Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Borderline personality disorder in the context of

self-regulation: Understanding symptoms and hallmark
features as deficits in locomotion and assessment
Marina A. Bornovalova a, Shira Fishman a, David R. Strong b,
Arie W. Kruglanski a, C.W. Lejuez a,*
a
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States
b
Brown Medical School and Butler Hospital, Providence, RI 02906, United States
Received 31 October 2006; received in revised form 12 June 2007; accepted 3 July 2007
Available online 17 August 2007

Abstract

Self-regulation has been hypothesized to play a role in the development and maintenance of borderline
personality disorder (BPD), yet surprisingly few studies have tested this link directly. The current study
examined the relationship between the self-regulation constructs of locomotion (i.e., the ability to commit
the mental and physical resources necessary for goal-directed action) and assessment (i.e., the ability to crit-
ically evaluate a given state in order to judge the quality as compared to alternatives) with BPD, at the level
of diagnostic symptoms as well as the dimensional hallmark features of interpersonal sensitivity, aggres-
sion, and impulsivity. Results indicated that low locomotion and high assessment was related significantly
with BPD diagnostic symptoms and BPD hallmark features, above and beyond demographics, substance
use severity, and depressive symptoms. These results suggest that poor self-regulation in the form of low
locomotion and high assessment may play a role in a range of maladaptive behaviors characteristic of BPD.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-regulation; Borderline personality disorder; Impulsivity; Locomotion; Assessment

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 5932; fax: +1 301 314 9566.
E-mail address: clejuez@psyc.umd.edu (C.W. Lejuez).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.001
 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31 23

1. Introduction

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe psychological condition that often begins in
early adulthood, and is characterized by a lack of control over anger, intense and frequent mood
changes, impulsive acts, and disturbed interpersonal relationships (American Psychological Asso-
ciation, 1994). In addition, individuals with BPD present with maladaptive, health-compromising
behavior problems including suicidal and self-harm behavior, and the disorder is frequently
co-morbid with a number of Axis I disorders including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, post trau-
matic stress disorder, substance abuse, depression, and panic disorder (e.g., Skodol et al., 2002).
Although there is no clear consensus regarding the specific factors underlying the development
and maintenance of BPD, many conceptualizations indicate the key role of self-regulation (e.g.,
Nigg, Silk, & Stavro, 2005), which may be described as the ability to govern or direct attention,
resources, or action toward a particular goal (e.g., Higgins, 1989). Research provides preliminary
support for the link between BPD and related pathology with aspects of self-regulation. For
example, deficits in self-control have been linked to poor anger management and interpersonal
aggression, eating pathology, and alcohol use disorders (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990; Tangney,
Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), all relevant to BPD. Similarly, studies defining self-control as ‘‘ego-
resiliency’’ (a construct highly similar to that of impulse control or ability to delay gratification)
have found that this variable is negatively associated with BPD-related behaviors including unpre-
dictable behavior, fluctuating moods, direct expression of hostility, and substance misuse (e.g.,
Block, Block, & Keyes, 1988), and positively related to self-reported feelings of dejection and var-
ious aspects of identity conflict (Gramzow, Sedikides, Panter, & Insko, 2000). Finally, trait-impul-
sivity also has been shown to be related to BPD across self-report/correlational (e.g., Fossati
et al., 2004) and experimental studies (e.g., Dougherty, Bjork, Huckabee, Moeller, & Swann,
1999), and research suggests that this variable is one of the traits that best distinguishes BPD from
most other personality disorders (e.g., Morey et al., 2002). Taken together, this work suggests the
potential role of self-regulation in BPD, but additional research specifically focused on self-regu-
lation from a broader perspective may be useful for contributing to the understanding of the
disorder.
A somewhat different approach to understanding self-regulation as it relates to BPD comes
from social psychology research and involves two key functions working together, namely, loco-
motion and assessment. Assessment involves comparing and selecting among alternative desired
end-states and comparing and selecting among alternative means used to reach a desired end-
state, including a direct comparison to others (Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski
et al., 2000). However, assessment, in and of itself, is not sufficient for successful self-regulation.
Committing the mental and physical resources required to initiate and maintain action also is inte-
gral in reducing the discrepancy between one’s current state and the desired end-state. This pro-
cess of commitment of resources and taking action to accomplish some movement toward a goal
is defined as locomotion (Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000). It is important to note that
locomotion is not simply activity, but more specifically productive goal-directed activity.
Research indicates benefits of locomotion, as it is positively related to goal achievement as well
as measures of positive mood, optimism, and self-esteem (Hong, Tan, & Chang, 2004; Kruglanski
et al., 2000). Assessment also has been shown to be related to goal attainment, suggesting that
these two functions work together in the service of helping one achieve one’s goals. However,
24 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31

