1. There were no associations found between borderline personality disorder (BPD) complaints and overgeneral autobiographical memory. 2. Higher BPD complaints were associated with an observer perspective during recall of highly discrepant autobiographical memories. 3. Effortful control was negatively associated with BPD complaints and mediated the relationship between BPD complaints and observer perspective during recall.

1. Kris Van den Broeck
Psychologist / Behaviour Therapist / PhD student
kris.vandenbroeck@ppw.kuleuven.be
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY
CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO
BORDERLINE COMPLAINTS
In cooperation with Jasmin Reza, Loes Koolen, Prof. Dr. Guido
7th Autobiographical Memory
and Psychopathology Meeting,
June 13th, 2012, Aarhus, Denmark. Pieters MD, Prof. Dr. Laurence Claes, and Prof. Dr. Filip Raes

2. Introduction: Observations
Autobiographical Memory Characteristic In MDD/PTSD In BPD
• Overgeneral Memory (OGM)
“Every time I play tennis” vs
Robust Inconsistent
“That one set I broke my racquet in that (e.g., …)
thrilling tiebreak against my brother.”
• Cue Discrepancy Some evidence
Some evidence (e.g., Van den Broeck,
“Happy” (HD) vs “Polite” (LD) (e.g., Crane, Barnhofer, &
Pieters, Claes, & Raes,
Williams, 2007)
2011)
• Vantage Point during Recall (VPR)
Observer perspective vs Field perspective More recently
(e.g., Kuyken & Moulds, No data
2009)

3. Introduction: Research Questions
1. What about …
Overgeneral
Memory
Borderline
Complaints
Hypotheses
r(BPD complaints, %Cat(HD)) > 0

4. Introduction: Research Questions
1. What about …
Borderline
Complaints
Vantage
Perspective
during Recall
Hypotheses
r(BPD complaints, %Cat(HD)) > 0
r(BPD complaints, %Obs(HD)) > 0

5. Introduction: Research Questions
1. What about … 2. What about …
• “The ability to inhibit a
Overgeneral dominant response to perform
Memory a subdominant response”
(Rothbart & Bates, 2006)
Borderline Effortful • In general lower EC in
personality disorders (Claes et al.,
Complaints Control 2009)
• Associated with social skills,
Vantage conscience development,
Perspective sympathy/empathy (Eisenberg et
al., 1996; Kochanska et al., 1996; Spinrad
during Recall et al., 2007; Valiente et al., 2004).
Hypotheses Exploration
r(BPD complaints, %Cat(HD)) > 0 r(EC, BPD complaints) < 0 ?
r(EC, %Cat(HD)) = ?
r(BPD complaints, %Obs(HD)) > 0 r(EC, %Obs(HD)) = ?

6. Study 1: Set-up
Participants Instruments
N = 148 Autobiographical Memory Task (Williams & Broadbent, 1986)
Written, minimal instructions
Community
10 HD cues, 10 LD cues (Dicrep. ~ MDD)
sample
82 females Borderline Syndrome Index (Vertommen & Van de Wygaert, 1988)
52 items, yes/no
17-30 years
4 factors:
(M = 21.32;
Failing Social Skills (FSS)
SD = 3.22)
Difficult Interpersonal Relationships (DIR)
76% finished Negative Self-Concept (NSC)
higher Anxiety (ANX)
education
Effortful Control scale of Adult Temperament Questionnaire (Hartman
& Rothbart, 2001)
19 items, 8-point Likert scale
3 factors:
Attentional Control (ATT): the ability to change / focus attention when
desired
Activation Control (ACT): the ability to perform an action when there is a
strong tendency not to / to avoid it
Inhibitory Control (INH): the ability to suppress inadequate behaviour

