BPD Childhood Trauma and Structural Dissociation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/273256594
Borderline personality disorder, childhood trauma and structural dissociation

of the personality
Article · September 2012
CITATIONS READS
23 3,017
3 authors:
Dolores Mosquera Anabel Gonzalez

INTRA-TP www.intra-tp-com Universitary Hospital of A Coruña
58 PUBLICATIONS 212 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 262 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Onno van der Hart

Utrecht University
377 PUBLICATIONS 9,221 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Trauma, dissociation and emotion regulation View project
a book on the history of trauma-generated dissociation of the personality View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dolores Mosquera on 08 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FUNDAP | ex - IAEPD 44 | PERSONA
Dolores Mosquera, Anabel Gonzalez, & Onno van der Hart
Borderline personality disorder,

childhood trauma and structural
dissociation of the personality
INTRODUCTION
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder and dissociation are strongly
Different factors have been proposed in the origin of bor-
related. DSM-IV-TR criteria of BPD, for instance, include isola-
ted dissociative symptoms (APA, 1994). Two thirds of BPD derline personality disorder (BPD). Some authors have
may be diagnosed of a dissociative disorder (Korzekwa, Dell remarked on the importance of genetic personality traits
and Pain, 2009). Both diagnoses have been related with high (Siever, Torgersen, et al, 2002) and their role as risk or pro-
rates of childhood trauma. The close relationship between tective factors with regard to sensitivity to context (Steele &
trauma, dissociation and borderline features can be unders- Siever, 2010). Others have related early attachment relation-
tood from the perspective of the theory of structural dissocia-
ships and BPD symptomatology (Barone, 2003; Buchheim
tion of the personality (Van der Hart, Nijenhuis & Steele,
et al, 2007; Grover et al, 2007; Bakermans-Kranenburg &
2006/2008) which transcends the traditional approach of
describing "comorbidity". In this article we will review theVan IJzendoorn, 2009; Newman, Harris & Allen, 2010).
empirical data which support the relation between early Some researches point to a higher prevalence of trauma, in
traumatizing and attachment disruption situations, and both particular early, severe and chronic trauma among adult
borderline and dissociative symptoms. Borderline personalityborderline patients (Horesh et al 2008; Tyrka et al, 2009; Ball
disorder will be explained in terms of structural dissociation
& Links, 2009). High rates of dissociative symptoms have
of the personality.
been reported in the literature. Some authors consider these
dissociative symptoms as symptoms of a personality disor-
der (Linehan, 1993, 2006), while others argue that some
true dissociative disorders have been misdiagnosed as borderlines (Sar, Akyüz &
Dogan, 2007; Putnam, 1997).
Some authors (Zanarini, 2000; Zanarini, Yong, Frankenburg et al, 2002) found a
high prevalence of traumatizing events. Overall severe early traumatization and
attachment disturbances are frequent in the history of BPD patients, and TDSP can
bring some light to the link between early experiences, and the adult symptoms, as
we will describe in further sections.
The study of isolated factors is important to understand the role of different aspects
in the development of a disorder. But more comprehensive theories are needed to
include individual factors in a global framework. The theory of structural dissociation
of the personality (TSDP) offers a comprehensive theoretical explanation of how early
experiences, including certain attachment styles and relational trauma, can generate
a division of the personality. This division manifests in both borderline symptoms and
those of dissociative disorders; from this perspective, they share a common origin.
Thus, the term “structural dissociation” does not refer only to dissociative disorders,
but involves the recognition that dissociation is the basic feature of traumatization and
posttraumatic responses.
This article will review the evidence regarding attachment disturbances, early trau-
ma, dissociation and personality disorders. Theory of structural dissociation of the per-
sonality will be briefly described. Genetic factors, childhood attachment and early
trauma will be described as confluent factors that influence the development of differ-
ent borderline features in each individual case. Finally, a tentative description of the
BPD clinical phenomena will be presented.
EARLY TRAUMA, ATTACHMENT DISRUPTIONS, AND BORDERLINE

PERSONALITY DISORDER
Early Trauma and Borderline Personality Disorder
As described with regard to Criterion A of posttraumatic stress disorder (APA,

1994), the classic vision of trauma considers it from the perspective of a traumatizing
event and its characteristics: a threat to the physical integrity of oneself or other peo-
ple. But in childhood, many perceived threats stem more from caregivers’ affective sig-
nals and caregiver availability than from the actual level or physical danger or risk for
survival (Schuder & Lyons-Ruth, 2004). An often overlooked form of traumatization
pertains to the so-called “hidden traumas,” that are related to the caregiver’s inability
to modulate the affective dysregulation (Schuder & Lyons-Ruth (2004).
Different studies have described a frequent comorbidity between PTSD and BPD
(Driessen et al, 2002; McLean & Gallop, 2003; Harned, Rizvi, & Linehan 2010; Pagura
et al, 2010; Pietrzak et al, 2010). Others found a relationship between BPD and emo-
tional abuse (Kingdon et al, 2010) and different kinds of abuse (Grover, 2007; Tyrka et
al, 2009). A history of childhood trauma predicts a poor outcome in borderline
patients (Gunderson, 2006). PTSD symptoms together with dissociative symptomatol-
ogy predict self-destructive behaviors (Spitzer et al, 2000; Sansone et al, 1995).
Zanarini (2000a) reviewed the empirical literature that described estimates of child-
hood sexual abuse in BPD ranging between 40 to 70% compared with the rate of
childhood sexual abuse in other Axis II disorder patients (19% to, 26%). While many
of these studies were retrospective, some studies included prospective measures, and
all showed a significant relationship between sexual abuse, childhood maltreatment,
BPD precursors and BPD (Battle, Shea, Johnson et al, 2004; Cohen, Crawford, Johnson
& Kasen, 2005; Rogosch & Chiccetti, 2005; Yen, Shea, Battle et al, 2002). Early mal-
treatment has been related not only to BPD, but to other mental disorders. However,
these studies show that the relation is strongest with BPD as compared to other per-
sonality disorders. The severity of sexual abuse has also been related with the severity
of BPD features (Silk, Lee, Hill &Lohr, 1995; Zanarini, Yong, Frankenburg et al, 2002)
and self-harming behaviors (Sansone et al, 2002).
Battle, Shea, Johnson, DM et al. (2004) developed a multisite investigation in which
self-reported history of abuse and neglect experiences were assessed among 600
patients diagnosed with either a PD (borderline, schizotypal, avoidant, or obsessive-
compulsive) or major depressive disorder without PD. They found that rates of child-
hood maltreatment among individuals with PDs are generally high (73% reporting
abuse and 82% reporting neglect). BPD was more consistently associated with child-
hood abuse and neglect than other PD diagnoses.
Graybar and Boutilier (2002) reviewed the empirical literature on BPD and various
childhood traumas. They concluded that the reported rates of physical, sexual, and
verbal abuse and neglect among BPD patients ranged from 60–80%. Laporte and
Guttman (1996) also studied a range of childhood experiences in female patients with
BPD and those with other personality disorders. They found that the patients with BPD
were more likely to report a history of adoption, paternal alcoholism, parental divorce,
parental desertion, leaving home before age 16, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual
abuse, and witnessing more abuse than patients with other personality disorders.
Furthermore, a significantly higher percentage of BPD patients than non-BPD patients
reported multiple occurrences and more than one type of abuse. Paris and Zweig-
Frank (1997) found that the degree of severity of the abuse could distinguish individ-
uals with BPD from those without BPD.
Ball and Links (2009) review the literature on trauma and BPD in the context of
Hill´s classic criteria (1965) for demonstrating causation (strength, consistency, speci-
ficity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence
and analogy). These authors demonstrated that trauma can be considered a causal
factor in the development of BPD, as part of a multifactorial etiologic model.
Goodman and Yehuda (2002) reviewed a number of empirical studies and con-
cluded that the frequency of the overall rate of childhood sexual abuse among BPD
patients ranged from 40–70% compared to 19–26% among patients with other per-
sonality disorders. However, in recent years, many researchers have pointed out that
the association between (remembered) childhood sexual abuse and BPD might not be
as strong as the previous studies indicated. Golier et al (2003) found high rates of early
and lifetime trauma in a sample of personality disorders. Borderline patients had sig-
nificantly higher rates of childhood/adolescent physical abuse (52.8% versus 34.3%)
and were twice as likely to develop PTSD. Yen et al. (2002) found that between differ-
ent personality disorders, BPD participants reported the highest rate of traumatic
exposure (particularly sexual trauma, including childhood sexual abuse), the highest
rate of posttraumatic stress disorder, and youngest age of first traumatizing event.
Johnson, Cohen, Brown et al. (1999) found that persons with documented child-
hood abuse or neglect were more than 4 times as likely as those who were not abused
or neglected to be diagnosed with PDs during early adulthood after age, parental edu-
cation, and parental psychiatric disorders were controlled statistically.
Sabo (1997) found an interaction between childhood trauma and borderline fea-
tures, also including attachment issues as relevant factors. Fossati, Madeddu, and
Maffei (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 21 studies that examined the relationship
between BPD and childhood sexual abuse. They found that the effect size is only mod-
erate.
Table 1. Studies about childhood trauma in BPD
Studies Chilldhood trauma in BPD
Zanarini (2000b) 40-70% of childhood sexual abuse in

BPD
Battle, Shea, Johnson et al, 2004; Positive relationship in prospective stu-

Cohen, Crawford, Johnson & Kasen, dies of childhood sexual and physical
2005; Rogosch & Chiccetti, 2005; Yen, abuse and BPD
Shea, Battle et al, 2002
Silk, Lee, Hill & Lohr, 1995; Zanarini, Positive relationship between severity of
Yong, Frankenburg et al, 2002; Sansone sexual abuse, severity of borderline
et al, 2002 symptoms and self-harming behavior
Johnson, JG; Cohen, P; Brown, J et al. Persons with documented childhood

(1999) abuse or neglect have 4 times higher
probability to be diagnosed with PDs
Battle, Shea, Johnson, DM et al. (2004) 73% childhood abuse and 82% neglect
Graybar & Boutilier (2002) Physical, sexual, and verbal abuse and
neglect 60-80%
Laporte & Guttman (1996) BPD have multiple occurrences and

more than one type of abuse
Goodman & Yehuda (2002) Childhood sexual abuse range from 40-
70%
Golier et al (2003) 52,8% of childhood/adolescent physical
abuse
Fossati, Madeddu, & Maffei (1999) Meta-analysis founding evidence for a
moderate effect of childhood sexual
abuse
STUDIES ABOUT CONSEQUENCES OF EARLY TRAUMATIZATION
Above we have seen how prevalent traumatic antecedents are in BPD. However, we
can analyze the relationship between borderline personality and trauma from a differ-
ent angle, i.e., focus on the consequences of early and severe traumatization. Herbst
et al (2009) say that the diagnosis of PTSD does not adequately describe the impact of
exposure to trauma on the developing child. Examining the prevalence of different
interpersonal trauma types and the long-term effects of maltreatment and neglect in
adolescents 71% of the traumatized adolescents did not meet the criteria for PTSD.
The most common diagnosis in the sample was BPD.
Some authors (Herman, 1992; Van der Kolk et al, 2005) have also remarked that
PTSD symptoms are only adequate to describe the consequences of single traumatic
events, but do not include most of the features which are consequences of early,
severe and chronic maltreatment and neglect. To describe these clinical presentations,
a new category has been proposed for DSM-V: The Disorders of Extreme Stress
(DESNOS: Van der Kolk, Roth, Pelcovitz, Sunday & Spinazzola, 2005). Victims of
chronic interpersonal trauma present features that have not been adequately
described with the posttraumatic stress disorder criteria. Herman (1992) proposes a
different concept that she has called Complex PTSD. They arranged the symptoms in
seven categories: Dysregulation of (a) affect and impulses, (b) attention or conscious-
ness, (c) self-perception, (d) perception of the perpetrator, (e) relations with others, (f)
somatization and (g) systems of meaning. Many of these symptoms overlap with bor-
derline criteria, supporting from a different point of departure a relationship between
early, chronic relational trauma and borderline personality disorder (Roth, Newman,
Pelcovitz, Van der Kolk, & Mandel, 1997; Van der Kolk, Roth, Pelcovitz, Sunday &
Spinazzola, 2005; Driessen et al., 2002; Gunderson & Sabo, 1993; McLean, & Gallop,
2003; Yen et al., 2002). Some authors (Classen et al, 2006) proposed to speak of post-
traumatic personality disorder-disorganized (PTPD-D) and posttraumatic personality
disorder-organized (PTPD-O). This category does not explain the process, which leads
from early traumatic experiences to adult psychopathology, that we will further
describe in terms of structural dissociation. Although PTPD-D fails to include many dis-
sociative symptoms which are usually present in these patients, it does support the
idea of borderline symptoms as traumatic consequences.
Magnification or minimization of childhood trauma influence?
In previous sections we described different empirical studies and meta-analyses

