↓ Skip to main content

Emotion Regulation in Schema Therapy and Dialectical Behavior Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
434 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Emotion Regulation in Schema Therapy and Dialectical Behavior Therapy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01373
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Fassbinder, Ulrich Schweiger, Desiree Martius, Odette Brand-de Wilde, Arnoud Arntz

Abstract

Schema therapy (ST) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) have both shown to be effective treatment methods especially for borderline personality disorder. Both, ST and DBT, have their roots in cognitive behavioral therapy and aim at helping patient to deal with emotional dysregulation. However, there are major differences in the terminology, explanatory models and techniques used in the both methods. This article gives an overview of the major therapeutic techniques used in ST and DBT with respect to emotion regulation and systematically puts them in the context of James Gross' process model of emotion regulation. Similarities and differences of the two methods are highlighted and illustrated with a case example. A core difference of the two approaches is that DBT directly focusses on the acquisition of emotion regulation skills, whereas ST does seldom address emotion regulation directly. All DBT-modules (mindfulness, distress tolerance, emotion regulation, interpersonal effectiveness) are intended to improve emotion regulation skills and patients are encouraged to train these skills on a regular basis. DBT assumes that improved skills and skills use will result in better emotion regulation. In ST problems in emotion regulation are seen as a consequence of adverse early experiences (e.g., lack of safe attachment, childhood abuse or emotional neglect). These negative experiences have led to unprocessed psychological traumas and fear of emotions and result in attempts to avoid emotions and dysfunctional meta-cognitive schemas about the meaning of emotions. ST assumes that when these underlying problems are addressed, emotion regulation improves. Major ST techniques for trauma processing, emotional avoidance and dysregulation are limited reparenting, empathic confrontation and experiential techniques like chair dialogs and imagery rescripting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 431 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 16%
Student > Bachelor 60 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 8%
Researcher 27 6%
Other 60 14%
Unknown 140 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 212 49%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 4%
Social Sciences 13 3%
Neuroscience 12 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 2%
Other 29 7%
Unknown 141 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,260,874
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,438
of 32,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,831
of 326,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#96
of 427 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 427 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.