despite the link between assessment and positive outcomes (i.e., goal achievement), assessment
also has been shown to be negatively related to well-being across measures of optimism, positive
affect, and self-esteem (Hong et al., 2004; Kruglanski et al., 2000). First and foremost, this re-
search suggests the potential utility of a clinical application of these self-regulation constructs.
Additionally, the differential findings across locomotion and assessment are in line with research
suggesting that these functions also may operate independently, or as ‘‘ingredients’’ of the larger,
self-regulatory system (e.g., Higgins et al., 2003). Indeed, whether an individual is capable of pro-
gressing toward a goal (locomotion) may be very different from the ability to set a standard and
critically evaluate alternatives (assessment). As such, some individuals may be high on both loco-
motion and assessment, low on both or high on one and low on the other.
The clinical picture of BPD and its link to self-regulation make this disorder especially amena-
ble to the application of locomotion and assessment. Specifically, BPD may be well characterized
by overly critical self-evaluation (high assessment) combined with the lack of productive goal-di-
rected action following from this evaluation (low locomotion). Interestingly, although this combi-
nation fits within the clinical picture of the disorder (e.g., Linehan, 1993), little empirical research
in BPD has directly examined either over-assessment or goal directed action in BPD (see Gratz,
Rosenthal, Tull, Lejuez, & Gunderson (2006) for an exception regarding goal directed action),
much less their combined influence.
Against this backdrop, the current study examined the relationship of locomotion and assess-
ment with BPD, at the level of diagnostic symptoms as well as dimensional hallmark features
including interpersonal sensitivity, aggression, and impulsivity. An additional unique feature of
the current study is the focus on inner-city substance users. Not only is this an underserved sam-
ple, but also one that may be especially vulnerable to developing BPD. Indeed, substance users
have been shown to evidence elevated levels of temperamental characteristics associated with
BPD such as impulsivity (Sher, Bartholow, & Wood, 2000), and experience an unusually high
level of environmental risk factors associated with the disorder including a history of trauma
(Romero-Daza, Weeks, & Singer, 2003). Not surprisingly, a growing body of research indicates
high rates of comorbidity among substance use disorders and BPD (cf. Bornovalova, Lejuez,
Daughters, Rosenthal, & Lynch, 2005), with such rates especially high among inner-city substance
users. We hypothesized that BPD symptoms and related hallmark features from diagnostic and
self-report measures would be related to low locomotion and high assessment among a sample
of inner-city substance users.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Out of 147 participants, 96 (65.3%) were male and 51 were female; 93.9% were African–Amer-
ican. The mean age was 42.5 (SD = 9.06), and average income was $14,958 (SD = $21,029).
Regarding the highest educational level, 17.7% of the participants had less then a high school
degree or its equivalent (i.e., GED), 44.2% had a high school or equivalent, 33.3% had at least
some college or technical school but no college degree, and 4.8% had a college degree or beyond.
All participants were residents in a drug and alcohol abuse treatment center in the greater
 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31 25

Washington DC metropolitan area. The center requires complete abstinence from drugs and alco-
hol (including the prohibition of any form of agonist treatment such as methadone), with the
exception of caffeine and nicotine; regular drug testing is provided and any use is grounds for
dismissal from the center.

2.2. Measures

Measures targeted four domains consisting of: (a) covariates including demographics, sub-
stance use severity, and depressive symptoms, (b) BPD diagnostic symptoms, (c) self-reported
BPD-hallmark features including interpersonal sensitivity, aggression, and impulsivity, and (d)
self-regulation in the form of locomotion and assessment.

2.2.1. Covariate measures

Possible covariates were taken from responses on a short demographic form, substance use diag-
noses from the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, &
Williams, 1996), and score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale (CES-D;
Radloff, 1977). Demographic items included participant age, gender, race, education level, and to-
tal household income. Substance use diagnoses included alcohol, marijuana, crack/cocaine, heroin,
and hallucinogens including PCP, with number of substances dependent upon used to index sub-
stance use severity (for further procedural details regarding the administration of the diagnostic
interviews, see SCID-II description below). Finally, the CES-D is a short self-report scale designed
to measure current depressive symptomatology in the general population. High internal consis-
tency was demonstrated in the general (Cronbach’s a = .85) and patient (Cronbach’s a = .90) pop-
ulations. Six-month test–retest reliability on individuals reporting no negative life events was
adequate (r = .54). Discriminant validity was high between psychiatric inpatients and the general
population and moderate among levels of severity within patient groups (Radloff, 1977). The reli-
ability in the current sample was .83.