related to the frequency with which borderline patients reported traumatic
antecedents. In our discussions with colleagues who treat BPD patients, we observed
that they often question these data, arguing that borderline patients may have a ten-
dency to magnify, exaggerate or make up childhood trauma in order to attract atten-
tion from the therapists. These comments do not seem to be confirmed by empirical
research, which shows that trauma reports did not change when BPD patients
improve from their disorder (Kremers et al, 2007). But the opposite problem needs to
be considered: many severe traumatic experiences suffered during childhood might
not remembered during the adulthood (Chu et al, 1996). The presence of dissociative
amnesia could be a factor which leads some clinicians and researchers to minimize the
influence of traumatic factors in BPD.
Studies about the phenomenon of dissociative amnesia with regard to childhood
trauma and specifically sexual abuse, have yielded controversial results. Herman and
Schatzow (1987) found that a majority of women (general patients, not specifically
BPD) who had sought treatment in a time-limited incest survivors’ groups experienced
complete or partial amnesia for their sexual abuse at some time in the past. The over-
whelming majority of these women, were able to find some corroborating evidence
of the abuse. Seventy-four percent (74%) were able to find convincing evidence that
the incest had occurred, such as a family member who confirmed it, or, in one case,
diaries and other evidence of a deceased brother who had been the perpetrator.
Another 9% found family members who indicated that they thought the abuse had
likely occurred, but who could not confirm it. Eleven percent (11%) made no attempt
to corroborate their abuse, leaving only 6% who could find no validating evidence
despite efforts to do so. Those critical of this study have noted that a proportion of the
amnesic subjects were very young and perhaps had normal childhood amnesia, and
that clear, independent corroboration of abuse was not obtained (Ofshe & Singer,
1994; Pope & Hudson, 1995).
A study by Briere and Conte (1993) indicated that 54% of patients who reported
sexual abuse memories mentioned having had some amnesia for the abuse between
the time of occurrence and age eighteen. Williams (1994) contacted adult women
who had been treated for sexual abuse seventeen years earlier in a city hospital, and
asked them to participate in a study about hospital services. Thirty-eight percent
(38%) seemed to be amnesic for those experiences. Terr (1988, 1991) describes amne-
sias and disruptions in recall in chronically traumatized children.
Attachment and Bordeline Personality Disorder
Sabo (1997) reviewed literature on childhood experiences among patients with BPD,
and concluded that biparental emotional neglect and absence of substitute adult attach-
ment figures were powerful traumatizing factors in the development of BPD. He found
that with children who had at least one supportive parent or caretaker the risk of devel-
oping BPD was lessened. Other authors have suggested the importance of biparental
failure in the development of BPD (Zanarini et al, 2000c; Zweig-Frank & Paris, 1991).
Parental bonding is another major factor that has been believed to be associated
with BPD pathology (Guttman & Laporte 2002). Zweig-Frank and Paris (1991) found
the BPD individuals recalled their parents (both mother and father) as less caring and
more overprotective than did the non-BPD individuals, indicating that control without
affection characterizes some parents of BPD individuals. Parental behavior not only
seems to affect development of BPD pathology directly, but dysfunctional parenting
might increase vulnerability to other risk factors, mediating the effects of other psy-
chosocial factors. For example, Zanarini et al (2000c) reported that female BPD
patients who recalled their mother as neglectful and their father as abusive were more
likely to have been sexually abused by a noncaretaker. Zanarini and colleagues
hypothesized that a neglectful mother might not be able to protect the child from sex-
ual abuse by a noncaretaker and an abusive father might lead his daughter to believe
that being used or abused is unavoidable.
Gunderson (1984, 1996) suggested that intolerance of aloneness was at the core of
borderline pathology. He regarded the inability of those with BPD to invoke a “sooth-
ing introject” to be a consequence of early attachment failures. He carefully described
typical patterns of borderline dysfunction in terms of exaggerated reactions of the inse-
curely-attached infant, for example clinging, fearfulness about dependency needs, ter-
ror of abandonment and constant monitoring of the proximity of the caregiver.
Different authors have related disorganized attachment with BPD, explaining how
it relates to a lack of integrated self schemata (Barone, 2003; Lyons-Ruth, Yellin,
Melnick et al , 2005; Liotti, 2004; Blizard, 2003; Fonagy, Gegerly, Jurist et al, 2002;
Schore, 2001). There have been many past attempts to explain BPD symptoms using
attachment theory (Bateman &Fonagy 2004). Implicitly or explicitly, Bowlby’s
(1969,1973, I980) suggestion that early experience with the caregiver serves to organ-
ize later attachment relationships has been used in explanations of psychopathology
in BPD (Bateman & Fonagy 2004; Fonagy & Bateman 2007). For example, it has been
suggested that the borderline person’s experience of interpersonal attack, neglect and
threats of abandonment may account for their perception of current relationships as
attacking and neglectful (Benjamin, 1993).
Crittenden (1997 a,b) has been particularly concerned to incorporate in her repre-
sentation of adult attachment disorganization, the specific style of borderline individ-
uals who are deeply ambivalent and fearful of close relationships. On the other hand,
Lyons-Ruth and Jacobovitz (1999) focused on the disorganization of the attachment
system in infancy as predisposing to later borderline pathology. They identified an
insecure disorganized pattern as predisposing to conduct problems.
Fonagy (2000) and Fonagy et al (2000) have also used the framework of attach-
ment theory, emphasizing the role of attachment in the development of symbolic
function and the ways in which insecure disorganized attachment may generate vul-
nerability in the face of further turmoil and challenges. All these, and other theoretical
approaches, predict the representations of attachment (Hesse & Main, 2001) to be
seriously insecure and arguably disorganized in patients with BPD (Fonagy &
Bateman, 2007). For Bateman and Fonagy (2004), there is no doubt that people with
BPD are insecure in their attachment. However, they point out that descriptions of
insecure attachment from infancy or adulthood provide an inadequate clinical
account for several reasons, such as anxious attachment being very common and anx-
ious patterns of attachment in infancy corresponding to relatively stable adult strate-
gies (Main et al., 1985). Yet, the hallmark of the disordered attachments of borderline
individuals is the absence of stability (Higgitt & Fonagy, 1992).
Paris (1994) proposes an integrated theory of the etiology of BDP: a biopsychoso-
cial model that attempts to explain how personality disorders in general, and BPD in
particular, could develop. This model involves the cumulative and interactive effects of
many risk factors as well as the influence of protective factors: the biological, psycho-
logical, or social influences that act to prevent the development of the disorder. Paris
thinks that temperament can predispose each child to certain difficulties but that tem-
perament characteristics in the presence of psychological risk factors, such as trauma,
loss and parental failure, could become amplified. As an illustrated example he
explains that most shy children (temperament) grow out of normal shyness but if the
family environment is unsupportive, introversion can become accentuated (trait) and
with time, if they persist, become pathological (disorder). Shyness can lead a child to
establish social contacts characterized by anxiety and/or withdrawal, and an abnormal
attachment pattern. But if this persists, the behaviors can begin to correspond to the
criteria for personality disorders of the dependent and avoidant types.
Another interesting aspect that Paris points out is that the future BPD patient would
begin life with temperamental characteristics that are compatible with normality (for
example, a child more inclined toward action than reflection); but given a reasonably
adequate psychosocial environment, they might never develop a personality disorder.
He also states that parents of the future borderline patients might themselves have
personality disorders, they might be insensitive to the needs of their children and fail
to provide an adequate holding environment. Positive experiences with secure attach-
ment figures can be one of the most effective protective social factors (Mosquera y
Gonzalez, 2009b, 2011).
Allen (2003) talks about parental role confusion. He describes how the parents of
BPD are seemingly focused on their children nearly to the point of obsession, yet
simultaneously angry with them. One way to understand the parent’s contradictory
and seemingly irrational behavior within the families of BPD patients is to conceptual-
ize it as a reaction to a severe and highly pervasive intrapsychic conflict over the par-
enting role. This conflict is created and reinforced by the parents’ experience within
their own families of origin. Ambivalence over being a parent is the parent’s core con-
flictual relationship theme (Luborsky & Crits-Cristoph, 1990). They feel as if it they
solemn duty to sacrifice everything for their children, but at the same time they feel
overwhelmed by the responsibility and resentful of the sacrifices.
All in all, attachment difficulties cannot completely explain the complexity of BPD
and are not the only factor for a person to develop BPD, even though it is a piece of
the puzzle (Mosquera, D., Gonzalez, A., 2009b).
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
To understand the role of early environmental aspects in personality development

is not a denial of constitutional factors. A debate between constitutional versus envi-
ronmental origins of mental disorders is not the goal of this article. We understand
that genetic aspects influence character traits, and temperament interacts with envi-
ronmental elements in a complex way. Some very extreme character traits (i.e.: an
extreme impulsivity) may generate personality disorders with little environmental con-
tribution. We believe the majority of the cases are in the middle of the spectrum,
where insecure relationships with primary caregivers and the presence of traumatiz-
ing situations could drive the individual to develop a borderline personality.
In order to design a truly comprehensive theory, it is important to include the role
of genetic factors. But there are different data from different researches. Plomin,
DeFries, McClearn and McGuffin (2001) state that genes account for 40–60% of the
variability in normal personality traits. These normal personality traits could develop
in a personality disorder when the individual grows with a dysfunctional attachment
or a traumatic environment.
Relations between attachment, genetics and personality disorders are complex and
have not been established. We can consider that insecure attachment causes emotion-
al dysregulation. But both insecure attachment and emotional dysregulation could be
mediated by the same heritable differences in temperament or personality traits
(Goldsmith & Harman, 1994). Recently, the influence of environmental factors in phe-
notypic range of gene expression has been outlined (Lobo & Shaw, 2008). This aspect
needs to be studied with regard to early attachment versus genetics in the develop-
ment of BPD. However, the interaction between genetics and environment probably is
even more complex than has been assumed. Brussoni, Jang, Livesley and MacBeth
(2000) found that genes accounted for 43, 25 and 37% of the variability in fearful, pre-
occupied and secure attachment. Variability in dismissing attachment, in contrast, was
found to be entirely attributable to environmental effects. Skodol et al. (2002) stated

that aspects of personality disorder that are likely to have biologic correlates are those
involving regulation of affects, impulse/action patterns, cognitive organization and
anxiety/inhibition. For BPD, key psychobiological domains would include impulsive
aggression, associated with reduced serotonergic activity in the brain, and affective
instability, associated with increased responsivity of cholinergic systems. Siever et al.
(2002) state that family aggregation studies suggest the heritability for BPD, not as a
diagnosis but the genetic basis for this disorder, may be stronger for dimensions such
as impulsivity/aggression and affective instability than for the diagnostic criteria itself.
Environmental and genetic effects are better differentiated in twin studies, but
these researches are very difficult and expensive to do. Some twin studies analyze the
heritable effects of attachment in children, finding no significant genetic effects.
Environmental influences explain 23-59% of the variance (Bakermans-Kranenburg,
Van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bokhorst, 2004; Bokhorst, Bakermans-Kranenburg,
Fearon, Van IJzendoorn, Fonagy & Schuengel, 2003; O’Connor & Croft, 2001). Other
research by Crawford et al (2007) found that anxious and avoidant attachment are
related to personality disorder (PD). They related avoidant attachment and emotional
dysregulation, concluding from their data that 40% of the variance in anxious attach-
ment was heritable, and 63% of its association with corresponding PD dimensions
was attributable to common genetic effects. Avoidant attachment was influenced by
the shared environment instead of genes.
The question regarding the possibility that primary caregivers share genetic determi-
nants with the children is more complex than merely considering this a genetic causa-
tion. All these elements (shared character features and attachment styles) with the occur-
rence of traumatizing events, could have a multiplicative effect. For example, an impul-
sive father will probably have difficulties when it comes to regulating impulsive behav-
iors in his children, frequently reacting in a critical or violent way to the child’s behavior.
The presence of a character trait does not invalidate the role of the caregiver manage-
ment of this trait. On the contrary, the existence of a personality trait is a vulnerability
factor for the children, who will be probably more affected by the caregiver attitude.
The same dynamics take place with emotional dysregulation. We commented
before that emotional dysregulation and insecure attachment could be partially medi-
ated by heritability. It would be highly probable that a baby with a genetic tendency
to dysregulate emotions will evolve better with a parent who can modulate her/his
emotions. When the parent has few emotional regulation skills, because both baby
and parent share the same genetic traits, s/he probably will potentiate the baby´s
emotional dysregulation. The effect of a dysregulated style in a caregiver would be
more intense on a baby who has a deficient emotional regulation capacity.
In summary, relationship between genetic factors, personality traits, and attach-
ment styles are probably complex, and have not been clearly confirmed or refused.
The most probable situation is that genetic factors such as emotional dysregulation,
may influence personality traits. But these traits could be modulated or exacerbated
by the relationship with the primary caregiver (Schore, 2003 a, b).
Another issue involving biological factors is the debate around comorbidity versus
diagnostic confusion between Axis I diagnosis – with more clear genetic/biologic basis
– and BPD (Zanarini et al, 1998). Liebowitz (1979) argued that borderline personalities
are not clearly separated from the older concept of borderline Schizophrenia, while
others have insisted in the separation of both diagnosis (Gunderson & Kolb, 1979;
Kernberg, 1979; Spitzer & Endicott, 1979; Masterson, 1976). In a similar way some
authors have considered BPD as a variant of Bipolar Disorder (Akiskal et al, 1985) and
others question this assumption (Paris, 2004). Probably, as we will further comment,
all these ideas are partially true. Some BPD patients manifest atypical presentations of
Bipolar Disorder, where emotional dysregulation is just a symptom of the underlying
disorder. We propose to consider the possibility that some borderline cases could have
a more biological basis and others a more environmental basis, with the weight of
these factors being different among different patients.
DISSOCIATIVE DISORDERS AND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY

