Kat Dodson

The DSM-V  diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) focus on indicators of impulsive aggressive phenotype (IAP), such as reckless, aggressive, or law-breaking behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). However, concentrating primarily on behavioral data casts a wide diagnostic net, enabling criteria to describe various individuals with little in common aside from a history of rule-breaking (Hare, Hart, & Harpur, 1991). Other diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder (BPD) and intermittent explosive disorder (IED), and clinical constructs, such as psychopathy, are associated with and often comorbid with ASPD, due to some shared symptoms of IAP, although the three clinical constructs differ in many ways (APA, 2013; Lenzenweger, Lane, Loranger, & Kessler, 2007). Due to the poor discriminant validity of ASPD criteria, these clinical populations are at risk of conflation under the ASPD umbrella due to shared IAP, with little consideration that und...

The DSM-V diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) focus on indicators of impulsive aggressive phenotype (IAP), such as reckless, aggressive, or law-breaking behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). However, concentrating primarily on behavioral data casts a wide diagnostic net, enabling criteria to describe various individuals with little in common aside from a history of rule-breaking (Hare, Hart, & Harpur, 1991). Other diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder (BPD) and intermittent explosive disorder (IED), and clinical constructs, such as psychopathy, are associated with and often comorbid with ASPD, due to some shared symptoms of IAP, although the three clinical constructs differ in many ways (APA, 2013; Lenzenweger, Lane, Loranger, & Kessler, 2007). Due to the poor discriminant validity of ASPD criteria, these clinical populations are at risk of conflation under the ASPD umbrella due to shared IAP, with little consideration that underlying factors and other symptoms may differ and thus have different clinical implications. This review describes distinguishing structural and functional neural traits of psychopathy, BPD, and IED and discusses how these differences produce distinct subjective experiences contributing to IAP. The article additionally discusses potential harmful consequences of failure to differentiate these clinical populations, including heterogenous research populations that yield nongeneralizable results, limited or inappropriate treatment of some psychiatric patients, and general mischaracterization of the disorders (Hare, 1996; Hare et al., 1991). To illustrate these differences, the paper includes an entertaining thought exercise involving a dispute amongst three very different, but equally aggressive, characters at their local pub.

A major goal of current psychiatric research is to identify biomarkers that can, on their own or via interaction with environmental stress, predict disorder onset and progression. Patients with stress-related disorders, including treatment-resistant depression and borderline personality disorder, often display biomarkers of both endogenous opioid (EO) dysregulation and serotonin (5-HT) deficiency, but whether 5-HT deficiency contributes to baseline EO dysregulation or alters the EO system's response to stress in these patients is unknown. This study utilized 5-HT-deficient transgenic mice, a Single Prolonged Stress assay, and real time qPCR to evaluate consequences of 5-HT deficiency on EO receptor and ligand availability at baseline and following stress. Results indicated that 5-HT deficiency led to baseline EO differences and altered effects of stress on the expression of mu receptors in the amygdala and proenkephalin in the frontal cortex. These findings may have implications for the etiology and treatment of stress-related mental illness.

Seventy-one undergraduate students were surveyed to compare their perceptions of the effectiveness and attractiveness of digital and face-to-face (FtF) communication in social support situations. Based on evidence suggesting that digital communication possesses positive qualities that could contribute meaningfully to social support, such as increased willingness to self-disclose (Tidwell & Walther, 2002) and mindfulness when responding (Madell & Muncer, 2007; Perry & Werner-Wilson, 2011), students were expected to rate digital support as more effective and attractive than FtF support. Respondents were also expected to rate digital support as more attractive than effective and FtF support as more effective than attractive. Contrary to Hypotheses 1-3, independent samples t-tests revealed that FtF support was viewed as more attractive and effective than digital support, and digital support was perceived as similarly attractive and effective. However, FtF support was considered more effective than attractive, supporting Hypothesis 4. Paired samples t-tests revealed that digital support was perceived as significantly less embarrassing and more available than FtF support, while FtF support was viewed as preferable for every other measured quality. The perceptions of this sample differed from the experiences of experimental participants in recent literature, indicating a need for more research comparing and contrasting how digital communication is perceived and experienced. Additional significant relationships between subject characteristics were found. Introverts were more drawn to or likely to benefit from digital communication, and younger students showed a preference for FtF support.