2.2.2. BPD diagnostic symptoms

The SCID-II, a measure with demonstrated reliability (First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Ben-
jamin, 1997), was used to obtain BPD diagnosis. All interviews were masked and 25% of the tapes
were reviewed by a Ph.D. with extensive experience administering both SCID-I and SCID-II. In
cases of disagreement (n = 3), the interviewer and rater met to discuss the discrepancy until con-
sensus was reached. In our sample, 17.7% met criteria for a BPD diagnosis; however, given that a
BPD diagnosis is a dichotomous variable that ignores important information regarding the range
of symptom presentation, we utilized a methodology based upon Weaver and Clum (1993) to de-
rive a continuous symptom score. Specifically, we summed the SCID-II derived score of 1 (not
present), 2 (sub-threshold), or 3 (present) for each of the 9 BPD symptoms, with a total score
ranging from 9 to 27, referred to here as the BPD diagnostic symptom composite.

2.2.3. BPD hallmark features

Similar to the approach taken in Rosenthal, Cheavens, Lejuez, Kosson, and Lynch (2005),
interpersonal sensitivity, aggression, and impulsivity were assessed as BPD hallmark features.
Specifically, the current study utilized the Inventory for Interpersonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz,
26 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31

Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988; Pilkonis, Kim, Proietti, & Barkham, 1996) to assess
interpersonal sensitivity and aggression. The IIP is a 47-item measure that provides a marker of
Axis-II psychopathology and impulse-control problems (e.g., Pilkonis et al., 1996). Items are
rated on a five point scale, with each item focused on a behavioral deficit (e.g., ‘‘It is hard for
me to trust other people’’) or behavioral excess (e.g., ‘‘I am too sensitive to criticism’’); subscale
scores are provided as an average score across items between 0 and 4. The reliability and validity
for these subscales is well established (Pilkonis et al., 1996) and reliability in the current study was
.73 for interpersonal sensitivity and .89 for aggression. To assess the third hallmark feature of
impulsivity, we used the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, version 11 (BIS-11; Patton, Stanford, &
Barratt, 1995). The BIS-11 is a 30-item, self-report questionnaire that asks participants to rate
how often a series of statements applies to them, based on the following scale: rarely/never, occa-
sionally, often, or always/almost always. Item scores range from one to four. Cumulative scores
range from 30 (low in trait-impulsivity) to 120 (high in trait-impulsivity). The BIS-11 has been
normed on a variety of sample populations, including college students (M = 63.82,
SD = 10.17), inpatient substance abusers (M = 69.26, SD = 10.28), and prison inmates (M =
76.30, SD = 11.86). The BIS-11 contains three subscales, which have been termed Motor Impul-
siveness, Cognitive Impulsiveness, and Nonplanning, however given the robust correlations
among these subscales the total score is frequently used, as was done in the current study (all
r’s across the three subscales >.5 in the current sample). As a total score, the BIS has been shown
to be reliable in both clinical and community samples, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging
from .79 to .83 (Patton et al., 1995). Reliability in the current sample was good (a = .84).
Given the relationship among interpersonal sensitivity and aggression from the IIP and impul-
sivity from the BIS-11 (see Table 1), a single composite score was preferable to using each scale
score individually. Given the different range for scores across each scale, Z-scores were calculated
and summed to derive the BPD hallmark features composite score.

Table 1
Correlations among key variables
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Locomotion 46.8 (9.7) X .28** .14 .24** .12 .17* .30** .07 .27**
2. Assessment 39.2 (10.6) X .27** .33** .36** .33** .16 .13 .28**
3. BPD diagnosis 14.7 (4.4) X .55** .47** .43** .50** .26* .39**
4. BPD hallmark N/A X N/A N/A N/A .25* .48**
5. I-Sensitivity 1.4 (0.7) X .72** .44** .10 .39**
6. Aggression 1.1 (0.9) X .47** .15 .36**
7. Impulsivity 76.4 (12.4) X .37** .45**
8. Substance use 1.6 (0.9) X .29**
9. Depression 21.9 (10.4) X
Note: Locomotion and assessment indicate subscales of the Locomotion and Assessment Scale; BPD diagnosis indi-
cates total symptom severity between 1 and 3 across all 9 diagnostic symptoms; BPD hallmark indicates the composite
of the interpersonal sensitivity (I-Sensitivity) and aggression subscales on the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Scale
and the Impulsivity total score on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; Substance use is number of drugs dependent upon
including alcohol, marijuana, heroin, crack/cocaine, and hallucinogens including PCP; Depression is total score on the
Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale. N/A is used in place of correlations between the BPD hallmark
composite and the subscales that make up the composite.
 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31 27