DISORDER: A RELATIONSHIP BEYOND COMORBIDITY
Different research studies report a high frequency of dissociation among BPD

patients (Galletly, 1997; Paris & Zweig-Frank, 1997; Chu & Dill, 1991). Some
researchers state that many patients with BPD also have an undiagnosed dissociative
disorder. These studies used a categorial approach of dissociation which, however,
does not include those cases in which the dissociative features do not fully meet crite-
ria for a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of dissociative disorder. Still, these studies reflect how rel-
evant dissociation is in borderline patients. In an empirical study with psychiatric inpa-
tients Ross (2007) found that 59% of BPD patients met criteria for a DSM-IV-TR disso-
ciative disorder, as compared with 22% of non-borderline patients. Korzekwa, Dell
and Pain (2009) reviewed a number of studies that used various diagnostic instru-
ments with different populations. They found relevant dissociative symptoms in about
two thirds of people with borderline personality. Sar et al (2006) analyzed, in a non-
clinical (student) population, the dissociative disorder comorbidity in BPD patients
and its relation to childhood trauma reports. Among the students diagnosed as BPD
(8.5%), a significant majority (72.5%) of them had a dissociative disorder whereas this
rate was only 18.0% for the comparison group. Furthermore, for the authors the lack
of interaction between dissociative disorder and BPD for any type of childhood trauma
that was found in this research contradicts the opinion that both disorders together
might be a single disorder. Watson et al (2006) found that BPD patients with a comor-
bid dissociative disorder have higher scores on reported childhood trauma. Zanarini et
al. (2000b) found that sexual abuse is related to dissociative experiences in border-
lines. Brodsky et al (1995) found a relationship between dissociation, childhood trau-
ma and self-mutilation, while other authors (Zweig-Frank, Paris, et al, 1994) did not.
Part of the diagnostic confusion could be due to the fact that many standardized
instruments for diagnosing mental disorders do not include dissociative symptoms
and dissociative disorders. A main example is the SCID I, i.e., the major standardized
interview for diagnosing Axis I DSM-IV-TR mental disorders, which does not include
dissociative symptoms. With regard to Axis II disorders, the SCID-II does not include
dissociative symptoms either. For this reason, studies based on these interviews sys-
tematically underestimate comorbid dissociative symptoms and disorders. Therefore,
only when specifically designed instruments to evaluate dissociative symptoms and
dissociative disorders are included, can this part of the psychopathology be detected.
It is true that Criterion 9 for BPD (transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe
dissociative symptoms) does take into account dissociative symptoms. However, these
can go unnoticed for therapists not familiar with dissociative disorders. In countries
like Spain, clinicians commonly do not include dissociative symptoms in their psy-
chopathological exploration (Gonzalez, 2010). Delusions, which could be related to
comorbidity with atypical presentations of schizotypic or schizophrenic disorders, are
mixed (in criterion 9) with dissociative symptoms. Among dissociative symptoms,
depersonalization or trance-like states are probably more commonly identified as dis-
sociative than are other dissociative symptoms which are related to division of the per-
sonality (such as intrusive symptoms).
A high prevalence of BPD among patients with dissociative disorders also supports
a close relationship between both disorders. According to Putnam (1997), clinical
studies suggest that 30% to 70% of patients with dissociative identity disorder (DID)
meet criteria for BPD. In a study aimed at determining the prevalence of dissociative
disorders among women in the general population, participants with a dissociative
disorder presented more frequently with BPD (among other diagnoses) than did par-
ticipants without a dissociative disorder (Sar, Akyüz & Dogan, 2007).
An unresolved major question pertains to understanding BPD patients who also
meet the diagnostic criteria for DID or DDNOS: are these to be seen as clear-cut comor-
bid diagnoses, or should the borderline features be regarded as manifestations of an
underlying dissociative disorder. The theory of structural dissociation of the personali-
ty offers a feasible way out of this dilemma (false choices between opposite options).
THE THEORY OF THE STRUCTURAL DISSOCIATION OF THE

PERSONALITY
Inspired by Allport (1981) and Janet (1907), Van der Hart and colleagues
(2006/2008) define personality as the dynamic organization within the individual of
those biopsychosocial systems that determine his or her characteristic mental and
behavioral actions. Among the biopsychosocial systems that comprise the personality,
evolutionary prepared psychobiological action systems play a major role (Lang, 1995;
Panksepp, 1998; Van der Hart et al., 2006/2008). One major action system is defen-
sive in nature and involves a variety of efforts to survive imminent threat to the integri-
ty of the body and life (Fanselow & Lester, 1988). The mammalian defense action sys-
tem is geared toward escape from and avoidance of physical and associated psycho-
logical threat, and includes subsystems such as flight, freeze, fight, and total submis-
sion (Porges, 2003). Other action systems are concerned with interests and implied
functions in daily life (Panksepp, 1998). These systems include energy regulation,
attachment and care-taking, exploration, social engagement, play, and
sexuality/reproduction, and involve approaching attractive stimuli (Lang, 1995).
Figure 1. Action systems
TSDP thus postulates that in trauma - not only criteria A trauma events but also
what we could call attachment trauma - the patient’s personality becomes unduly but
not completely divided among two or more such dissociative subsystems or parts (Van
der Hart et al., 2006/2008; Van der Hart, Nijenhuis, & Solomon, 2010), each mediat-
ed by particular action (sub) systems and each with its own first-person perspective.
These dissociative parts, also known by other names such as dissociated self-states, are
dysfunctionally stable (rigid) in their functions and actions, and overly closed to each
other. One prototypical personality subsystem is metaphorically called the Emotional
Part of the Personality (EP; Myers, 1940; Van der Hart et al., 2006/2008). As EP the
patient is fixated in sensorimotor and highly emotionally charged reenactments of
traumatic experiences. As Janet (1919/25) stated years ago:
“Such patients [i.e., their EP’s]... are continuing the action, or rather the attempt
at action, which began when the thing happened, and they exhaust themselves in
these everlasting recommencements” (p. 663).
In short, the patient as EP is strongly associated with traumatic memories. Primarily
mediated by the mammalian action systems of defense and attachment cry, EP’s reen-
actments include action tendencies of defense against perceived or actual threat to the
integrity of the body or to life itself, as well as action tendencies regarding the need
for attachment and the fear of attachment loss (Liotti, 1999). That is, EP is basically fix-
ated in traumatic memories that frequently involve (particular combinations of) child-
hood emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and otherwise fright-
ening and frightened parental or parent substitutes’ caretaking and attachment. EP is
mediated by the innate action system of defense against threat and may be guided in
particular by one of its subsystems: fight, flight, freeze, collapse, total submission,
hypervigilance, wound care, restorative states.
The other prototype is called the Apparently Normal Part of the Personality (ANP;
Myers, 1940; Van der Hart et al., 2006). As ANP, the survivor experiences EP and at least
some of EP’s actions and contents as ego-dystonic and is fixated in avoidance of trau-
matic memories and often of inner experience in general. Mediated by action systems
for functioning in daily life, ANP focuses on the functions of these systems and in this
context commonly seeks the approval of caretakers to gain acceptance, protection, and
love. To the degree that such attachment-related goals are realized at all, the painful
result is that ANP’s appeasement and apparent normality are reinforced, not the sur-
vivor’s authenticity. As ANP, the patient may be aware of having a mental disorder but
attempts to appear “normal.” The fact that this normality is only apparent manifests in
negative symptoms of detachment, numbing, and partial or, in rather exceptional
cases, complete amnesia for the traumatic experience. Apparent normality also shows
in recurrent re-experiencing of traumatic memories from EP and other intrusions such
as ANP hearing EP’s voice, or EP hearing ANP’s voice. ANP’s mental and behavioral
actions are mainly mediated by daily life action systems (social engagement, attach-
ment, care-giving, exploration, play, energy regulation, sexuality/reproduction).
Structural dissociation is the essence and outcome of traumatic experiences, but is
maintained by phobic mental and behavioral actions. The core phobia is the phobia of
traumatic memories, and from this central phobia, emerge other related inner-directed
phobias. Marilyn Van Derbur (2004), a survivor of incest, describes it very graphically:
“I was unable to explain to anyone why I was so tied up, walled off and out of
touch with my feelings… To be in touch with my feelings would have meant open-
ing Pandora’s box… Without realizing it, I fought to keep my two worlds separat-
ed. Without ever knowing why, I made sure, whenever possible that nothing passed
between the compartmentalization I had created between the day child [ANP] and
the night child [EP].” (pp. 26, 98)
Apart from clinical evidence, there is emerging research that supports the major
tenets of the theory of structural dissociation (e.g., Reinders et al., 2003, 2006; see Van
der Hart, Nijenhuis, & Solomon, 2010, for a brief overview).
Levels of Structural Dissociation
TSDP postulates that the more intense, more frequent, longer lasting traumatiza-
tion is, and the earlier in life it stated, the more complex the structural dissociation of
the personality becomes. The division of the personality into a single ANP and a single
EP involves primary structural dissociation, and characterizes simple posttraumatic dis-
sociative disorders, including PTSD.
When traumatizing events start earlier in life, are increasingly overwhelming
and/or prolonged or chronic, structural dissociation tends to be more complex. In sec-
ondary structural dissociation there is also a single ANP, but more than one EP. This
division of EP’s may be based on the failed integration among relatively discrete sub-
systems of the action system of defense, e.g., fight, flight, freeze, collapse. We consid-
er secondary structural dissociation to be mainly relegated to Complex PTSD, trauma-
related BPD and DDNOS-subtype 1. ANP and EPs are typically fixated in a particular
insecure attachment pattern that involves either approach or defense in relationships
(Steele et al., 2001). It is hypothesized that, in complex trauma-related disorders, the
resulting alternation or competition between relational approach and defense among
these parts is a substrate of what has been called a disorganized/disoriented attach-
ment style (Liotti, 1999). The resolution of traumatic memories, by definition, involves
(a degree of) resolution of this insecure attachment.
Finally, tertiary dissociation involves not only more than one EP, but also more than
one ANP. Division of ANP, along different action systems of daily life, may occur as cer-
tain inescapable aspects of daily life become saliently associated with traumatizing
events such that they tend to reactivate traumatic memories. The patient’s personali-
ty becomes increasingly divided in an attempt to maintain functioning while avoiding
traumatic memories, or has never included an integration of action systems for func-
tioning in daily life as well as for defense. Tertiary structural dissociation refers only to
patients with DID. In a few DID patients who have a very low integrative capacity and
in whom dissociation of the personality has become strongly habituated, new ANPs
may also evolve to cope with the minor frustrations of life. Dissociation of the person-
ality in these patients has become a lifestyle, and their prognosis is generally poor (cf.,
Horevitz & Loewenstein, 1993). Borderline patients with a comorbid dissociative dis-
order can have secondary or tertiary structural dissociation of the personality.
Different subgroups of BPD and structural dissociation of the

personality
To argue whether BPD is generated either by biological or environmental factors

