Cited by 105Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyFace Recognition and PerceptionPersonality Traits and Psychology

Facial Trust Appraisal Negatively Biased in Borderline Personality Disorder

Open access
Fertuck, Eric A., Grinband, Jack, Stanley, Barbara·2013·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by unstable interpersonal relationships and intense concerns regarding abandonment and rejection. Previous studies suggest that these and other symptoms of BPD may have their origin in a greater appraisal of untrustworthiness in others. However, it is not known whether this is a result of a heightened sensitivity to trust related stimuli, an improved ability to discriminate between such stimuli, or a response bias. Furthermore, impairment in facial fear appraisal may influence trust appraisal. Healthy controls and individuals diagnosed with BPD appraised human faces that were parametrically varied along either a trust or fear dimension. The BPD group exhibited a response bias to rate the untrustworthiness of facial stimuli higher compared to controls, but there were no significant differences in the discriminability or sensitivity of trustworthiness between groups. Furthermore, ambiguous trust decisions were associated with longer response times (RTs) in individuals with BPD relative to controls. Individuals with BPD have a facial appraisal bias specific to untrustworthiness that does not co-occur with impairments in the appraisal of fear.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2013.01.004

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two studies used screening tools for the control samples.

    “However, two studies used screening tools for the control (Fertuck, Grinband, & Stanley, 2013;Jobst et al., 2016) and some studies did not provide enough information to determine (Bungert, Koppe, et al., 2015;Bungert, Liebke, et al., 2015;Rosenbach & Renneberg, 2015;Staebler et al., 2011;Winter, Koplin, & Lis, 2015).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Stone MH Essential Papers on Borderline Disorders, Essential Papers in Psychoanalysis 1986 New York, NY New York University Press
  2. Todorov A Evaluating Faces on Trustworthiness Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2008 1124 208 224 18400932

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fertuck, E. A., Grinband, J., & Stanley, B.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Fertuck, Eric A.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
207
Issue
3
Pages
195-202
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094066952
Cited by
104
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Psychoanalytic Association
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh062665-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 62665, #R01 MH062665, L30 MH072176, R01MH061017, K23MH077044)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, trustworthiness, response bias, reaction time (psychology), interpersonal relationships, face perception
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Borderline Personality Disorder, Discrimination, Psychological, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Photic Stimulation, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Bias, Trust, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review