with the unhappiness that permeates

their lives as they attempt to paint a picture of having it all together, many are incapable of leaving the

trappings of success behind, even when it might mean a more peaceful future. Historian and author Yuval Noah

Harari puts it this way: “How many young college graduates have taken demanding jobs in high-powered firms,

vowing that they will work hard to earn money that will enable them to retire and pursue their real interests

when they are 35? But by the time they reach that age, they have large mortgages, children to school, houses in

the suburbs that necessitate at least two cars per family, and a sense that life is not worth living without really

good wine and expensive holidays abroad. What are they supposed to do, go back to dig up roots? No, they

double their efforts and keep slaving away”.

In my work, I’ve found three practical lessons for all who are ready to swap the challenging and

never-ending quest for survival of the fittest for a life of fulfillment and harmony. These are:

1. Shift your focus from trying to achieve more success to trying to achieve more happiness. If you think

7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/01/26/why-the-super-successful-get-depressed/#48ce42ce3850. 8 https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/mental-health-for-entrepreneurs.html. 9 https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/01/perfectionism-young-people.


342

about what is stressing you in the first place, it is the force with which you live—the effort you are

applying to try (so hard) to achieve success. Use the skills you already have in goal setting and set

goals for doing the things consistently that will truly make you happy. Forget those vacation

destinations that will simply make you look “cooler” on Instagram and seek out those places and

activities that truly make your heart sing. Aim straight at harmony, upliftment, and happiness.

Leveraging your extraordinary ability to focus your energies on doing what brings you automatic joy

and working backwards from there, you will immediately feel calmer, more fulfilled, and happier.

Practically speaking, this means that when faced with the next step you are about to take for your

success ask—does this bring me joy?

2. Instead of asking “what am I getting out of this?”, ask “how may I serve here?”. When I started to

come out of my own self-imposed anxious existence, at first I was a bit too shaky to really develop

compassion for myself or to slow down, so I did something easier—I turned my focus to helping other

people by joining Crisis Text Line10 as a volunteer suicide counselor. It worked. Something powerful

happens when you serve others. You stop thinking about yourself so much. Moreover, it feels good to

do good, and it allows you to chill out about that other stuff you were working so hard to control

because you gain some much-needed perspective. Perhaps you are not called to help people in

crisis—that’s cool. But I am calling on you now to bring peace to the vanguard of your life and into

your soul. Have an internal revolution. The way to get to this is to stop asking in any situation—“how

do I fit in”, and ask instead—“how may I serve?”

3. Stop beating yourself up. A few months ago, I was invited to a dinner party in the home of a

well-known and very wealthy fashion designer. As I enjoyed a tour of her apartment, I marveled at the

beauty around me—the product of her meticulous eye for style. But when we sat down to eat, I found

that my hostess was beside herself. Apparently, the table had been set with the “wrong” plates—plates

she did not believe suited the occasion. All around the hostess commented that the dishes which were

on the table were lovely, but she was having none of it. Here are some of the things she said about the

terrible mistake when she realized what had happened:

I can’t believe this happened.

That was so stupid. I can’t believe I didn’t check the table in advance.

I really hope you will all forgive me.

For the average person, this story might seem comical. To a suicide counselor and coach, it is rather

alarming and alarmingly common. A lot of people speak this way to themselves, even on matters that seem

rather trivial. From missing a deadline to eating an extra calorie, perfectionists constantly give themselves a

hard time over the most mundane things. No matter how chic the term is in certain circles, perfectionism never

serves you. To paraphrase author Elizabeth Gilbert, perfectionism is just a way of showing how insecure you

are. If you, like so many of my clients, have experienced panic attacks or anxiety attacks, suffer from OCD

tendencies, are hyper-critical of or gossip about others, or are currently challenged with an eating or control

disorder (such as self-harm), perfectionism might be at the root of all of those issues. You would do well to

learn how to speak kindly to yourself in your quest for relief. For example, in the case of dinner party “Plate

gate”, say instead:

10 www.crisistextline.org.