probably involves a false debate. Reality comprises complex phenomena, and science
often reaches a common point: all the answers are true and more research are need-
ed. Without falling into an absolute relativism, a truly comprehensive model of BPD
needs to include all the recent evidence and integrate different areas of knowledge.
Currently, enough data exist that support a multimodal model for BPD.
We propose that such a model based on a clinical perspective, as statistical analy-
sis of groups of symptoms does not fully explain individual differences. The relative
influence of different factors is probably not the same for each patient, and should in
our opinion be evaluated case by case. Based on our extended clinical observations,
we believe that BPD patients may constitute a heterogeneous group. Hunt (2007) stat-
ed that BPD’s etiology would be best explained as consisting of a combination of
genetic, neurobiological vulnerability combined with childhood trauma, including
abuse or neglect, that lead to dysregulated emotions, distorted cognitions, social skills
deficits, and few adaptive coping strategies.
We understand the borderline group as stemming from a combination of a trauma
factor (and implied structural dissociation) and a biological factor. In order to concep-
tualize cases, it could be useful to classify borderline patients in three groups. At one
end, we would place the more dissociative borderline patients (sometimes dissociative
disorders misdiagnosed as BPD), with more severe early trauma and with attachment
disturbances. At the other end, we would place the more biologically-based border-
line cases, with comorbid bipolar, schizophrenic, ADHD, organic injuries, etc. The
attachment-based group is placed in the middle. We thus roughly distinguish three
subgroups of BPD patients, in which the various etiological factors have different
weights (see Figure 2).
A first group consists of patients with comorbid BPD and dissociative disorders.
These patients have a history of chronic childhood traumatization, and the dissociation
of their personality symptoms would be at the level of secondary or tertiary structur-
al dissociation. A second group consists of BPD patients with no dissociative disorder
diagnosis. This group would probably overlap with the so-called disorders of extreme
stress or Complex PTSD, and would have a relationship with early, chronic trauma and
environmental factors related to dysfunctional attachment with primary caregivers. As
Van der Hart, Nijenhuis and Steele (2005) argue with regard to Complex PTSD, disso-
ciation in these cases is at the level of secondary structural dissociation. A third group
of patients have BPD with comorbid disorders of a more biological nature, such as
bipolar disorder, the schizophrenic spectrum or ADHD. These more biological disor-
ders may interact, in complex ways, with environmental factors, or function them-
selves as traumatic experiences (Goldberg & Garno, 2009). Some patients with atyp-
ical presentations of biological disorders, can be wrongly diagnosed as BPD because
of the observable behaviors and symptoms (this would be the end of the spectrum,
see Figure 1). In most of these cases, however, biological aspects and environmental
factors can interact in complex ways that manifest in a true comorbidity. It should be
noted, however, that, because of their innate behavioral characteristics, children that
eventually will belong to this third group can also evoke parental attachment disrup-
tions, such as severe misattunements. These children may demand the utmost of their
parents, who sometimes share common genetic features or deficits with their children.
As we mentioned before, some severely traumatized individuals can meet BPD cri-
teria and also meet criteria for a complex dissociative disorder. However, in some
cases, symptoms interpreted as borderline manifestations can be better explained as
belonging to a complex dissociative disorder and do not represent actual comorbidi-
ty. For example, a DID patient presented high impulsivity which manifests in a self-
harming behavior, which actually related to the activation of an emotional part of the
personality. When we worked with the internal system of dissociative parts, this symp-
tom disappeared. After this, the patient no longer manifested impulsive reactions. In
this case, we have a DID diagnosis, and the apparently “comorbid” symptom of
impulsivity was only a manifestation of the dissociative disorder. From the TSDP per-
spective, the various manifestations are inseparable. In other cases of true comorbidi-
ty where there are dissociative parts, and having worked effectively with them, the
impulsivity is a character trait that remains present. This differentiation is far from
being clear, and indeed, when we are working from the perspective of structural dis-
sociation underlying both phenomena, this differential diagnosis may not be crucial
to the treatment strategy. The more relevant question is assessing when a biological
factor (genetically based impulsivity, for example) is present, because of the need for
a complementary pharmacological treatment.
In a similar way, some patients from the bipolar or schizophrenic end of the spec-
trum are misdiagnosed as borderline when the clinical features look like they meet
BPD criteria. But in the majority of the BPD spectrum of cases, trauma, attachment and
biological factors will interact in a complex way that will manifest differently in each
patient. What is essential is the need to understand the relative contribution of each of
these factors to a specific problem in a patient, because many aspects of treatment,
such as pharmacological interventions or EMDR therapy, would need to have more
weight depending on this evaluation. We think that it is important not to consider
these factors as contradictory with each other, but rather complementary and interac-
tive. Thus, to draw environmental and biological factors as extremes of a spectrum, as
we did, is not entirely adequate, because these factors are not mutually exclusive and
it is possible to find cases with high weights of both biological and environmental fac-
tors.
Figure 2. Groups of Borderline Personality Disorder
We could understand the existence of a continuum from secure attachment (right part of red arrow), passing
through attachment disruptions, to severe traumatization. At another level biologic-genetic factors could be
stronger at one extreme, and practically absent at the other, with an intermediate possibility where genetical-
ly determined temperament generates interacting with other factors to develop in character traits. This repre-
sentation is not exact, because a strong genetic basis can be present (at the same time) in a severely trauma-
tizing environment. All the combinations are possible, forming specific individual configurations.
The clinic cases described below are examples of each subgroup, representing its
most relevant factor. However, the most common situation consists of the coexistence
of various factors, with different degrees of influence in each individual.
According TSDP, the origin of borderline symptomatology lies in attachment trau-
ma. However, TSDP can explain cases of BPD in the three groups, i.e., not only in the
first, most evident one. We will describe the differences among the three groups men-
tioned before. Innate behavioral characteristics can evoke parental attachment disrup-
tions and attachment based BPD may involve traumatization, often of “hidden”
nature.
The first group, of “dissociative BPD”, comprises of BPD patients with tertiary or
secondary structural dissociation, with dissociative parts of the personality that have a
more developed first-person perspective, and in some cases even names or ages that
differ from the main part (the main ANP). Some of these parts may believe that they
are different people. In the intermediate group of “attachment-based BPD”, the
underlying personality structure is the same (usually secondary structural dissocia-
tion), but the dissociative parts have less developed first-person perspectives, and the
patient can only notice dramatic changes in emotions, behaviors or cognitions, with-
out an inner experience of “having parts”, and general changes in elements constitut-
ing identity. The third group (“biologic BPD”) helps us to understand the complex
interaction between more biologically-based elements and trauma history, and how
the environmental and structural brain aspects are modulated or aggravated by early
attachment relationships.
In their article on a proposed class of Posttraumatic Personality Disorders, Classen,
Pain, Field and Woods (2006) suggested to keep the name BPD for people with early
disorganized attachment (D-attachment) with primary caregivers but with less chron-
ic childhood abuse. This category is rather similar to the BPD group that we have
named “attachment-based BPD”. From a TSDP perspective, both are characterized by
some degree of structural dissociation, that is based on early attachment-trauma and
other forms of trauma.
In the following section we present three clinical cases that highlight the differ-
ences between the “Dissociative BPD”, the “Attachment-based BPD,” and the
“Organic BPD”.
Case 1. “Dissociative Borderline Personality Disorder”
Isabel, age 28, was diagnosed as BPD and later as DID, which involves Tertiary
Structural Dissociation. She presented with self-harming behaviors, anorexic features,
changes in behavior, unstable relationships, identity problems, and psychotic-like
symptoms (auditory hallucinations). This woman hid the majority of her symptoms or
minimized them in the therapy sessions. With time and a more detailed exploration, it
became evident that she suffered from major amnesia and that she had a number of
dissociative parts dealing with different aspects of daily life. One part was an efficient
teacher (ANP-1), and as this part she couldn’t remember anything about what she had
done the past weekend with her friends (when ANP-2 had been active). These parts
each had an elaborated first-person perspective. A complex inner system of dissocia-
tive parts (EPs) become evident during the therapy, with less elaborated first-person
perspectives, and many borderline symptoms could be understood as manifestations
of her dissociative identity disorder. For instance, her unstable relationships resulted
from different parts of personality relating to different people, with hostile parts push-
ing the patient to relate with potentially damaging men. Her auditory hallucinations
were intrusions of several emotional parts, and her self-harming behaviors represent-
ed aggressions from some parts against others.
Case 2. “Attachment-based Borderline Personality Disorder”
Mirta, age 42, was a woman without a severe trauma history but an ambivalent
attachment with primary caregivers and with personality traits of impulsivity. She expe-
rienced severe emotion dysregulation with a tendency to hyperarousal. In some
moments she could be functional, but at other times she acted in a more dependent
style and was unable to do things by herself. In these moments she behaved in a child-
like way, with emotions that were connected with early experiences of lack of affection
by her parents and the anxiety related to her father’s problems with alcohol. At other
times she behaved like an adolescent, for example, falling intensely in love with different
men. In those moments when she shifted into different modes of behavior, she did not
have the inner experience of being a different person or having a different identity.
Instead, she described herself as acting and feeling “as a little child” or an “adolescent”.
The resources she displayed at other times, in other areas of her life were not accessible
for her when these mental states, which may be understood as dissociative parts, were
activated. She did not have the ability to modulate these parts of the personality or the
change between them. Instead she used cocaine and other drugs to achieve those
changes, for instance to decrease the fear of loneliness connected with the “little child
part”. These emotional parts were not so well defined, with less elaborated first-person
perspectives, than in the previous case. Rather, she described the behaviors done in these
states as “not me” and “I can´t understand why I did such crazy things!”. This structure
could be characterized as secondary structural dissociation of the personality.
Case 3. “Biologic Borderline Personality Disorder”
Lucia, age 48, was diagnosed as BPD for 10 years. She presented mood changes,
with recurrent and short-length depressive states. Her interpersonal relationships were
unstable. She had a problematic marriage (which she tolerated because of her fear of
being abandoned) and no social support. Self-harming behaviors and suicide
attempts were frequent. She had a demanding and dependent attitude with her pre-
vious therapists. After some years of chronic depressive symptoms, she presented a
clear manic episode. A further depressive state was followed by a new manic phase
with psychotic symptoms incongruent with the affect. With a combination of antide-
pressant drugs, mood stabilizers and neuroleptic medication, many “personality” fea-
tures changed. Her emotional dysregulation and self-harming behaviors were strong-
ly reduced. In this example it is difficult to establish which symptoms were due to sub-
clinical mood oscillations and which were related to personality features, because so
many years living with the consequences of her disease caused so much secondary
traumatization.
Case 4. “All-in-one”
Julio, age 41, presented mood changes, high impulsivity, risk behaviors, identity
disturbances, and unstable relationships. His family of origin was dysfunctional, his
mother was emotionally very distant and frequently neglectful, and his father was fre-
quently absent and emotionally and physically abusive when he was present. Julio
presented behavior problems during his childhood. He met criteria for adult Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with low maintained attention and high impul-
sivity and hyperactivity. His mother also met ADHD criteria, she presented an extreme
lack of attention, and this characteristic probably influenced her neglectful care. His
father was very impulsive, but with normal attention. All these factors in both parents
may have influenced the patient´s early development: the negative genetic influence
can be increased by the attachment style and the effects of emotional and physical
maltreatment. He frequently presented signs of structural dissociation, alternating
between an attachment-dependant part (EP) which desperately needed intimate rela-
tionships, an aggressive EP (facilitated by alcohol use) and a depressive EP (linked with
a self-defeating features), which alternated with an ANP with narcissistic features.
Thus, Julio was characterized by secondary structural dissociation.
OTHER APPROACHES TO THE DISSOCIATIVE NATURE OF BPD
The theory of structural dissociation of the personality (TSDP) is not the only theo-
retical approach that emphasizes the dissociative features of BPD. Some authors even
have described all personality disorders in terms of dissociation. Bromberg (1998), for
instance, states that:
“Personality disorder” represents ego-syntonic dissociation no matter what per-
sonality style it embodies… A dissociative disorder proper (…) is from this van-
tage point a touchstone for understanding all other personality disorders. (pp.
201-202)
Other authors also describe concepts which are similar to those of TSDP. Blizard
(2003) and Howell (2002, 2005) conceive BPD as a dissociative disorder with “a sig-
nificant pattern of dissociated self-states” (Howell, 2002), i.e., masochistic/victim ego
states or self-states and sadistic self-states, also labeled as rageful/perpetrator self-
states or abuser self-states. These “self-states” are equivalent to the TSDP concept of
“dissociative parts of the personality”. We prefer the term “dissociative parts” because
they can be complex and comprise different mental states at different times (Van der
Hart et al., 2006/2008). Lieb, Zanarini, Schmahl, Linehan and Bohus (2004) state that
patients with BPD: “often move from one interpersonally reactive mood state to
another, with great rapidity and fluidity, experiencing several dysphoric states and
periods of euthymia during the course of one day”, a statement which implies disso-
ciation.
Some models of BPD involve a dissociative perspective that shows similarities with
TSDP. Cognitive analytic therapy (Ryle, 1997), for instance, describes the connection
between early trauma, caregiving styles and borderline pathology. The related model
of borderline functioning—the multiple self states model (MSSM)—explains many of
the features of BPD in terms of the alternating dominance of one or other of a small
range of “partially dissociated” self-states (Ryle, 1997). These self states are the equiv-
alent of the dissociative parts of the personality. Golynkina and Ryle observed that
“between these states there may be impaired memory but complete amnesia is rare,
and some capacity for self-observation across all, or nearly all states is present” (p.
431). Ryle (2007) stated that BPD patients manifest major discontinuities in their expe-
rience and behavior, and these contribute to the difficulties of clinicians seeking to
treat them. In his view, the underlying problem is one of structural dissociation of self
processes into a small range of partially dissociated self-states, the switches between
which can be abrupt and evidently unprovoked. It is obvious that this view has much
in common with TSDP, which more clearly emphasized the first-person perspective of
dissociative parts. Some examples of the types of self-states described by Golynka and
Ryle (1999) are: an ideal self (“others admire me”), an abuser rage state (“I want to
hurt others”), a powerless victim (“others attack me and I am weak)” and a zombie
state. TDSP relates these different self-states or dissociative parts are mediated by dif-
ferent action (sub)systems: for instance, the abuser rage part is mediated by the fight
defense subsystem, and the powerless victim by the submissive defense action subsys-
tem.
Ryle and Kerr (2006) define the Reciprocal Role Procedure as an underlying con-
cept in what he calls the Multiple Self States Model of BPD (MSSM). Procedures are
sequences of perception, appraisal, action and evaluation of the consequences shap-
ing aim-directed action. Each role is identifiable by its characteristic behavior, mood,
symptoms, view of self and others, and sought-for reciprocation, that links with the
TSDP concept of the first-person perspective of dissociative parts.
Another approach which links early experiences with adult systems managing con-
cepts very closed to TDSP is the Schema Therapy for BPD (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar,
2003). Young and colleagues observe that BPD patients are characterized by the exis-
tence of different “parts of the self” that they re-labeled as “modes”. They identify
four main types: child modes, maladaptive coping modes, dysfunctional parent
modes and health adult mode. They state that: “In patients with borderline or narcis-
sistic disorders, the modes are relatively disconnected, and the person is capable of
experiencing only one mode at a time. Patients with BPD switch rapidly from mode to
mode” (p. 272). This switching between different modes is equivalent to the alterna-
tion between EPs and ANPs as described by TSDP. In both theories, some modes or dis-
sociative parts can themselves dissociate in subparts. One of the differentiations that
Young and colleagues made pertains to the child modes: the vulnerable child, the
angry child, the impulsive/undisciplined and the happy child. Again, TSDP argues that
these different parts, some of which may be described as EPs, are mediated by differ-
ent action (sub)systems, may have different levels of mental development, and hold
different (aspects of) traumatic memories. Young and colleagues distinguish a Healthy
Adult Mode, which does not seem to be similar to ANP. The authors observe that this
mode is virtually absent in many borderline patients; thus, it would be something to
strive for the course of therapy. However, according to TSDP some ANPs may be high-
ly functional (see also Horevitz & Loewenstein, 1994), comparable to Young and col-
leagues’ Healthy Adult Mode. But however healthy ANP’s functioning seems to be, it
is still a dissociative part of the personality which has not integrated other parts. Once
the personality is fully integrated, TSDP would speak of a healthy personality with a
good capacity for self-reflection, insight and self-regulation.
Finally, another relevant author in BPD conceptualization is Otto Kernberg (1993).
In Transference Focused Psychotherapy, he describes a developmentally based theory
of Borderline Personality Organization (Levy et al, 2006), conceptualized in terms of
unintegrated and undifferentiated affects and representations of self and other, which
may have some similarities with the dissociative parts described in TSDP. Partial repre-
sentations of self and other are paired and linked by an affect in mental units that
Kernberg calls object relation dyads. In borderlines these dyads are not integrated and
totally negative representations are split off/segregated from idealized positive repre-
sentations of self and other. The mechanism of change in patients treated with
Transference Focused Psychotherapy is the integration of these polarized affect states
and representations of self and other into a more coherent whole, this integration
being a shared goal with TSDP therapeutic approach.
Kernberg (1993) proposes several developmental tasks for borderline patients.
They should become able to make a distinction between what is self (and own expe-
rience) and what is others (and their experience). This concept is present in TSDP
which establishes the relevance of differentiation and synthesis. The concept of syn-
thesis in TSDP is similar to Kernberg´s (1993) second developmental task of overcom-
ing splitting: the borderline patients should re-learn to see objects as a whole, both
good and bad at the same time. Similarities between both theories are not so close as
those from Ryle & Kerr (2006) and Young, Klosko, & Weishaar (2003), but some par-
allels can be found.
In summary, many conceptualizations of BPD refer, in different ways, to the disso-
ciation of the personality in BPD patients, which is most elaborated in TSDP. Various
authors emphasized the role of early and severe childhood traumatization and inse-
cure attachment in the development of BPD. They mentioned the switching between
unintegrated mental states (dissociative parts) in BPD patients. Some of these parts
appear apparently functional in daily life (ANPs), other parts are linked to traumatic
experiences (EPs). TSDP offers a comprehensive vision of all these aspects, integrating
findings and insights from neurobiology and psychotraumatology.
DSM-IV-TR BPD CRITERIA VIEWED AS POSTTRAUMATIC

