Cited by 402Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Borderline Personality Disorder, Stigma, and Treatment Implications

Aviram, Ron B., Brodsky, Beth S., Stanley, Barbara·2006·Harvard Review of Psychiatry

Abstract

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is often viewed in negative terms by mental health practitioners and the public. The disorder may have a stigma associated with it that goes beyond those associated with other mental illnesses. The stigma associated with BPD may affect how practitioners tolerate the actions, thoughts, and emotional reactions of these individuals. It may also lead to minimizing symptoms and overlooking strengths. In society, people tend to distance themselves from stigmatized populations, and there is evidence that some clinicians may emotionally distance themselves from individuals with BPD. This distancing may be especially problematic in treating patients with BPD; in addition to being unusually sensitive to rejection and abandonment, they may react negatively (e.g., by harming themselves or withdrawing from treatment) if they perceive such distancing and rejection. Clinicians' reactivity may be self-protective in response to actual behavior associated with the pathology. As a consequence, however, the very behaviors that make it difficult to work with these individuals contribute to the stigma of BPD. In a dialectical relationship, that stigma can influence the clinician's reactivity, thereby exacerbating those same negative behaviors. The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a cycle of stigmatization to which both patient and therapist contribute. The extent to which therapist distancing is influenced by stigma is an important question that highlights the possibility that the stigma associated with BPD can have an independent contribution to poor outcome with this population. A final issue concerns the available means for identifying and limiting the impact of stigmatization on the treatment of individuals with BPD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10673220600975121

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 402

Authors
Aviram, R. B., Brodsky, B. S., & Stanley, B.
Affiliations
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Aviram, Ron B.
Venue
Harvard Review of Psychiatry
Published
2006-09
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
249-256
ISSN
1067-3229 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998465979
Cited by
402
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Harvard Review of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH 57469)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, stigma, self-fulfilling prophecy, rejection sensitivity, treatment discontinuation, treatment outcomes, self-harm, emotional distance
MeSH terms
Borderline Personality Disorder, Countertransference, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Stereotyping, Suicide, Attempted, Self-Injurious Behavior

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