FACULTY 20 20DOC 20Milton 20Brown 20Ivanoff2001

Document Sample
FACULTY 20 20DOC 20Milton 20Brown 20Ivanoff2001 Powered By Docstoc
					Ivanoff, A., Brown, M., Linehan, M.M., (2001). Dialectical behavior therapy for impulsive self-injurious
    behaviors. In D. Simeon, E. Hollander (Eds.), Self-injurious behaviors: Assessment and treatment.
    American Psychiatric Press.


                                             CHAPTER 7
                       Dialectical Behavior Therapy for
                      Impulsive Self-injurious Behaviors
                           Andre Ivanoff, Milton Brown, Marsha Linehan


INTRODUCTION
        The term "parasuicide" refers to any non-fatal self-injurious behavior with clear intent to
cause bodily harm or death that results in actual tissue damage, illness or risk of death (Kreitman,
1977). Parasuicide is a heterogeneous category that includes both self-injurious behavior with
lethal intent and self-injurious behavior without lethal intent. Self-mutilation refers to the
deliberate infliction of direct physical injury, i.e., piercing, scratching, cutting, or burning, to
one's own body without intent to die (Winchel & Stanley, 1991), and is usually viewed as distinct
from other forms of parasuicide such as deliberate overdoses or self-poisoning. Wrist cutting or
skin burning, for example, are forms of self-mutilation that, in contrast to suicide attempts, are
typically considered more repetitive and pose lower risk of death (Pao, 1969; Graff & Mallin,
1967; Bach-y-Rita, 1974; Gardner & Gardner, 1975; Simpson, 1976; Widiger & Weissman,
1991; Ross & McKay, 1978; Morgan, 1979; Pattison & Kahan, 1983; Walsh, 1987; Walsh &
Rosen, 1988).
        Confusion exists, however, in how parasuicide is categorized. One problem is that most
deliberate parasuicide involves ambivalent intent to die (Brown & Linehan, 1996; Walsh, 1987).
Similarly, the correlations between self-mutilation and suicidal behavior and suicidal ideation
also create problems in forming discrete categories. For example, 40% of one sample of self-
cutters reported a wish to die at the time of their low lethality mutilation (Jones, Congin,
Stevenson, Strauss, & Frei, 1979), and in two other studies, 41% and 28% of self-mutilators cited
suicidal thoughts as associated with their self-mutilating acts (Gardner & Gardner, 1975; Pattison
& Kahan, 1983; cf. Linehan, 1997 for a review of other classification problems). Among self-
mutilating adolescents, 31% made a serious suicide attempt close to the time of their self-
mutilation (Walsh, 1987). More generally, other studies show that 50%-90% of those who
engage in non-suicidal self-mutilation also engage in suicidal behavior (Hillbrand, Krystal,
Sharpe & Foster, 1994; Favazza & Conterio, 1989; Simeon, Stanley, Frances, Mann, Winchel &
Stanley, 1992). In a sample of 61 borderline women who had engaged in parasuicide, 43% had
engaged in both a suicidal and a nonsuicidal act (mostly cutting or burning) during the past year
(Brown & Linehan, 1999). Other problems obfuscating parasuicide categories arise from the
difficulty of reliably inferring intent. Assessment of intent may be biased by the interviewer's
theory of such behavior, by temporality, i.e., when assessment is conducted, or by assumptions
made about consequences, such as the notion that low lethality behavior does not carry suicidal
intent. This chapter describes Dialectical Behavior Therapy, a model of treatment for
parasuicide, including self-mutilation, in Borderline personality disordered women. Special


1
                                                                                                  2


attention is given to treatment procedures recommended for behavioral and cognitive
characteristics associated with self-mutilation.