DISSOCIATIVE SYMPTOMS
As Van der Hart, Nijenhuis and Steele (2005) did with regard to the symptom clus-
ters of Complex PTSD/DESNOS, below we describe how the main symptoms of BPD
can be understood from TSDP’s perspective, i.e., as being related to various dissocia-
tive parts of the personality, notably those mediated by defense action subsystems
(EPs).
1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment
Many people with BPD maintain they have a very hard time when they are alone,
even for very short periods of time. Others claim they feel alone even when surround-
ed by others. The fear of being alone makes them especially vulnerable to abandon-
ment “signals” which are easily triggered by relational stimuli or by situations per-
ceived as dangerous. Feeling ignored or rejected can unleash very intense emotional
reactions in patients with this diagnosis. Although most people can feel bad when
they are afraid of being abandoned and can react in many different ways in the face of
loss, it is not frequent that these reactions reach the extremes that can be observed in
borderline patients (Mosquera, 2004, 2010). These features can be understood from
the TSDP as different EPs getting triggered by traumatic memories and experiences. If
the patient has had an attachment figure who was neglectful, the need of attachment
could be extreme, and when faced with the possibility of losing an attachment figure,
the EP mediated by the attachment cry action system gets activated (being expressed
in the adult borderline as “don´t leave me”). But in insecure early attachment, defen-
sive action systems should be activated with the primary caregiver, and this is now
similarly activated with adult attachment figures with a fight EP (“I hate you”) that can
turn against the ANP (“if you leave me I will kill myself”). With a disorganized-disorient-
ed attachment this situation is more extreme and dissociative parts tend to have more
self-person perspective. This situation would be more related with the dissociative BPD
group than other types of insecure attachment.
The presence of a strong biological basis could function as a multiplicative factor,
increasing the effect of – in different circumstances – minor attachment problems. For
example the lack of emotional regulatory capacities can make difficult to tolerate dis-
turbing emotions coming from loneliness and loss, and impulsivity can increase dis-
ruptive behaviors oriented to recover the lost love. During childhood, these extreme
reactions can exacerbate difficulties from the caregiver to safely attach “this so difficult
child”, in a circular causation.
2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships character-

ized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation
Borderline patients are known for maintaining intense interpersonal relations, usu-
ally very volatile and problematic relations. Certainly it is hard to understand how
statements like “leave me alone” and “I never want to see you again” can really mean
“please don’t leave me, I need you”. Although this might be evident to others, border-
lines are not always aware of this “lack of connection” between what they “feel and
need” and what they “do and say”. This is one of the reasons why many borderlines
feel confused and puzzled by the reactions they get from others and vice versa
(Mosquera, 2004, 2010).
Borderline patients can idealize those that take care of them, even people they just
met – especially when they perceive a “special connection”, when they feel cared for,
listened to or valued (Mosquera, 2010). Frequently, to meet their attachment needs,
the children have filtered the negative aspects in the caregiver, constructing an ideal-
ized figure. When these negative aspects became undeniable (for example, during
abuse) different defensive action systems could be simultaneously activated and
blocked, to give way to reactions judged as more efficient to survive (like submission
or collapse). All these reactions, even those never acted out, stem from EPs. Their per-
ceptions of and actions toward significant others, such as idealization, rage (fight), fear
and avoidance (flight) or submission are based on different action (sub)systems that
are not integrated due to the child originally having to deal with inconsistent or harm-
ful caregiver behaviors. In adult intimate relationships, including the therapeutic rela-
tionship, this alternation between ANP (or ANPs) and different EPs is reproduced.
Borderline patients can switch quite fast between the activation of EPs as defensive
and attachment action systemsand they can pass from idealization to devaluation if
they think they are being ignored, not cared for or rejected (activation of attachment
cry EP). A very small detail can trigger a profound sense of betrayal and emotional
pain. This apparently small detail can be a reminiscence of a very relevant detail in the
relationship with primary caregivers. That is, the apparent disproportion in the reac-
tion can reflect that the patient as EP(s) is not actually reacting to the here and now
situation, but to the there and then one. In other words, the patient lives in trauma
time (Van der Hart et al., 2010). For a little child yelling, criticism or hostile attitudes
are not a minor experience. When this child becomes an adult, any high tone of voice
or critical comment can trigger an apparently unjustified reaction. These contradicto-
ry reactions in intimate relationships may relate to a disorganized D attachment that
the individual developed in childhood. This external disorganization may be the out-
ward manifestation of competition among rigidly organized dissociative parts that are
mediated by defense and attachment systems, respectively. These parts have contra-
dictory approaches to solving the dilemma of relating to an unpredictable and unsafe,
but needed caregiver (Liotti, 1999; Van der Hart et al., 2006/2008).
A related factor that complicates BPD patients’ relations with others is the tenden-
cy to personalize other’s reactions and comments and to interpret them as something
“against them” (like an attack). They are usually afraid of being “found out” (in many
cases because the abuser did a very good job making them feel guilty, “bad”, unlov-
able, etc.), so any possible sign of rejection can activate very strong reactions in EPs. A
submissive EP (“I am weak”) can be activated when a perceived rejection or reminder
of an early emotional neglect takes place. However, at the same time an enraged EP –
mediated by the fight action subsystem – may react violently to the other person.
3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or

sense of self
Frequently borderlines refer to not knowing who they are, what they like or what
they would like to do. A low integrative capacity and the inner experience of changes
in mental states, i.e., a switching between different EPs and ANP, can be a phenome-
nological basis for this identity disturbance. This can lead them to embark on projects
and establish objectives that are hard to accomplish. The low level of mental efficien-
cy (Van der Hart, Nijenhuis & Steele, 2006/2008) can contribute to their difficulties to
engage in adaptive activities. Many borderlines say they lack an identity and often say
phrases like “I know how I should be, what I should do, what would be normal to feel
but I am incapable”. This consciousness of “being strange” makes them feel guilty and
frustrated. When preoccupied patients do not have a well-defined identity and cannot
find an explanation to their suffering, they look for “cues” in others: anything that can
explain their confusion and uncertainty, anything that helps them feel less guilty and
might help others understand them. This can be related to one of the phenomena that
can be easily observed in BPD patients during hospitalization: mimicking. Borderline
patients frequently “copy” symptoms from others. Many feel overwhelmed by simple
questions such as “How would you describe yourself?” and “What do you like to do?”
(Mosquera, 2010)
Borderline patients show a tendency to do what others expect. As children they did
not learn to think about themselves and their needs; they had to act according to
other’s needs. They tend to act / react according to their perceptions of other’s needs
and opinions. Their extreme need of attachment can be another reason for this way of
functioning.
Borderlines frequently say they feel “fake” or “phony”; for this reason they adopt
apparently normal facades (the apparently normal part of the personality, ANP). They
tend to create masks and try to act as they think others want them to act. A patient
said: “I feel like a clown who is always acting for the gallery; I always have a smile and
pretend I’m ok so I don’t have any problems with others; I feel I cannot express what
I feel because others wouldn’t understand” (Mosquera, 2010). We must comment
that some borderlines are aware of their efforts to make a facade of apparent compe-
tence but in more dissociative cases, they are not aware of the existence of EPs while
being in “ANP mode”. This may reflect ANP’s avoidance of traumatic elements con-
tained in the EPs and the absence of realization of trauma and trauma-derived mental
actions characteristic of early traumatization (Van der Hart, Nijenhuis & Steele,
2006/2008).
4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging

(e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating)
Biological and environmental factors may contribute to these symptoms. A person

may have an impulsivity personality trait, genetically inherited from his father. This
impulsivity trait cannot be adequately regulated by the impulsive father, who overre-
acts to his son´s behaviors, or by the mother, who is victimized by the father´s abu-
sive-impulsive behaviors. When the young child expresses rage, it is consistently
repressed in response to the overcontrolling parents, and this contributes to the dis-
sociation of this mental state from others. When this child becomes an adult, he may
oscillate between an ANP rigidly controlling his rage, or expressing it in an uncon-
trolled way (EP) when he needs to express rage. The adaptive anger that allows peo-
ple to search for their necessities or enable them to refuse an abusive demand is not
an option for this person, because highly developed integrative processes are absent.
Some borderline patients turn to substance abuse and self-medication as a way to
avoid getting in touch with EP’s feelings and reactivates traumatic memories. Others
resort to binge eating, since this may create a stuporous state that allows the avoid-
ance of EP. In other patients, impulsivity reflects an uncontrollable need in an EP, a
need that in most of them was not recognized and satisfied during childhood. These
patients learned to ignore or rigidly control this need, which remains dissociated in an
EP. Some borderline patients manifest compulsive sexuality, which sometimes can be
a reenactment of an early sexual abuse. Such reenactments involve an EP that imitates
the original perpetrator and at least one other EP that suffered the pain, fear and
shame of the original abuse. This behavior is not always related with sexual abuse, for
example a child EP can tend to reenact a relationship with a verbally abusive parent,
with an absence of mindsight in sexual partner which reproduces the same pattern
from early caregivers, while the ANP suffers for being trapped in degrading relation-
ships. Many different impulsive behaviors can be understood as EP activations which
escape from ANP’s rigid control.
5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating

behavior
Suicidal behavior, gestures or self mutilating behavior are usually interpreted as

blackmail or manipulative behavior. However, in most cases the patients, as ANP or as
a controlling EP resorts to these behaviors in order to manage vehement or unbear-
able emotions. Many borderline patients report feeling better when they cut or burn.
Unbearable emotional pain together with the anticipation of the danger of self-injury
may induce an increase of endorphins – secondary to states of derealization – which
decreases pain awareness, reduces emotional distress and induces analgesia. In other
cases, the reason for self-injury is to cause physical pain because the patient find this
physical pain “more bearable than emotional pain” (contained in EPs).

In more complex dissociative cases, some punishing EPs may be involved in the
acts of self-harm with the goal to punish other parts, for instance, they consider these
parts to be guilty of the abuse (because their submissive response), as experienced in
reactivated traumatic memories, or to be weak (hostile parts consider that to be strong
is the only way for not being abused anymore). The punishing EPs may also express
themselves as intrusive thoughts or voices that blame or threaten the ANP or another
EP. Borderline patients may resort to self-harm with different levels of planning, rang-
ing from highly impulsive to carefully planned actions. Furthermore, in some cases
ANP is completely present and aware of these actions. In other cases, one or more EPs
may have taken over executive control to such a degree that ANP’s presence is com-
pletely inhibited, with the result that ANP has amnesia for the triggers, the intention
and planning to self-harm and/or the act of self-harm itself. It is possible that an
observing part (EP) simultaneously watches from a distance what is being done.
6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense

episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and
only rarely more than a few days)
Borderline patients present an affective instability that has an effect on many areas
of their life and can be manifested by abrupt changes in emotional states. Many of
these patients are characterized by chronic dysphoria and feelings of emptiness. They
are easily triggered by ordinary events that remind them of traumatic experiences or
unresolved conflicts. Then their tendency toward feeling empty and “flat” may be
interrupted by episodes of rage, anguish and desperation, in which various EPs are
highly present. It is important to keep in mind that apparently ordinary events, that
can actually function as “triggers” because of their perceived similarities with the orig-
inal traumatizing events, may reactivate traumatic memories and EPs to which these
memories belong. This can generate shifts between ANP and EP that explain many of
the dramatic mood changes (Steele, 2008; Mosquera & Gonzalez, 2009a; Mosquera,
Gonzalez, & Van der Hart, 2010).
For example, a female borderline patient can oscillate between thinking that her
partner is maltreating her (while feeling hurt or rage) and being certain she “cannot
live without him” when faced with the menace of being alone. This patient can man-
ifest very rapid and intense changes in her affect, reacting in diverse ways that both
she and other find confusing. When she perceives that her partner is mistreating her,
she can be re-experiencing a past aggression by her father in childhood, with a mix-
ture of rage (fight-based EP) and fear (flight-based EP). When she shifts to the belief “I
cannot live without him,” she may be shifting to a submissive EP or an attachment cry-
based EP. In secondary structural dissociation, these EPs are not very complex and
their first-person perspective is not well-developed. The patient as ANP may be aware
of these changes; when, for example, she is in touch with the child EP that feels “I can-
not believe without him”, she may experience the fight EP’s enraged reaction as “not
me”.
Borderline patients are known for their “black and white” thinking. These extremes
are characteristic of structural dissociation of the personality, with different dissociative
parts having polarized perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and behavioral actions.
When they feel disheartened, they can react with rage and direct their feelings towards
others (for example with verbal assaults) or towards themselves (cutting, burning).
Emotion dysregulation is another factor that needs to be considered related with
this symptom cluster. People with a background of early chronic traumatization,
attachment trauma or attachment disturbances have difficulties maintaining their
emotions within a window of tolerance (Ogden & Minton, 2000; Ogden, Minton, &
Pain, 2006). They can become uncontrollably hyperaroused or hypoaroused.
Emotional dysregulation can be partially inheritable (Goldsmith & Harman, 1994), but
this trait will be either amplified by an inadequate caregiver or moderated by a safe
and supportive caregiver. During traumatizing experiences, EPs may become hyper-
aroused (rage, extreme fear, panic) or hypoaroused (total submission), manifesting
these respective conditions whenever they are reactivated. When the caretaker is
unable to regulate the child’s extreme experiences or even is the cause of them, these
dissociative parts become all the more rigid and entrenched.
For many authors, this criterion seems to have a stronger biological weight, one
which would respond best to pharmacological treatment. However, it would be a mis-
take to ignore the presence of external and relational factors in the patient’s past and
present relationships that influence the tendency of most borderline patients to be
overly reactive.
7. Chronic feelings of emptiness
Emptiness is a chronic feeling in most borderline patients which they usually try to
attenuate. Patients characterized by chronic feelings of emptiness may report how
they make desperate efforts to fill their overwhelming emptiness. Some patients
report that these sensations make them feel very dependent on other people (believ-
ing only others can fill up this emptiness). Sometimes this feeling of emptiness repre-
sents EPs, dissociative parts that contain experiences of emotional neglect, distancing
or withdrawing from the caregiver and their unmet attachment needs. These patients
report a feeling of emptiness that they “cannot fill with anything”. Sometimes a lack
of affect relates to ANP’s desperate attempts to avoid any feeling or bodily sensation
that could trigger traumatic memories and overwhelming affect, leading to a life
“lived at the surface of consciousness” (Appelfeld, 1994; Van der Hart, Nijenhuis, &
Steele, 2006/2008).
8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., fre-

