Cited by 565Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Mentalization: Ontogeny, Assessment, and Application in the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder

Choi-Kain, Lois W., Gunderson, John G.·2008·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

This article aims to review the development of the concept of mentalization, its applications in the understanding and treatment of borderline personality disorder, and the issue of its assessment. While conceptually derivative of theory of mind, Fonagy's concept of mentalization concerns more affectively and interpersonally complex understandings of oneself and others, reflecting abilities that enable an individual not only to navigate the social world effectively but also to develop an enriched, stable sense of self. The components of mentalization can be organized around self-/other-oriented, implicit/explicit, and cognitive/affective dimensions. Concepts of mindfulness, psychological mindedness, empathy, and affect consciousness are shown to partially overlap with mentalization within these three dimensions. Mentalization is assessed by the measure of reflective function, a scale to be used adjunctively on semistructured narrative interviews such as the Adult Attachment Interview. Its validity has not been fully tested, and its usage has been hampered by the time and expense it requires. Although the concept of mentalization is a useful heuristic that enables clinicians to adopt a coherent treatment approach, it may be too broad and multifaceted to be operationalized as a marker for specific forms of psychopathology such as borderline personality disorder. Research elucidating the relationship between reflective function, overlapping concepts, and features of borderline psychopathology is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07081360

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi-Kain, L. W., & Gunderson, J. G.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2008-09
Volume
165
Issue
9
Pages
1127-1135
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2018329493
Cited by
565
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 33
FWCI
3.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
mentalization, borderline personality disorder, theory of mind, reflective functioning, Adult Attachment Interview, mindfulness, psychological mindedness, empathy, self-other orientation, attachment, treatment of borderline personality disorder
MeSH terms
Affect, Borderline Personality Disorder, Cognition Disorders, Consciousness, Culture, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interview, Psychological, Mental Processes, Object Attachment, Psychological Theory, Severity of Illness Index, Narration

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