343

I didn’t know.

It’s OK.

I did my best.

I can start over tomorrow.

It is possible to get out of the Superstar Paradox. The hardest part is admitting there’s a problem. The key

to our resurrection, therefore, lies in staying focused on not being perfect, but human.

My findings and practice show that the Superstar Paradox is a real problem, but if the over-achiever is

ready to be open to change, accept vulnerability and imperfection as paths to freedom, and can commit to doing

the work, they will find happiness, satisfaction, and joy. as did that friend, that ended up choosing to attend his

Harvard Business School reunion once he realized that not only did he have nothing of which to be ashamed,

but that showing up exactly as and where he was felt empowering and authentic. He showed up with no

pretenses, mingled with no mask, and reported back that the vast majority of his old classmates were thrilled to

just see him again, just as he was.

References American Psychological Assoc. (2018). Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/01/perfectionism-young-people Duhigg, C. (2019). NY Times. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/21/magazine/elite-professionals-jobs-happiness.html Eldad, K. (2019). CNBC. Retrieved from

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/15/4-ways-overachievers-are-sabotaging-their-career-how-they-can-stop.html Forbes. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/01/26/why-the-super-successful-get-depressed/#48ce42ce3850 Inc. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/emily-canal/mental-health-for-entrepreneurs.html Jones, R. M. (2017). Boston College. Retrieved from

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2089&context=lsfp NY Times. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opinion/burnout-hustle-culture-gentrification-work.html WSJ. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-have-shifted-dramatically-on-what-values-matter-most-11566738001

Call for Papers

Psychology Research (ISSN 2159-5542), is a professional journal published across the United States by David Publishing Company, New York, NY 10989, USA. This journal is regularly published by China National Publication Import & Export Corporation on commission. If you have the idea of making our journal a vehicle for your research interests, please send electronic version of your paper to us. Psychology Research is collected and indexed by the Library of U.S. Congress, on whose official Website (http://catalog.loc.gov) an online inquiry can be triggered with its publication number ISSN No. as key words in “Basic Search” column. In addition, this journal is also retrieved by some renowned databases.

Three main columns: General Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Applied Psychology (but not

limit to):

Biopsychology, Cognitive Psychology and Psycholinguistics, Child Psychiatry, Clinical Psychology, Community Psychology, Comparative Psychology, Experimental Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Personality Psychology, Physiological Psychology/Psychobiology, Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology, Social Psychology, Psychological Statistics, Psychology of Human Resource Management, Psychometrics, Counseling Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Interpersonal Relation Psychology, Culture Psychology, Philosophical Psychology, Management Psychology, Psychology Research Methods, Advertising and Transmitting Psychology, Public Psychology, Consumption Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, Abnormal Psychology, Group Psychology, Literary Psychology, Labor Psychology, Aerospace Psychology, Traveling Psychology, Medico-Psychology, Color Psychology, Decision-making Psychology, Love Psychology, Positive Psychology, Criminal Psychology, as well as other issues. David Publishing Company is strived to provide the best platform for researchers and scholars worldwide to exchange their latest findings and results. We admire your achievements, and we understand how important your research impact on other peers in the same interest field and other disciplines, and how delighted you would be when communicating with global professional peers. Your contribution to our journals would be very much welcome! Requirements: (1) Paper must be empirical or theoretical contributions without being published previously; (2) All other scholars’ words or remarks as well as their origins must be indicated if quoted; (3) English title, abstract and key words should be prerequisite; (4) Patterns or forms should conform to the standard listed in our Website; (5) Automatic paper submission system is strongly recommended, while e-mail attachment can be sent through e-mail at [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]. Please visit our Website at http://www.davidpublisher.com for our automatic paper submission systems. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us. Best regards, Psychology Research David Publishing Company

psychology research...publication information: psychology research is published monthly in hard copy...

Documents