7. Study 1: Results
Results
%catHD %catLD %obs %obsHD %obsLD BSI-tot BSI-FSS BSI-DIR BSI-NSC BSI-ANX
%cat .86** .85** -.05 -.08 -.03 .07 .11 -.03 .01 .10
%catHD .47** -.07 -.11 -.03 .10 .13 .01 .05 .12
%catLD -.01 -.02 -.02 .02 .06 -.06 -.02 .04
%obs .90** .88** .14 .17* .14 .04 .11
%obsHD .60** .16 .20* .19* .06 .10
%obsLD .07 .09 .06 .00 .09
BSI-tot .79** .77** .90** .84**
BSI-FSS .51** .62** .53**
BSI-DIR .64** .49**
BSI-NSC .67**
BSI-ANX
Controlled for depression severity and age
No associations between OGM and BPD complaints!
VPR following HD cues associated with social BPD complaints!

8. Study 1: Results
Results (exploration EC)
EC-ATT EC-ACT EC-INH %obsHD BSI-tot BSI-FSS BSI-DIR BSI-NSC BSI-ANX
EC-tot .79** .79** .72** -.18* -.43** -.40** -.34** -.30** -.36**
EC-ATT .53** .39** -.18* -.51** -.47** -.37** -.41** -.44**
EC-ACT .24** -.22** -.38** -.40** -.36** -.25** -.25**
EC-INH -.05 -.19* -.13 -.10 -.16 -.23**
%obsHD -.15 .06 .19* .19* .09
BSI-tot .90** .77** .79** .84**
BSI-FSS .65** .62** .67**
BSI-DIR .51** .49**
BSI-NSC .54**
BSI-ANX
Controlled for depression severity and age
EC negatively associated with BPD symptoms (not INH) = replication
EC negatively associated with VPR (observer) (not INH)
Mediation of EC between BPD symptoms and VPR?

9. Study 1: Results
Results (exploration EC)
Preacher & Hayes bootstrapping
5000 resamples
.0006 < c-c’ < .0049 (90% CI)
Yes, mediation
Interpersonal c’ = .00
Borderline Observer
symptoms perspective
a = -.05** b = -.04**
Activation
control

10. Study 1: Conclusions
No associations between BPD complaints and OGM
Due to set of cues?
Given the association between BPD symptoms and observer
perspective during retrieval:
VPR especially associated with interpersonal problems: what is the role of field perspective
in interpersonal relationships? Field perspective necessary to build / maintain stable
interpersonal relations?
Cluster empathy / effortful control / vantage perspective (during recall) / interpersonal
difficulties?
EC mediates relationship between BPD symptoms and VPR
Therapeutic strategies that enlarge EC and diminish avoidance (MBT / MBCT / ACT /
exposure) may work in BPD patients
Note: community sample!
Van den Broeck, Reza, Nelis, Claes, Pieters, & Raes (in prep). Effortful Control
mediates between Borderline Symptoms and Vantage Perspective during
Autobiographical Memory Retrieval.

11. Study 2: Set-up
Participants Instruments
N = 120 Autobiographical Memory Task (Williams & Broadbent, 1986)
Community Written, minimal instructions
sample 8 HD cues + 8 LD cues (Discrep. ~ BPD)
55 females
17-30 years Borderline Syndrome Index (Vertommen & Van de Wygaert, 1988)
(M = 21.19;
SD = 1.60)
Effortful Control scale of Adult Temperament Questionnaire
(Hartman & Rothbart, 2001)

12. Study 2: Results
Results
%catHD %catLD %obs %obsHD %obsLD BSI-tot BSI-FSS BSI-DIR BSI-NSC BSI-ANX
%cat .84** .88** -.07 -.01 -.12 .01 -.05 .06 .12 -.09
%catHD .48** -.13 -.05 -.17 .12 .02 .18~ .18* -.04
%catLD -.01 .03 -.04 -.08 -.09 -.06 .04 -.11
%obs .87** .88** -.08 -.12 -.05 -.09 .04
%obsHD .54** .01 .11 .03 -.01 .12
%obsLD -.15 -.10 -.10 -.15 -.05
BSI-tot .69** .73** .78** .68**
BSI-FSS .33** .42** .24**
BSI-DIR .66** .30**
BSI-NSC .30**
BSI-ANX
Controlled for depression severity
OGM following HD cues associated with negative self-concept!
No associations between VPR and (social) BPD complaints!
Again: EC was negatively associated with BPD complaints!