quent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)
Many borderline patients show unpredictable reactions and sudden “emotional

outbursts”. These outbursts can be verbal, physical or a combination of both
(Mosquera, 2010). In some cases, this will depend on which EP is reactivated. Anger
outbursts by “Fight EPs”, related to reactivated traumatic memories, can be quite
intense and have a deep impact on the patient as ANP and other EPs and on other peo-
ple. The person might give the impression of being totally out of control, “dislocated”,
acting on impulses without thinking of consequences. The patient as ANP can experi-
ence those reactions as “not me” (reflecting a certain level of first-person perspective)
or cannot remember part of, or the entire episode. Then, the patient as ANP may feel
very scared or humiliated when others tell them what has happened.
9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symp-

toms
In our opinion, transient stress-related paranoid ideation is crucial in BPD, since, as

we mentioned before, it is the source of many apparently out-of-proportion and
uncontrolled reactions. In our view, it reflects switches between dissociative parts,
with their own first-person perspectives. Some borderline patients are extremely vul-
nerable and sensitive to general stimuli, having general difficulties in regulating their
emotional states. However, apparently insignificant stimuli often actually function as
specific trauma-related triggers. Therapists begin to understand their significance
when they are able to relate them to the patient’s early traumatic experiences. The
extreme lack of trust that can be observed in many borderline patients when they are
emotionally activated can be related to posttraumatic hyperarousal. In moments of
extreme stress they, or rather EPs stuck in trauma-related defense, can become quite
suspicious and imagine other want to harm them: this is usually related to early
attachment experiences, neglect and abuse. In these cases, then, traumatic memories
and related EPs may be reactivated (see also Chan & Silove, 2000). For example, a
familiar, trusted person may suddenly be perceived as an attacker (due to a switch to
a defensive EP).
Auditory hallucinations can be included under “severe dissociative symptoms”
(Yee, Korner, McSwiggan, Meares & Stevenson, 2005; Moskowitz & Corstens, 2007;
Chan & Silove, 2000). Those auditory hallucinations usually are related to specific EPs
with their own, well developed first-person perspective that may intrude into the
ANP’s consciousness or completely take over executive control (Moskowitz, &
Corstens, 2007; Van der Hart & Witztum, 2008). It is as intrusive auditory hallucina-
tions that some defensive EPs are experienced by the ANP. Other severe dissociative
symptoms may be among those that are measured by screening instruments for dis-
sociative disorders (DES: Bernstein & Putnam, 1986; DES-T: Waller, Putnam & Carlson,
1996; SDQ-20: Nijenhuis et al., 1996) and structured diagnostic instruments for the
DSM-IV-TR dissociative disorders (MID: Dell, 2006; DDIS: Ross, 1989; SCID-D:
Steinberg, 1994). In short, they involve intrusions from or switches among dissociative
parts and can be categorized as negative (functional losses such as amnesia and paral-
ysis) or positive (intrusions such as flashbacks or voices), and psychoform (symptoms
such as amnesia, hearing voices) or somatoform (symptoms such as anesthesia or tics)
(Van der Hart et al., 2006/2008).
CLINICAL EXAMPLES IN TERMS OF STRUCTURAL DISSOCIATION OF

THE PERSONALITY
The case vignettes presented below may help the reader to become more sensitive
to the possible involvement of dissociative parts in BPD patients’ functioning and
symptoms. This may open windows of opportunity for more effective management
and treatment. These issues are, however, beyond the scope of this article.
Case 1: “Dissociative Borderline Personality Disorder”
Susan was a 45 year old borderline woman. She was apparently functional. Her dis-
closure of childhood sexual abuse fit with some behaviors described by her family: as
a child she washed her underwear on several occasions and seemed embarrassed like
she was hiding something, but mother though she was “playing house wife”. Since
she was a little child, she was threatened by the perpetrator in different ways “if you
say something, they won’t love you”, “if you tell, they won’t believe you and you will
be left alone”, “If you tell, I will kill your kitten”. Still, she was able to finish college and
get a job (ANP). In her job she was meticulous and very responsible (ANP). She was
usually quiet and calm, and sometimes very submissive (EP1) but had several anger
outbursts with co-workers (EP2). She had a small group of friends, linked to spiritual
beliefs. She had no conflict in this context (ANP). In some situations she (EP3) felt
“overloaded” by some comments and gestures from people, that she (as ANP) expe-
rienced as out of proportion to those events. On several occasions, she “punished”
herself, introducing objects in her vagina and cutting herself (EP2 interfering in the
functioning of the ANP). She was very ashamed and did not understand “why I (EP2)
did that to myself” (ANP).
Case 2: “Dissociative Borderline Personality Disorder”
Robert is a 37 year old borderline man. Usually easy going, he did not like conflicts
and avoided them (ANP). He refered to a very good childhood, but had very few mem-
ories from the period before his adolescence, and could not offer any details about
that time. A few months ago, he was shocked when he realized (ANP) he began hit-
ting an old man (EP). He didn’t know “what got into myself” and was very ashamed
and worried about his reaction (ANP). He described several situations similar to this
incident, most of them related to a previous stressor. He described alcohol abuse as a
kind of self-medication (to numb the emotional pain). His wife explained that he (an
enraged, fight-based EP) tried to kill himself after those “out of control outbursts”
(childhood, fearful, flight-based EP); Robert (ANP) stated that he felt guilty and was
“afraid of my own reactions”.
Case 3: “Attachment-Based Borderline Personality Disorder”
Claudia was an apparently functional 29 year old woman with BPD. Her mother
explained the following: “Other people don’t know she has problems… when she is
ok she is wonderful, charming, calm, patient (ANP). However, “suddenly”, she
becomes an awful person. She is aggressive, self-destructive and very hard to soothe.
In those moments I just hate her, she is impossible to handle” (EP). The patient went
to work on a daily basis; she did well, related to co-workers and had no conflicts (ANP).
When there was a conflict at her work, she came home very agitated and it was hard
not to argue with her. “She said, I never help her but she is the one that doesn’t want
help” (mother and daughter usually argued and ended up blaming and cursing each
other) “. When Claudia was overwhelmed, she went to the bathroom and cut (EP) or
went out and had “several drinks” (EP). Outside her work, her life was chaotic and
unpredictable; she maintained intense and unstable relationships. She did not under-
stand “certain reactions” (EP) and explained that although she knew she should “stop
my behavior”, in certain moments, “I can’t” (ANP): “I don’t know why I do those
things, it’s as if it wasn’t me in those moments”.
Case 4: “Biologic Borderline Personality Disorder and Attachment

Trauma”
Elisa, 27 years old, was very afraid of abandonment. She was extremely dependent
and possessive (EP) most of the time, tried to please others and be liked. From time to
time, she became extremely violent and hostile (EP), showing resentment toward her
relatives for different reasons. Her relationship with her partner was very intense and
oscillated between extreme dependence (attachment cry EP) and negative reactions
toward him (fight-based EP). All these behaviors were exacerbated by a depressive
mood, which initially seemed to be part of the personality disorder. The further occur-
rence of a manic episode with delusional symptoms, including paranoid attitude
toward her partner, pointed to a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Pharmacological stabi-
lization reduced the intensity of behavioral problems, but her relationship continued
to be problematic, and seemed to be connected with early attachment disturbances.
Subsyndromal affective oscillations since her early adolescence generated many neg-
ative experiences, and contributed to a personal identity based on unstable relation-
ships, intense emotional states and low self-regulation. Her mother presented a very
disorganized pattern of attachment with the patient, alternating (or simultaneously
showing) interest and rejection. The patient sometimes sought the mother´s help
when she had problems with her partner (attachment cry EP) and, at other occasions,
took legal actions towards the mother, asking the judge to establish a protective order
against her (fight EP).
In general, what these cases teach us is that the therapist needs to understand
which dissociative parts are active and when and find out what provokes their often
symptomatic reactions. Often several EPs are involved, whose behaviors should be
understood as attempts to solve certain emotional problems, such as coping with
reactivated traumatic memories. Such understandings provide the foundation for spe-
cific therapeutic interventions that address the nature the patient’s inner experiences
and, from there, lead to the development of more adaptive problem-solving strate-
gies.
CONCLUSIONS
The existent literature has increasingly emphasized dissociation as a major feature

of traumatization. Thus, if BPD is (largely) a trauma-related disorder, it should be char-
acterized by some degree of dissociation. In fact, as described in this article, several
theoretical and clinical approaches emphasize the dissociative nature of BPD or
describe related concepts. This conceptualization is relevant, not only for a better
understanding but also for the purpose of more effective and efficient treatment of
this severe condition.
The theory that received most attention in this article is the theory of structural dis-
sociation of the personality, as we believe this is the more comprehensive theory about
severe traumatization and it´s having increasing empirical support (e.g., Hermans,
Nijenhuis, Van Honk, Huntjens, & Van der Hart, 2006; Reinders et al., 2003, 2006,
2008). Due to its categorical model the DSM-IV-TR criteria of BPD by themselves are
too simple to provide an adequate understanding of the complexity of BPD. However,
by drawing on the perspective of the theory of structural dissociation of the personal-
ity, clinicians and researchers can develop a deep understanding of the various symp-
toms and social interactions of BPD patients. It is extremely difficult to understand the
meaning and purpose of these symptoms when therapists use only a here-and-now
perspective. Thus, with the theory of structural dissociation as frame of reference, we
have described how the various BPD symptom clusters can be understood as manifes-
tations of the intrusions from, and/or switches, among, various dissociative parts of
the personality. Many of the apparently maladaptive actions these dissociative parts
engage in should be regarded as attempted solutions in dealing with intolerable expe-
riences, such as reactivated traumatic memories of childhood traumatization.
We have proposed three main types of BPD, in which these factors are involved in
varying degrees: a dissociative BPD, an attachment-based BPD and an organic BPD.
These subtypes are not an attempt to offer another system of categorical classification,
but rather to emphasize the varying interrelations between genetics and environment,
overall early trauma (including hidden attachment trauma). These three aspects can
interrelate in complex ways, and manifest quite differently in each case. We believe
insights into how these factors are influential in each case are crucial to case formula-
tion and for planning comprehensive treatment.
REFERENCES
Akiskal, HS; Chen, SE, & Davis GC (1985). Borderline: an adjective in search of a noun.
J Clin Psychiatry, 46: 41-48.
Allen, D.M. (2003). Psychotherapy with Borderline Patients: An Integrated Approach.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
APA (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-R).
Washington, DC: Author.
Appelfeld, A. (1994). Beyond despair. New York: Fromm.
Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, & Van IJzendoorn MH. (2009).The first 10,000 Adult
Attachment Interviews: distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical
and non-clinical groups. Attach Hum Dev. 11(3), 223-263.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bokhorst, C. L.
(2004). The importance of shared environment in infant–father attachment: A behav-
ioral genetic study of the Attachment Q-Sort. Journal of Family Psychology, 18,
545–549.
Ball JS & Links PS (2009). Borderline personality disorder and childhood trauma: evi-
dence for a causal relationship. Current Psychiatry Reports, 11, 63-68.
Barone, L. (2003). “Developmental protective and risk factors in borderline personali-
ty disorder: a study using the Adult Attachment Interview.” Attach Hum Dev 5(1): 64-
77.
Bateman, A. & Fonagy, P. (2004). Psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder:
Mentalization based treatment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2003). The development of an attachment–based treat-
ment program for borderline personality disorder. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 67,
187–211.
Battle, CL; Shea, MT; Johnson, DM; Yen, S; Zlotnick, C; Zanarini, MC; Sanislow, CA;
Skodol, AE; Gunderson, JG; Grilo, CM; McGlashan, TH & Morey, LC. (2004).
Childhood maltreatment associated with adult personality disorders: findings from
the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. Journal of Personality
Disorders. 18: 193-211
Benjamin, L.S. (1993). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorder.
New York: Guilford.
Bernstein, E.M., & Putnam, F.W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a dis-
sociation scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 727-735.
Blizard, R. A. (2003). Disorganized attachment, development of dissociated self states
and a relational approach to treatment. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 4(3), 27-
50.
Bokhorst, C. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Fearon, R. M. P., Van IJzendoorn, M. H.,
Fonagy, P., &Schuengel, C. (2003). The importance of shared environment in moth-
er-infant attachment security: A behavioral genetic study. Child Development, 74,
1769–1782.
Bowlby, J. (1969), Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (I980a). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss, sadness and depression. New
York: Basic Books