SELF-MUTILATION AND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER
         Parasuicide, including self-mutilation and suicidal behavior, is considered a common
clinical behavior among individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).
Characteristics associated with individuals who parasuicide and with those meeting criteria for
Borderline personality disorder are strikingly similar in the literature on suicidal behavior; BPD
is the only diagnosis for which parasuicide is a criterion. Borderline personality disorder (BPD)
is generally characterized by intense negative emotions including depression, self-hatred, anger,
and hopelessness, frequently accompanied by anxiety and psychotic symptoms. Difficulty
regulating emotions and behaviors results in unstable and chaotic interpersonal relationships.
BPD patients often engage in impulsive behaviors including self-mutilation, alcohol or drug
abuse, eating binges, and suicidal behaviors. A significant health problem, particularly among
women, BPD affects approximately 11% of all psychiatric outpatients and 19% of inpatients;
70%-77% of these are women (Widiger & Frances, 1987).
         Up to 80% of BPD inpatients have self-mutilated at some time in the past, approximately
40% have engaged in "non-serious" suicide attempts (Fyer, 1988), and up to 55% have made
serious suicide attempts (Gunderson, 1984; Fyer, 1988). Gunderson (1984) called parasuicide
the "behavioral specialty" of the BPD patient. The rate of suicide among BPD patients is 5-10%
(Frances, Fyer & Clarkin, 1986) similar to rates associated with major affective disorder or
schizophrenia, the diagnoses with highest suicide rates (Frances et al.), and double that when
examining only those with a history of previous parasuicide (Stone, Hurt, & Stone, 1987).
         The majority of parasuicidal acts among borderline patients lack definite lethal intent and
most involve multiple and ambivalent intentions (Brown & Linehan, 1996). In a sample of 61
BPD patients with at least two previous episodes of parasuicide admitted to the University of
Washington Behavior Therapy Research Clinic, 30 of the acts were suicide attempts while 31
had no lethal intent associated with them. In the past year 26 of the 61 had both a suicide attempt
and nonsuicidal parasuicide, mostly cutting/burning, and 35 of 61 had either a suicide attempt or
nonsuicidal parasuicide (Brown & Linehan, 1996). In four other studies, from 17% to 50% of
individuals who parasuicided reported a moderate intent to die. In a sample of women meeting
criteria for BPD, most mutilation by cutting or burning involved little suicide intent or medical
risk when compared to other methods of parasuicide (Brown & Linehan, 1996).
         In developing an effective model for treating self-mutilation, it is useful to view self-
mutilating behavior as a function of limited problem-solving abilities and emotional
dysregulation. Parasuicidal individuals lack skillful coping ability in general (cf. Linehan, 1993
for review), and dysfunctional problem-solving significantly predicts subsequent parasuicide
among parasuicidal borderline women (Kehrer & Linehan, 1996). Self-mutilation and other
forms of parasuicide may function as problem-solving behavior in a number of ways. Several
investigators (e.g., Maris, 1981, Shneidman, 1987; Linehan, 1993) suggest parasuicide, including
both self-mutilation and suicide attempts, may actually help some individuals cope with life
problems that cause intense suffering by reducing the emotional pain or cognition linked to the
suffering. Parasuicide may also function as problem-solving by influencing others in ways that
alleviate difficult circumstances or demands, or elicit assistance or support (e.g., Favazza, 1989).
Particularly true of behavior such as self-mutilation and suicide threats, some individuals


2
                                                                                                3


acknowledge engaging in these behaviors to influence others (Leibenluft, Gardner & Cowdry,
1987). In this way, parasuicide may also indirectly serve to reduce painful emotions through
interpersonal problem-solving. Communication of emotional pain to others may result in
validation of that pain, and demonstration of the severity of problems may elicit help or maintain
a valued relationship (Linehan, 1987; Wagner & Linehan, 1997; Linehan, 1987). Finally,
suicidal behaviors are one of the most effective means of admission to psychiatric hospitals.
        Viewed pejoratively, such acts are seen as manipulative communication (Gunderson,
1984). Individuals who engage in these behaviors have limited help-seeking skills (Schotte &
Clum, 1987; Ivanoff, Smyth, Grochowski, Jang, & Klein, 1992; Linehan Camper, Chiles,
Strosahl, & Shearin, 1987), and these communications are often reinforced when the
environment becomes more responsive following parasuicide. In this way, extreme behaviors
such as self-mutilation and other forms of parasuicide can easily become primary means of
problem-solving.