2.2.4. Locomotion and assessment

The Locomotion and Assessment Scale was developed and validated across 13 independent
samples (Kruglanski et al., 2000). Each scale consists of 12 items which are each summed to form
a total score. Responses are given on a 5 point scale. Items on the locomotion scale tap into pro-
ductive goal-directed action, such as ‘‘By the time I accomplish a task, I already have the next one
in mind’’ or ‘‘When I decide to do something, I can’t wait to get started.’’ Items on the assessment
scale tap evaluative planning ranging from useful self-reflection and comparison to ruminative
preoccupation with evaluation and comparison to others including ‘‘I spend a lot of time thinking
about my own strengths and weaknesses’’ and ‘‘I often compare myself with other people.’’ Reli-
ability of both scales has been established; a’s = .73 and .84 for locomotion and assessment,
respectively, in the current study.

3. Results

Regarding demographics, females evidenced greater symptoms and hallmark feature scores
(both p’s < .01), whereas both age and income were related negatively to symptoms (r = .17,
p < .05 and r = .33, p < .01, respectively), but not hallmark features. Education was not related
to either BPD variable. Controlling for these demographic variables, Table 1 indicates that a sig-
nificant positive relationship was evidenced between locomotion and assessment, as well as
between the BPD diagnostic symptom composite and hallmark features. The BPD diagnostic
symptoms composite and BPD hallmark features composite were both positively correlated with
assessment, and the hallmark features were negatively correlated with locomotion. With regard to
the individual hallmark features, only the relationship between locomotion and interpersonal sen-
sitivity, as well as assessment and impulsivity were not significant.
Moving beyond these univariate relationships, we conducted regression analyses for the BPD
diagnostic symptom and the BPD hallmark features composite considering the role of locomotion
and assessment together (see Tables 2 and 3). In both regressions, the first step entered the demo-
graphic covariates of age, gender, the second step entered substance use severity and depressive
symptoms, and the final step entered locomotion and assessment. In the regression analysis for
the BPD diagnostic symptom composite, locomotion and assessment each were significant, com-
bining for 4.8% of the variance. Only substance use severity and depressive symptoms were not
significant in the final model, although the latter did approach significance (p = .057). In the
regression analysis for the BPD hallmark features, locomotion and assessment each were signif-
icant, combining for 9.6% of the variance. Only age and depressive symptoms remained significant
in the final model.
Of note, regressions using the individual hallmark features produced very similar results as did
the regression using the composite. For interpersonal sensitivity, both locomotion (b = .177;
sr2 = .024; p = .033) and assessment (b = .347; sr2 = .095; p < .001) were significant in the final
model (p < .001); gender and depressive symptoms also remained significant in this final step.
For aggression, both locomotion (b = .227; sr2 = .04; p < .01) and assessment (b = .327;
sr2 = .084; p < .001) were significant in the final model (p < .001); age and depressive symptoms
also remained significant in this final step. In line with the univariate relationships, locomotion
(b = .261; sr2 = .052; p < .001) and not assessment (p > .05) was significant in the final step of
28 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31

Table 2
Regression analysis examining the incremental validity of locomotion and assessment predicting the BPD diagnostic
symptom composite
Independent variables Regression statistics
Overall F B SE sr2
2
Step 1 F(3, 143) = 14.6; p < .001; R = .235
Age .09 .04 .03*
Gender (female) 2.80 .68 .09**
Income .52 .13 .09**
Step 2 F(5, 141) = 13.10; p < .001; R2 = .317
Age .09 .03 .04*
Gender (female) 2.09 .67 .05**
Income .42 .13 .06**
Substance use .45 .39 .01
Depression .11 .03 .07**
Step 3 F(7, 139) = 11.4; p < .001; R2 = .365
Age .09 .03 .05**
Gender (female) 2.30 .66 .07**
Income .42 .12 .07**
Substance use .36 .38 .00
Depression .07 .03 .02
Locomotion .07 .04 .02*
Assessment .10 .03 .06**
*
<.05.
**
<.01.

the regression for impulsivity; substance use and depressive symptoms also remained significant in
this final step (p < .001).