Briere, J., &Conte, J. (1993). Self-reported amnesia in adults molested as children.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 21-31.
Brodsky BS, Cloitre M, & Dulit RA. (1995). Relationship of dissociation to self-mutila-
tion and childhood abuse in borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry, 152,
1788-92.
Bromberg, P. M. (1998). Standing in the spaces: Essays on clinical process, trauma &
dissociation. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Brussoni, M. J., Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & MacBeth, T. M. (2000). Genetic and envi-
ronmental influences on adult attachment styles. Personal Relationships, 7, 283–289.
Buchheim A, George C, Liebl V, Moser A, & Benecke C. (2007). Affective facial behav-
ior of borderline patients during the Adult Attachment Projective. Z Psychosom Med
Psychother. 53(4):339-54.
Chan, A & Silove, D. (2000). Nosological implications of psychotic symptoms in
patients with established posttraumatic stress disorder. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry. 34:522–525
Chu, J, Matthews, J; Frey, L & Ganzel, B. (1996).The nature of traumatic memories of
sexual abuse. Dissociation, 10, , 2-17.
Chu, J. A., & D. L. Dill (1991). Dissociation, borderline personality disorder, and child-
hood trauma. Am J Psychiatry 148: 812-3.
Classen, C, Pain, C; Field, N. & Woods, P. (2006). Posttraumatic personality disorder:
A reformulation of the complex posttraumatic stress disorder and borderline person-
ality disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 29: 87-112.
Cohen, P; Crawford, TN; Johnson, JG & Kasen, S. (2005).The children in the commu-
nity study of developmental course of personality disorder. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 19: 466-486.
Crawford, T. N., Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., Shaver, P. R., Cohen, P., & Ganiban, J.
(2007). Insecure attachment and personality disorder: A twin study of adults.
European Journal of Personality, 21, 191-208.
Crawford, T; Livesley, WJ; Lang, K; Shaver, P; Cohen, P. & Ganiban, J. (2007). European
Journal of Personality.21: 191–208.
Crittenden (1997a)[I HAVE ONLY THIS ONE:] Crittenden, P.M. (1995). Attachment and
risk for psychopathology: The early years. Journal of Developmental and Behavioural
Pediatrics, 16 (Suppl), S12-S16.
Crittenden PM (1997b). Toward and integrative theory of trauma: a dynamic-matura-
tion approach, in Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology, Vol 8:
Developmental Perspectives on Trauma. Edited by Cicchetti D, Toth SL. Rochester, NY,
University of Rochester Press, 1997, pp 33-84 I ALSO HAVE THIS ONE MARKED BUT
MAYBE FOR ANOTHER ARTICLE:
Dell, P. F. (2006). The multidimensional inventory of dissociation (MID): A comprehen-
sive measure of pathological dissociation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation : The
Official Journal of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation (ISSD), 7(2),
77-106.
Driessen M, Beblo T, Reddemann L, Rau H, Lange W, Silva A, Berea RC, Wulff H, &
Ratzka S. (2002). “Is the borderline personality disorder a complex post-traumatic
stress disorder? - The state of research”. Nervenarzt 73(9): 820-9.
Fanselow, M.S., & Lester, L.S. (1988). A functional behavioristic approach to aversive-
ly motivated behavior: Predatory imminence as a determinant of the topography of
defensive behavior. In R.C. Bolles & M.D. Beecher (Eds.), Evolution and learning (pp.
185-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fonagy P, Target M, Gerfely G (2000): Attachment and borderline personality disor-
der: a theory and some evidence. Psychiatric Clin North Am 23:103-122.
Fonagy, P. & Bateman, A. (2007). Teoría del apego y modelo orientado a la mental-
ización del trastorno límite de la personalidad. Capítulo 12 del libro Tratado de los
Trastornos de la Personalidad (Textbook of personality disorders pp. 189-203).
Editorial: Elsevier Masson. Editores: John M. Oldham, Andrew E. Skodol & Donna S.
Bender
Fonagy, P. (2000). Attachment and borderline personality disorder. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 48, 1129-1146; discussion 1175-1187.
Fonagy, P; Gegerly, G; Jurist, EL, & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization
and the development of the self. New York: Other Press.
Fossati A, Novella L, Donati D, Donini M & Maffei C. (2002). History of childhood

attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and borderline personality disorder:
a controlled study. Compr Psychiatry. 43:369–377.
Fossati, A., Madeddu, F & Maffei, C. (1999). Borderline personality disorder and child-
hood sexual abuse: A meta-analytical study. Journal of Personality Disorder, 13,
268–280.
Galletly, C. (1997). Borderline-dissociation comorbidity. Am J Psychiatry 154: 1629.
Goldberg JF & Garno JL (2009). Age at onset of bipolar disorder and risk for comor-
bid borderline personality disorder. Bipolar Disorders, 11, 205-208.
Goldsmith, H. H.,& Harman, C. (1994). Temperament and attachment: Individuals
and relationships. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 53–57.
Golier, J; Yehuda, R; Bierer, L; Mitropoulou, V; New, A; Schmeidler, J; Silverman, J &
Siever, J. (2003). The relationship of borderline personality disorder to posttraumatic
stress disorder and traumatic events. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 2018-2024.
Golynkina, K., & Ryle, A. (1999). The identification and characteristics of the partially
dissociated states of patients with borderline personality disorder. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 72, 429–445.
Gonzalez, A. & Mosquera, D. (2009) Sintomatología Disociativa en los Trastornos de
Personalidad. Identificación y Abordaje. Trastornos de la Personalidad. I Jornadas gal-
legas. TP-Galicia. A Coruña
Gonzalez, A. (2010). Trastornos Disociativos. Madrid: Ediciones Pleyades.
Goodman, M., & Yehuda, R. (2002).The relationship between psychological trauma
and borderline personality disorder.Psychiatric Annals, 33, 337–345.
Graybar, S., & Boutilier, L. R. (2002). Nontraumatic pathways to borderline personali-
ty disorder. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 39, 152–162.
Grover KE, Carpenter LL, Price LH, Gagne GG, Mello AF, Mello MF, & Tyrka AR. (2007).
The relationship between childhood abuse and adult personality disorder symptoms.
J Pers Disord. Aug;21(4):442-7.
Gunderson JG, Daversa MT, Grilo CM, McGlashan TH, Zanarini MC, Shea MT, Skodol
AE, Yen S, Sanislow CA, Bender DS, Dyck IR, Morey LC, Stout RL. (2006). Predictors of
2-year outcome for patients with borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry, 163:
822-6.
Gunderson, J. (1984). Borderline personality disorder. Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Gunderson, J. (1996). The borderline patient’s intolerance of aloneness: Insecure
attachments and therapist availability. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 752-758.
Gunderson, J.G., & Sabo, A. (1993). The phenomenological and conceptual interface
between borderline personality disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 19-27.
Gunderson, JG & Kolb, JE. (1979). Discriminating features of borderline patients. Am J
of Psychiatry, 135: 792-796.
Guttman, H & Laporte, L (2002). Family members´retrospective perceptions of
intrafamiliar retrospectives. Contemporany Family Therapy: An International Journal,
24 (3), 505-521.
Harned MS, Rizvi SL, & Linehan MM. (2010). Impact of co-occurring posttraumatic
stress disorder on suicidal women with borderline personality disorder. Am J
Psychiatry. Oct;167(10):1210-7. Epub.
Herbst G, Jaeger U, Leichsenring F, & Streeck-Fischer A. (2009). Effects of traumatic
stress. Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr. 58(8):610-34.
Herman, JL & Schatzow, E. (1987). Recovery and verification of memories of childhood
sexual trauma. Psychoanalytic. Psychology, 4, 1-4.
Herman, JL (1992). Complex PTSD: A syndrome in survivors of prolonged and repeat-
ed trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5(3), 377–391.
Hesse, E. & Main, M. (2001) Disorganized infant, child, and adult attachment:
Collapse in behavioral and attentional strategies.Journal of the American psychoana-
lytic Association 48:1097–1127.
Hermans, E. J., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., Van Honk, J., Huntjens, R., & Van der Hart, O. (2006).
State dependent attentional bias for facial threat in dissociative identity disorder.
Psychiatry Research, 141, 233–236.
Higgitt, A., & Fonagy, P. (1992). Two psychotherapeutic treatment of borderline and
narcissistic personality disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 23-43.

Hill, AB. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings
of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295–300
Horesh N, Ratner S, Laor N, & Toren P. (2008). A comparison of life events in adoles-
cents with major depression, borderline personality disorder and matched controls: a
pilot study. Psychopathology. 41(5):300-6. Epub Jul 1.
Horevitz, R., & Loewenstein, R. J. (1994). The rational treatment of multiple personal-
ity disorder. In S. J. Kynn & S. W. Rhue (Eds.), Dissociation: Clinical and theoretical per-
spectives (pp. 289-316). New York: Guilford.
Howell, E.F. (2005) The dissociative mind. London: The Analytic Press.
Howell, EF (2002). Back to the “States”: Victim and Abuser States in Borderline
Personality disorder. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 12:921-957.
Hunt M. (2007). Borderline personality disorder across the lifespan. J Women Aging.
19(1-2):173-91.
Janet, P. (1907). The major symptoms of hysteria. London & New York: Macmillan.
Janet, P. (1919). Les médications psychologiques. Paris: Félix Alcan. English edition:
Psychological healing. New York: Macmillan, 1925.
Johnson, JG; Cohen, P; Brown, J et al. (1999). Childhood maltreatment increases risk
for personality disorders during early adulthood. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56:
600-606.
Kernberg, OF. (1979). Two reviews of literature on borderlines: An assessment.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 5: 53-58.
Kernberg, OF. (1993). Severe personality disorders: psychotherapeutic strategies. Yale
University Press.
Kingdon DG, Ashcroft K, Bhandari B, Gleeson S, Warikoo N, Symons M, Taylor L, Lucas
E, Mahendra R, Ghosh S, Mason A, Badrakalimuthu R, Hepworth C, Read J, Mehta R.
(2010). Schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder: similarities and differences
in the experience of auditory hallucinations, paranoia, and childhood trauma. J Nerv
Ment Dis. Jun;198(6):399-403.
Korzekwa MI, Dell PF, & Pain C (2009). Dissociation and borderline personality disor-
der: an update for clinicians. Current Psychiatry Reports, 11 (1), 82-88.
Kremers IP, Van Giezen AE, Van der Does AJ, Van Dyck R, Spinhoven P. (2007). Memory
of childhood trauma before and after long-term psychological treatment of borderline
personality disorder. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. Mar;38(1):1-10. Epub 2006 May 19.
Lang, P.J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American
Psychologist, 50, 372-385.
Laporte, L., & Guttman, H. (1996). Traumatic childhood experiences as risk factors for
borderline and other personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 10,
247–259.
Levy, K.N., Clarkin, J.F., Yeomans, F.E., Scott, L.N., Wasserman, R.H. & Kernberg, O.F.
(2006). The mechanisms of change in the treatment of borderline personality disorder
with transference focused psychotherapy. Journal of clinical psychology, 62(4), 481-
501.
Lieb, K., Zanarini, M.C.,Schmahl, C., Linehan, M., & Bohus, M. (2004). Borderline
Personality Disorder. Lancet, 364, 453–460.
Liebowitz, MR. (1979). Is borderline a distinct entity? Schizoprenia Bulletin, 5: 23-38
Linehan, M (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder.
New York: Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. (2006). Treating borderline personality disorder: The dialectical approach.
New York: Guilford Press.
Liotti, G. (1999). Disorganization of attachment as a model for understanding disso-
ciative psychopathology. In J. Solomon & C. George (Eds.), Attachment disorganiza-
tion (pp. 297-317). New York: Guilford.
Liotti, G. (2004). Trauma, dissociation and disorganized attachment: three strands of
a single braid. Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice Training, 41: 472-486.
Lobo, I. & Shaw, K. (2008) Phenotypic range of gene expression: Environmental influ-
ence. Nature Education 1 (1)
Luborsky, L. & Crits-Christoph P. (1990). Understanding transference: The Core
Conflictual Relationship Theme Method. New York: Basic Books
Lyons-Ruth. K; Yellin, D; Melnick, S et al (2005). Expanding the concept of unresolved
mental states: hostile/helpless states of mind on the Adult Attachment Interview are
associated with disrupted mother-infant communication and infant disorganization.

Deviant Psychopathology 17: 1-23.
Main, M, Kaplan, N, & Cassidy J (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood:
a move to the level of representation. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 50:66-104.
Masterson, JF. (1976). Psychotherapy of the Borderline adult. New York: Brunner-
Mazel.
McLean, L. M., & R. Gallop (2003). Implications of childhood sexual abuse for adult
borderline personality disorder and complex posttraumatic stress disorder. Am J
Psychiatry, 160, 369-71.
Moskowitz, A & Corstens, D. (2007). Auditory hallucinations: Psychotic symptom or
dissociative experience? Journal of Psychological Trauma, 6(2/3), 35-63.
Mosquera, D. & Gonzalez A. Del apego temprano al TLP. Revista Mente y Cerebro.
Enero-Febrero 2011, páginas 18-27.
Mosquera, D. & Gonzalez, A. (2009a). Disociación estructural y trastorno límite de la
Personalidad. Trastornos de la Personalidad. I Jornadas gallegas. TP-Galicia. A Coruña
Mosquera, D. & Gonzalez, A. (2009b). El apego inseguro-ambivalente y sus efectos en
el adulto con Trastorno Límite de la Personalidad. X Jornadas de Apego y Salud
Mental. Internacional Attachment Network. Madrid.
Mosquera, D. (2004). Diamantes en Bruto I. Un acercamiento al trastorno límite de la
personalidad. Manual informativo para profesionales, pacientes y familiares. Madrid,
Ediciones Pléyades.
Mosquera, D. (2010). Trastorno Límite de la Personalidad. Una aproximación concep-
tual a los criterios del DSM-IV-R-TR. Revista Persona, 10(2), 7-22.
Mosquera, D., Gonzalez A. & Van der Hart, O. (2010). El TLP desde la teoría de la dis-
ociación estructural de la personalidad. Presentado en la mesa “nuevas terapias,
nuevos retos”. VIII Congreso Nacional de Trastornos de la Personalidad, Madrid.
Myers, C.S. (1940). Shell shock in France 1914-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Newman LK, Harris M, & Allen J. (2010). Neurobiological basis of parenting distur-
bance. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. Oct. (Epub ahead of print)
Nijenhuis, E.R. S., Spinhoven, P., Van Dyck, R., Van der Hart, O., Vanderlinden, J.
(1996). The development and psychometric characteristics of the Somatoform
Dissociation Questionnaire (SDQ-20). Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 184,
688-694.
O’Connor, T. G., & Croft, C. M. (2001). A twin study of attachment in preschool chil-
dren. Child Development, 72, 1501–1511.
Ofshe, RJ., & Singer, M.T. (1994). Recovered-memory therapy and robust repression:
Influence and pseudomemories. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis, 42, 391-410.
Ogden, P & Minton, K. (2000). Sensorimotor Psychotherapy: A method for processing
traumatic memories. Traumatology - Volume VI, Issue 3, Article 3 (October).
Ogden, P; Minton, K & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor
approach to psychotherapy. New York: Norton.
Pagura J, Stein MB, Bolton JM, Cox BJ, Grant B, & Sareen J. (2010). Comorbidity of bor-
derline 2010 Dec;44(16):1190-8.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal
emotions. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paris, J. (1994). Borderline personality disorder: A multidimensional approach.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Paris, J. (2004). Borderline or bipolar? Distinguishing borderline personality disorder
from bipolar spectrum disorders. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, May/Jun, Vol. 12 Issue
3, p140-144
Paris, J., & H. Zweig-Frank (1997). Dissociation in patients with borderline personality
disorder. Am J Psychiatry 154: 137-8.
Pietrzak RH, Goldstein RB, Southwick SM, Grant BF. (2010). Personality disorders asso-
ciated with full and partial posttraumatic stress disorder in the U.S. population: Results
from Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.
J Psychiatr Res. [Epub ahead of print]
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2001).Behavioral Genetics
(4th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.
Pope, H.G., & Hudson, J.I. (1995). Can memories of child sexual abuse be repressed?
Psychological Medicine, 25, 121-126.