13. General Conclusions
Stable negative correlations between EC-scales and BPD
complaints, even when controlled for depression severity.
Both studies suggest that discrepancy is an important element,
thereby supporting the idea that high discrepant information leads
to a reallocation of resources towards the self (self-coherence), as
is suggested by models on autobiographical memory organisation.
Study 1: EC(ACT) mediates between BPD complaints and vantage
perspective, suggesting that BPD complaints will ameliorate from
therapeutic strategies as MBCT, ACT, MBT, and exposure.
Note: community sample! No data on trauma/medication/…

14. General Conclusions
But: VPR~BPD (study 1) OGM~BPD (study 2)!
Sample differences?
Different cues?
Study 1 Study 2
Polite (LD), happy (HD), honest (LD), Satisfied (HD), tired (LD),
enjoying (HD), just (LD), optimistic optimistic (LD), stressed
(HD), respectful (LD), energetic (LD), self-assured (HD), sad
(HD), sincere (LD), satisfied (HD), (HD), successful (HD),
intelligent (LD), pleasurable (HD),
neat (LD), self-assured (HD),
sensitive (LD), relaxed (HD), grateful
? clumsy (LD), creative (LD),
dissatisfied (LD), energetic
(LD), unhappy (HD), relaxed
(LD), successful (HD), reliable (LD), (HD), insecure (HD),
and active (HD) enjoying (LD), disappointed
Schoofs et al. (2010) (HD)
Other suggestions?

15. Ende

16. General Conclusions

17. Study 1: Conclusions
1. What about … 2. What about …
• “The ability to inhibit a
Overgeneral dominant response to perform
Memory a subdominant response”
(Rothbart & Bates, 2006)
Borderline Effortful • In general lower EC in
personality disorders (Claes et al.,
Complaints Control 2009)
• Associated with social skills,
Vantage conscience development,
Perspective sympathy/empathy (Eisenberg et
al., 1996; Kochanska et al., 1996; Spinrad
during Recall et al., 2007; Valiente et al., 2004).
Results
r(BPD complaints, %Cat(HD)) = 0

18. Study 1: Conclusions
1. What about … 2. What about …
• “The ability to inhibit a
Overgeneral dominant response to perform
Memory a subdominant response”
(Rothbart & Bates, 2006)
Borderline Effortful • In general lower EC in
personality disorders (Claes et al.,
Complaints Control 2009)
• Associated with social skills,
Vantage conscience development,
Perspective sympathy/empathy (Eisenberg et
al., 1996; Kochanska et al., 1996; Spinrad
during Recall et al., 2007; Valiente et al., 2004).
Results Results
r(BPD complaints, %Cat(HD)) = 0 r(EC, BPD complaints) < 0
r(social complaints, %Obs(HD)) > 0

19. Study 1: Conclusions
1. What about … 2. What about …
• “The ability to inhibit a
Overgeneral dominant response to perform
Memory a subdominant response”
(Rothbart & Bates, 2006)
Borderline Effortful • In general lower EC in
personality disorders (Claes et al.,
Complaints Control 2009)
• Associated with social skills,
Vantage conscience development,
Perspective sympathy/empathy (Eisenberg et
al., 1996; Kochanska et al., 1996; Spinrad
during Recall et al., 2007; Valiente et al., 2004).
Results Results
r(BPD complaints, %Cat(HD)) = 0 r(EC, BPD complaints) < 0
r(EC, %Cat(HD)) = 0
r(social complaints, %Obs(HD)) > 0 r(EC, %Obs(HD)) < 0