The Contribution of Sidney Blatt's Two-Polarities Model to the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual

Body Uneasiness and Dissatisfaction Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Persons

Introduction

While sexual minority people have been widely considered at risk for developing a range of body image concerns, evidence of body dissatisfaction and shame amongst LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) individuals is mixed. This study investigated differences in body uneasiness, body dissatisfaction, and self-blaming/attacking attitudes between LGB and heterosexual individuals, as well as within LGB groups, while also examining the predictive role of body mass index (BMI).

Methods

A sample of cisgender lesbian women (n = 163), gay men (n = 277), bisexual women (n = 135), bisexual men (n = 39), heterosexual women (n = 398), and heterosexual men (n = 219) completed an online survey assessing different aspects of body image between May and July 2020.

Results

Gay and bisexual men reported greater body image disturbance and self-blaming attitudes relative to heterosexual men. In contrast, lesbian women reported lower body uneasiness than their bisexual and heterosexual counterparts, but greater self-hate. Moreover, lesbian and bisexual women showed more body dissatisfaction than gay men, and bisexual individuals reported more body uneasiness than individuals in other sexual minority subgroups. Higher BMI emerged as a significant predictor of body image concerns and dissatisfaction.

Conclusions

Body image dimensions showed sexual identity-based differences. Determining the specific nuances of body image in LGB individuals can provide important information on potential risk factors that may impact mental health outcomes.

Policy Implications

In-depth knowledge of body dissatisfaction and uneasiness in individuals with LGB identities may have critical implications for the development of personalized prevention and treatment strategies.

Psychodiagnostic Chart-Child (PDC-C): a valid and clinically sensitive diagnostic tool for patient-tailored intervention planning

The reliable clinical-diagnostic evaluation of child patients is crucial. The present research sought to examine the validity of the Psychodiagnostic Chart-Child (PDC-C) in assessing children's mental functioning and personality organization, according to the framework of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual, Second Edition (PDM-2). A sample of 209 clinicians assessed 209 children (aged 4-11 years) who had been in their care between 2-12 months, using the PDC-C. Each clinician also completed a clinical questionnaire to provide demographic information, the Child Behavior Checklist to evaluate children's behavioral problems and social competences, and the Childhood Personality Assessment Q-Sort measure to assess children's emerging personality patterns. The findings suggest that the PDC-C is a valid diagnostic tool that considers children's full range of functioning. Moreover, the measure has good sensitivity and appears clinically useful in differentiating between certain clinical populations according to psychological characteristics. The PDC-C could promote more accurate assessment during childhood and inform the development of individualized therapies. One of the advantages of the tool is its ability to capture individual variations in child functioning (illuminating strengths and psychological vulnerabilities), even within children in the same diagnostic group. Of note, additional research is needed to establish the utility of PDC-C ratings in predicting clinically relevant constructs and to monitor the processes and outcomes of interventions.

Assessing Self-Definition and Relatedness in Level of Personality Functioning

The two polarities model (TPM) of personality organizes psychological assessment and psychotherapy and connects to personality disorder diagnosis using the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). The authors developed scales assessing the TPM from an existing self-report measure for level of personality functioning (LPF), a core component of the AMPD. Iterative content analyses of the LPF measure yielded scales for Autonomy and Communion corresponding to dimensions of the TPM. The scales were refined via internal consistency analyses using a measure of psychological attachment and studied in development and validation samples. Associations with relevant external criteria were explored in a series of multiple regressions. The new content-based LPF scales were illustrated with a case vignette. Although the new Autonomy/Communion scales await further validation prior to clinical use, initial evidence suggests that they may bridge the nomological nets of the TPM and AMPD and potentially offer clinical utility in assessment and treatment planning.

Introduction to the Issue in Honor of Sidney Blatt

Not available.