4. Discussion

The current study examined the relationship between borderline personality disorder (BPD)
and the self-regulation constructs of locomotion and assessment in a sample of inner-city drug
users. Both locomotion and assessment were uniquely related to BPD, whether it was measured
as diagnostic symptom severity or as a composite of hallmark features. Further, these findings re-
mained significant in both cases even after controlling for demographic variables, substance use
severity, and depressive symptoms. When examining each of the hallmark features independently,
both locomotion and assessment were related to interpersonal sensitivity and aggression, but only
locomotion was related to impulsivity.
These results suggest that BPD may be characterized, at least in part, by the combination of
over-regulation in the form of high assessment and under-regulation in the form of low locomo-
tion. For interpreting these findings, it is crucial to clarify the exact nature of the relationship of
assessment and locomotion with BPD. First, although assessment may be related positively to
goal achievement (Kruglanski et al., 2000), recent research has identified that at excessive levels
 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31 29

Table 3
Regression analysis examining the incremental validity of locomotion and assessment predicting the BPD hallmark
features.
Independent variables Regression statistics
Overall F B SE sr2
2
Step 1 F(3, 141) = 4.5; p < .01; R = .086
Age .04 .02 .01
Gender (female) 1.06 .43 .03*
Income .15 .08 .01
Step 2 F(5, 141) = 10.3; p < .001; R2 = .267
Age .04 .02 .01
Gender (female) .46 .40 .01
Income .08 .08 .01
Substance use .28 .23 .01
Depression .10 .02 .15**
Step 3 F(7, 139) = 11.3; p < .001; R2 = .363
Age .04 .02 .03*
Gender (female) .64 .38 .02
Income .07 .07 .01
Substance use .22 .22 .01
Depression .06 .02 .05*
Locomotion .07 .02 .07**
Assessment .08 .02 .09**
*
<.05.
**
< .01.

it also may be related to poor psychological functioning which is consistent with the current find-
ings. For locomotion, it is important to focus on the productive aspect of action, as opposed to
action in general. Considered this way, BPD-relevant behaviors such as self-harm, interpersonal
aggression, and substance use would be considered as low locomotion because they require signif-
icantly less emotional and behavioral resources than the use of acceptance-based strategies or
engagement in alternative and more adaptive behaviors such as seeking social support or engaging
in interpersonal problem-solving (cf. Linehan, 1993).
Beyond the hallmark features composite, it is useful to consider the pattern of findings specific
to the individual hallmark feature of impulsivity. On the surface, one might expect locomotion to
be positively related to impulsivity, as opposed to the negative correlation that was observed.
Again, it is important to note that locomotion involves productive action. Although individuals
with high levels of impulsivity may seem especially active, impulsivity often is considered to be
unproductive in terms of long-term goals, thereby supporting the negative correlation. Similarly,
one might have expected impulsivity to be negatively related to assessment. Yet, as we previously
noted, assessment is not simply productive efforts to think before acting (which would serve as a
converse to impulsivity), but instead a more ruminative over-assessment involving a preoccupa-
tion with self-evaluation and comparison to others. When keeping this definition in mind, assess-
ment seems to have much less in common with impulsivity, and as such, the lack of a relationship
is less surprising. More importantly, the differential pattern of correlations across the individual
30 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31

hallmark features is consistent with recent work suggesting that BPD is not a unitary construct,
but is more likely to be subject to a multi-factor solution (Poreh et al., 2006).
The results of this study are suggestive, but must be viewed in light of some methodological
issues. First, the sample was comprised largely of inner-city, African–American males in residen-
tial drug treatment, differing considerably from the typical participant used in BPD studies, who
most often is Caucasian, female, middle-upper class, educated, and a psychiatric inpatient hospi-
talized for recent suicide attempts (e.g., Zanarini, Frankenburg, Khera, & Bleichmar, 2001). Sec-
ond, because less than 20% of the participants met the clinical criteria for BPD, it was necessary to
use continuous measures of BPD symptoms and features in place of diagnosis. Together, these
two issues raise questions about the generalizability of this work to individuals with BPD in other
settings. Finally, the cross-sectional design and correlational nature of the data preclude the deter-
mination of whether the variables of locomotion and assessment are indeed causal in the devel-
opment of BPD-related pathology.
Despite limitations, the current set of findings contributes to both clinical practice and theory
development. First, the current work provides suggestive evidence for considering locomotion and
assessment to be distinct but related components that contribute to psychopathology. Second, a
unique contribution is the extension of locomotion and assessment specific to BPD and the use of
a severely impaired sample of inner-city substance users at elevated risk of BPD (Bornovalova
et al., 2005). As a clinical implication, this work highlights the potential value in identifying those
with low locomotion and high assessment who may be at risk for BPD. Addressing these ques-
tions in future, larger-scale studies may lead to refined assessment and development of targeted
interventions for individuals who are especially at-risk for BPD and related psychopathology.

