Emotional responses in patients with borderline as compared with avoidant personality disorder.

The aim of this study was to assess psychophysiological affect correlates, in addition to the usual self-report in borderline personality disorder (BPD) compared with avoidant personality disorder (APD) and normal controls (NCs), when responding to standardized experimental stimuli. In 24 BPD female patients, 23 APD female patients, and 27 female NCs, skin conductance response (SCR), heart rate (HR) change, and startle response were recorded while the subjects viewed slides with emotional content. Neither the self-report nor the psychophysiological data supported the hypothesis that affective responses of BPD individuals are generally stronger than those with APD. BPD patients showed no potentiation of the affective modulation of the startle reflex and their electrodermal reactivity was lower than in either the APD subjects or the NCs. The hypothesis of a general affective hyperresponsivity could not be confirmed. Low somatic arousal in BPD can interfere with the anticipation of signal stimuli and may explain the exaggerated openness borderline personalities show to stimuli, particularly in interpersonal situations.

Affective responsiveness in borderline personality disorder: a psychophysiological approach.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate affective responses to emotional stimuli in subjects with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: Twenty-four female patients with borderline personality disorder and 27 normal female comparison subjects were examined. The test stimuli were a set of standardized photographic slides with pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant emotional valence. In addition to self-reports, emotional reactions to the slides were measured by heart rate, skin conductance, and startle response. Psychometric tests for various aspects of impulsiveness were also completed. RESULTS: Neither self-report nor physiological data gave any evidence that the borderline patients showed more intense affective responses than did the normal subjects. The borderline subjects did not produce higher levels of startle amplitude, and while viewing unpleasant slides, they showed a startle potentiation effect that was largely similar to that of the comparison group. In fact, the borderline patients showed low electrodermal responses to all three stimulus categories, which points to physiological underarousal. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not agree with the hypothesis that there is a fundamental, biologically based affective hyperresponsiveness in borderline personality disorder, as is suggested by current theories of affect dysregulation in the disorder. Autonomic underarousal may seriously interfere with a flexible adaptation to environmental stimuli.