Porges, S. W. (2003). The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic contributions to social
behavior. Physiology and Behavior, 79, 503-513.
Putnam, F. W. (1997). Dissociation in children and adolescents: A developmental per-
spective. New York: Guilford Press.
Reinders, A. A. T. S., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., Paans, A. M., Korf, J., Willemsen, A. T., & Den
Boer, J. A. (2003). One brain, two selves. Neuroimage, 20, 2119–2125.
Reinders, A. A. T. S., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., Quak, J., Korf, J., Haaksma, J., Paans, A. M., et
al. (2006). Psychobiological characteristics of dissociative identity disorder: A symptom
provocation study. Biological Psychiatry, 60, 730– 740
Reinders, A. A. T. S., Van Eekeren, M., Vos, H., Haaksma, J., Willemsen, A., Den Boer,
J., Nijenhuis, E. (2008). The dissociative brain: Feature or ruled by fantasy?
Proceedings of the First International Conference of the European Society of Trauma
and Dissociation.Amsterdam, April 17-19, p. 30.
Rogosch, FA & Cicchetti, D. (2005). Child maltreatment, attention networks and
potential precursors to borderline personality disorder. Deviant Psychopathology, 17:
1071-1089.
Ross, C.A. (1989). Multiple personality disorder: Diagnosis, clinical features, and treat-
ment. Toronto, CA, John Wiley.
Ross, CA. (2007). Borderline personality disorder and dissociation. Journal of Trauma
& Dissociation, 8(1), 71-80.
Roth, S., Newman, E., Pelcovitz, D., Van der Kolk, B.A., & Mandel, F.S. (1997).
Complex PTSD in victims exposed to sexual and physical abuse: Results from the DSM-
IV-R field trial for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10,
539–555.
Ryle, A (2007). Investigating the Phenomenology of Borderline Personality Disorder
with the States Description Procedure: Clinical Implications. Clin. Psychol. Psychother.
14, 329–341
Ryle, A. & Kerr, I. (2006). Introducción a la Psicoterapia cognitivo analítica Desclee de
Brouwer
Sabo, AN (1997). Etiological significance of associations between childhood trauma
and borderline personality disorder: Conceptual and clinical implications. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 11, 50–70.
Sabo, AN (1997). Etiological significance of associations between childhood trauma
and borderline personality disorder: conceptual and clinical implications. J Personal
Disord 11(1): 50-70.
Sansone RA, Sansone LA, & Wiederman MW. (1995). Trauma, borderline personality,
and self-harm behaviors. Arch Fam Med 4(12): 1000-2.
Sansone, RA, Gaither, GA & Songer, DA (2002). The relationships among childhood
abuse, borderline personality, and self-harm behavior in psychiatric inpatients.
Violence Vict 17(1): 49-55.
Sar V, Akyüz G, Dogan O. (2007). Prevalence of dissociative disorders among women
in the general population. Psychiatry Res. Jan 15;149(1-3):169-76. Epub 2006 Dec 8.
Sar V, Akyuz G, Kugu N, Ozturk E, Ertem-Vehid H. (2006). Axis I dissociative disorder
comorbidity in borderline personality disorder and reports of childhood trauma. J Clin
Psychiatry. Oct;67(10):1583-90.
Schore, A. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development,
affect regulation and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health 22: 201-269.
Schore, A. (2003a). Affect dysregulation and disorders of the self. New York: Norton.
Schore, A. (2003b). Affect regulation and the repair of the self. New York: Norton.
Schore, A.N. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development,
affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22, 201-269.
Schuder, M & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2004).” Hidden trauma” in infancy: attachment, fearful
arousal and early dysfunction on the stress response system. In Osofsky J, Ed.Trauma
in infancy and early childhood. NY. Guilford Press. PP 69-104.
Siever LJ, Torgersen S, Gunderson JG, Livesley WJ, & Kendler KS. (2002). The border-
line diagnosis III: identifying endophenotypes for genetic studies. Biol Psychiatry
51(12): 964-8.
Silk, KR; Lee, S; Hill, EMD & Lohr, NE. (1995). Borderline personality disorder symp-
toms and severity of sexual abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152: 1059-1064.
Skodol AE, Siever LJ, Livesley WJ, Gunderson JG, Pfohl B, Widiger TA. (2002). The bor-
derline diagnosis II: biology, genetics, and clinical course. Biol Psychiatry 51(12): 951-
63.
Spitzer C, Effler K, & Freyberger HJ. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociation
and self-destructive behavior in borderline patients. Z Psychosom Med Psychother
46(3): 273-285.
Spitzer, RL & Endicott, J. (1979). Justification for separating schizotypal and borderline
personality disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 5, 95-100.
Steele, H & Siever, L. (2010). An attachment perspective on borderline personality dis-
order: advances in gene-environment considerations. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2010 Feb;
12 (1):61-7.
Steele, K. (2008). Borderline personality disorder and the theory of structural dissoci-
ation. Proceedings 25th ISSTD Annual Conference, p. 52.
Steele, K., Van der Hart, O., & Nijenhuis, E.R.S. (2001). Dependency in the treatment
of complex posttraumatic stress disorder and dissociative disorders. Journal of Trauma
and Dissociation, 2(4), 79-116.
Steinberg, M. (1994). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-R dissociative disorders,
revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Terr, L. C. (1988). What happens to memories of early childhood trauma? Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 96-104.
Terr, L.C. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 148, 10-20.
Tyrka AR, Wyche MC, Kelly MM, Price LH, & Carpenter LL. (2009). Childhood maltreat-
ment and adult personality disorder symptoms: influence of maltreatment type.
Psychiatry Res. Feb 28;165(3): 281-7. Epub.
Van der Hart, O., & Witztum, E. (2008). Dissociative psychosis: Clinical and theoretical
aspects. In A. Moskowitz, I. Schäfer, & M. Dorahy (Eds.), Dissociation and psychosis:
Multiple perspectives on a complex relationship (pp. 257-269). London: John Wiley &
Sons.
Van der Hart, O., Nijenhuis, E & Steele, K. (2005). Dissociation: An insufficiently rec-
ognized major feature of complex PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18 (5), 413-424.
Van der Hart, O., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., & Solomon, R. (2010). Dissociation of the person-
ality in complex trauma-related disorders and EMDR: Theoretical considerations.
Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 4(2), 76-92.
Van der Hart, O; Nijenhuis, E & Steele, K. (2006). The Haunted Self: Structural dissoci-
ation and the treatment of chronic traumatization. New York: Norton. (Spanish edi-
tion: El yo atormentado: La dísociación estructural y el tratamiento de la traumati-
zación crónica. Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer.)
Van der Kolk, B; Roth, S; Pelcovitz, D; Sunday, S & Spinazzola, J. (2005). Disorders of
extreme stress: The empirical foundation of a complex adaptation to trauma. Journal
of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 18, No. 5, October, pp. 389–399
Van Derbur, M. (2004). Miss America by day: Lessons learned from ultimate betrayals
and unconditional love. Denver, CO: Oak Hill Ridge Press.
Waller, N. G., Putnam, F. W., & Carlson, E. B. (1996). Types of dissociation and disso-
ciative types: A taxometric analysis of dissociative experiances. Psychological Methods,
1(3), 300-321.
Watson S, Chilton R, Fairchild H, & Whewell P. (2006). Association between childhood
trauma and dissociation among patients with borderline personality disorder. Aust N
Z J Psychiatry. May; 40 (5):478-81.
Williams, L.M. (1994). Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women’s
memories of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,
1167-1176.
Yee, L., Korner, A. K., McSwiggan, S., Meares, R. A., & Stevenson, J. (2005). Persistant
hallucinosis in borderline personality disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 46, 147-
154.
Yen S, Shea MT, Battle CL, Johnson DM, Zlotnick C, Dolan-Sewell R, Skodol AE, Grilo
CM, Gunderson JG, Sanislow CA, Zanarini MC, Bender DS, Rettew JB, McGlashan TH.
(2002). Traumatic exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in borderline, schizotyp-
al, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders: findings from the collab-
orative longitudinal personality disorders study. J Nerv Ment Dis 190: 510-518.
Young, J; Klosko, J & Weishaar, M. (2003). Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide.
New York: Guilford Publications.
Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Dubo ED, Sickel AE, Trikha A, Levin A, & Reynolds V.
(1998). Axis I comorbidity of borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 155(12):
1733-9.
Zanarini MC, Ruser TF, Frankenburg FR, Hennen J, & Gunderson JG. (2000a). Risk fac-
tors associated with the dissociative experiences of borderline patients. J Nerv Ment
Dis 188(1): 26-30.
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Reich, D. B., Marino, M. F., Lewis, R. E., Williams,
A. A., & Khera, G. S. (2000c). Biparental failure in the childhood experiences of bor-
derline patients. Journal of Personality Disorders, 149, 264–273.
Zanarini, MC. (2000b). Childhood experiences associated with the development of
borderline personality disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 23: 89-101.
Zanarini, MC; Yong, L; Frankenburg; FR et al (2002). Severity or reported childhood
sexual abuse and its relationship to severity of borderline psychopathology and psy-
chosocial impairment among borderline inpatients. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease.190: 381-387.
Zweig-Frank H, Paris J & Guzder J. (1994). Psychological risk factors for dissociation
and self-mutilation in female patients with borderline personality disorder. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry.39:259–264.
Zweig-Frank, H., & Paris, J. (1991). Parents’ emotional neglect and overprotection
according to the recollections of patients with borderline personality disorder.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 648–651.
View publication stats

BPD Childhood Trauma and Structural Dissociation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPD Childhood Trauma and Structural Dissociation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPD Childhood Trauma and Structural Dissociation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the factors proposed in the origin of borderline personality disorder?

What are some of the factors proposed in the origin of borderline personality disorder?

What are some of the findings regarding early trauma, attachment disturbances, and borderline personality disorder?

What are some of the findings regarding early trauma, attachment disturbances, and borderline personality disorder?

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Borderline personality disorder, childhood trauma and structural dissociation

Article · September 2012

Dolores Mosquera Anabel Gonzalez

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Onno van der Hart

Trauma, dissociation and emotion regulation View project

a book on the history of trauma-generated dissociation of the personality View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dolores Mosquera, Anabel Gonzalez, & Onno van der Hart

Borderline personality disorder,

EARLY TRAUMA, ATTACHMENT DISRUPTIONS, AND BORDERLINE

Early Trauma and Borderline Personality Disorder

As described with regard to Criterion A of posttraumatic stress disorder (APA,

Table 1. Studies about childhood trauma in BPD

Studies Chilldhood trauma in BPD

Zanarini (2000b) 40-70% of childhood sexual abuse in

Battle, Shea, Johnson et al, 2004; Positive relationship in prospective stu-

Johnson, JG; Cohen, P; Brown, J et al. Persons with documented childhood

Laporte & Guttman (1996) BPD have multiple occurrences and

STUDIES ABOUT CONSEQUENCES OF EARLY TRAUMATIZATION

Magnification or minimization of childhood trauma influence?

In previous sections we described different empirical studies and meta-analyses

Attachment and Bordeline Personality Disorder

GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS

To understand the role of early environmental aspects in personality development

found to be entirely attributable to environmental effects. Skodol et al. (2002) stated

DISSOCIATIVE DISORDERS AND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY

Different research studies report a high frequency of dissociation among BPD

THE THEORY OF THE STRUCTURAL DISSOCIATION OF THE

Figure 1. Action systems

Levels of Structural Dissociation

Different subgroups of BPD and structural dissociation of the

To argue whether BPD is generated either by biological or environmental factors

Case 1. “Dissociative Borderline Personality Disorder”

Case 2. “Attachment-based Borderline Personality Disorder”

Case 3. “Biologic Borderline Personality Disorder”

OTHER APPROACHES TO THE DISSOCIATIVE NATURE OF BPD

DSM-IV-TR BPD CRITERIA VIEWED AS POSTTRAUMATIC

1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment

2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships character-

3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or

4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging

Biological and environmental factors may contribute to these symptoms. A person

5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating

Suicidal behavior, gestures or self mutilating behavior are usually interpreted as

physical pain “more bearable than emotional pain” (contained in EPs).

6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense

7. Chronic feelings of emptiness

8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., fre-

Many borderline patients show unpredictable reactions and sudden “emotional

9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symp-

In our opinion, transient stress-related paranoid ideation is crucial in BPD, since, as

CLINICAL EXAMPLES IN TERMS OF STRUCTURAL DISSOCIATION OF

Case 1: “Dissociative Borderline Personality Disorder”

Case 2: “Dissociative Borderline Personality Disorder”