References

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.).
Washington, DC.
Block, J., Block, J. H., & Keyes, S. (1988). Longitudinally foretelling drug usage in adolescence: Early childhood
personality and environmental precursors. Child Development, 59, 336–355.
Bornovalova, M. A., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., Rosenthal, M. Z., & Lynch, T. R. (2005). The role of impulsivity
in the comorbidity of borderline personality and substance use disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 790–812.
Dougherty, D. M., Bjork, J. M., Huckabee, H. C. G., Moeller, F. G., & Swann, A. C. (1999). Laboratory measures of
aggression and impulsivity in women with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 85, 315–326.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997). User’s guide for the structured
clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1996). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I
disorders: Non-patient edition (SCID-NP). NY: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric
Institute.
Fossati, A., Barratt, E. S., Carretta, I., Leonardi, B., Grazioli, F., & Maffei, C. (2004). Predicting borderline and
antisocial personality disorder features in nonclinical subjects using measures of impulsivity and aggressiveness.
Psychiatry Research, 15, 161–170.
Gramzow, R. H., Sedikides, C., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Aspects of self-regulation and self-structure as
predictors of perceived emotional distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 188–205.
Gratz, K. L., Rosenthal, M. Z., Tull, M. T., Lejuez, C. W., & Gunderson, J. G. (2006). An experimental investigation of
emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology., 115, 850–855.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: A developmental
theory relating self and affect. Journal of Personality, 57, 407–444.
 M.A. Bornovalova et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 22–31 31

Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct
orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293–344). New York:
Academic Press.
Hong, R. Y., Tan, M. S., & Chang, W. N. C. (2004). Locomotion and assessment: Self-regulation and subjective well-
being. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 325–332.
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureno, G., & Villasenor, V. A. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal
problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
885–892.
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., et al. (2000). To ‘‘do the
right thing’’ or to ‘‘just do it: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J. G., Quigley, B. D., Shea, M. T., Skodol, A. E., McGlashan, T. H., et al. (2002). The
representation of borderline, avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, and schizotypal personality disorders by the five-factor
model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 215–234.
Nigg, J. T., Silk, K. R., & Stavro, G. (2005). Disinhibition and borderline personality disorder. Development and
Psychopathology, 17, 1129–1149.
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774.
Pilkonis, P. A., Kim, Y., Proietti, J. M., & Barkham, M. (1996). Scales for personality disorders developed from the
inventory of interpersonal problems. Journal of Personality Disorders, 10, 355–369.
Poreh, A., Rawlings, D., Claridge, G., Freeman, J. L., Faulkner, C., & Shelton, C. (2006). The BPQ: A scale for the
assessment of Borderline Personality based on DSM-IV criteria. Journal of Personality Disorders, 20, 247–260.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Romero-Daza, N., Weeks, M., & Singer, M. (2003). Nobody gives a damn if I live or die: Violence, drugs, and street-
level prostitution in inner-city Hartford, Connecticut. Medical Anthropology, 22, 233–259.
Rosenthal, M. Z., Cheavens, J. S., Lejuez, C. W., Kosson, D., & Lynch, T. R. (2005). Thought suppression mediates the
relationship between negative affect and borderline personality disorder symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
43, 1173–1185.
Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Wood, M. D. (2000). Personality and substance use disorders: A prospective study.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 818–829.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from
preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978–986.
Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., Pfohl, B., Widiger, T. A., Livesley, W. J., & Siever, L. J. (2002). The borderline
diagnosis I: Psychopathology, comorbidity, and personality structure. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 936–950.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology,
better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.
Weaver, T. L., & Clum, G. A. (1993). Early family environments and traumatic experiences associated with borderline
personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1068–1075.
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Khera, G. S., & Bleichmar, J. (2001). Treatment histories of borderline inpatients.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42, 144–150.