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.
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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),
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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).
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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.
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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.
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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.
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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.
Salient Themes in Therapeutic Intervention
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
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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.
Salient Themes in Therapeutic Intervention
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.
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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.
BORDERLINE, NARCISSISTIC, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS
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.
Psychology Research, August 2019, Vol. 9, No.8, 319-328 doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2019.08.002
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.
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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).
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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.
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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.
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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.
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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
SAVING RESOURCES FOR FUTURE DEMANDS
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
Psychology Research, August 2019, Vol. 9, No.8, 329-334 doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2019.08.003
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
Eigenvalues I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3
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
Eigenvalues I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3
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
Eigenvalues I1 I2 I3 I1 I2 I3
RACKETS’ HAPTIC PERCEPTION IN CHILDREN AND ELDERLY
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 =
RACKETS’ HAPTIC PERCEPTION IN CHILDREN AND ELDERLY
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.
RACKETS’ HAPTIC PERCEPTION IN CHILDREN AND ELDERLY
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.
Psychology Research, August 2019, Vol. 9, No.8, 335-338 doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2019.08.004
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.
Psychology Research, August 2019, Vol. 9, No.8, 339-343 doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2019.08.005
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.
HOW OVERACHIEVERS MISS THE MARK IN LIFE AND AT WORK
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.
HOW OVERACHIEVERS MISS THE MARK IN LIFE AND AT WORK
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.
HOW OVERACHIEVERS MISS THE MARK IN LIFE AND AT WORK
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