EMOTIONAL DYSREGULATION AND SELF-MUTILATION
        Individuals who self-mutilate and parasuicide may also experience persistent and acute
emotional dysregulation. Borderline personality disorder is widely characterized by severe
emotional lability and reactivity (cf. Linehan, 1993a). Self-mutilating individuals are generally
assessed as more angry, and more verbally and physically aggressive than non-parasuicidal
psychiatric individuals (Bennum & Phil, 1983; Roy, 1978; Simeon, Stanley, Frances, Mann,
Winchel, & Stanley, 1992; Hillbrand, Krystal, Sharpe & Foster, 1994). Self-mutilators also
attribute their own behavior to uncontrolled anger (Roy, 1978).
        Emotion dysregulation may be functionally viewed as the result of emotional
vulnerability (which includes both a predisposition to intense and long-lasting emotional
reactions, and a low threshold for emotional activation) combined with a lack of skillful ways to
regulate distressing emotions. Emotion dysregulation occupies a central role in self-mutilation.
Negative emotions appear to play a role in self-mutilation through the process of negative
reinforcement, that is, the reduction of negative emotions following mutilation (emotional
catharsis in psychodynamic terms, (e.g., Gardner & Cowdry, 1985). Patients typically report
experiencing intolerable anxiety and tension, often accompanied by depersonalization or
emptiness, which is usually relieved after self-mutilation (Gardner & Gardner, 1975;
Kemperman, Russ, & Shearin, 1997; Simeon et al., 1992; Simpson, 1976; Jones, 1986; Favazza
& Conterio, 1989; Favazza, 1989; Rosenthal, Rinzler, Walsh & Klausner, 1972; Wilkinson &
Coid, 1991).
        Interviews with self-mutilators who experienced childhood incest and adult rape suggest
that depersonalization occurs when tension associated with post-traumatic stress from sexual
abuse becomes intolerable. Self-mutilation reportedly alleviates these negative states (Shapiro,
1987; Greenspan & Samuel, 1989). Borderline women report that parasuicidal behavior may
reduce dissociation in response to painful emotions, enabling them to avoid numbness and
disconnection from reality (Wagner & Linehan, 1997). Other investigators report that patterns of
repeated, low-lethality self-mutilation are associated with poor tolerance of anxiety and anger
(Pattison & Kahan, 1983; Gardner & Cowdry, 1985). An analogue study employing
psychophysiological measurement strongly suggests that self-mutilation is associated with a
quick reduction of negative emotional arousal (Haines, Williams, Brain, & Wilson, 1996).
Taken together, these data suggest that self-mutilation may be strengthened and maintained due


3
                                                                                                   4


to the physiological and emotional reinforcement of this effective, albeit maladaptive, coping
strategy.
        Shame appears a critically important emotion in self-mutilation. Clinical observation
supports the relationship between self-mutilation and negative attitude toward the self. Early
theorists were first to suggest that anger toward the self leads to non-suicidal self-mutilation
(Freud, 1949; Liebowitz, 1987). Patients who chronically self-mutilate or those who meet
criteria for BPD often view themselves as evil and deserving punishment, frequently
experiencing shame, guilt, and self-hatred (e.g., Anderson, 1981; Shapiro, 1987; Leibenluft, et
al., 1987; Walsh & Rosen, 1988; Linehan, 1993a). The association of shame and self-mutilation
may also explain the relationship of self-mutilation to sexual abuse. Self-mutilation, suicide
attempts, and diagnosis of BPD correlate strongly and uniquely with childhood sexual abuse.
Self-mutilation can follow adult rape (e.g., Greenspan & Samuel, 1989), and is described as the
result of self-hatred and shame among women with histories of sexual abuse who report blaming
themselves for their own pain and for that of their family members (Shapiro, 1987). Similarly,
adolescents who self-mutilated close to the time of reporting sexual abuse led Anderson (1981)
to conclude that sexual abuse results in self-mutilation, in part, due to self-blame and shame.
        Several prospective studies suggest a link between shame and self-mutilation. Self-
derogation predicted parasuicide in the earliest (Kaplan & Pokorny, 1969), while more recently,
current level of shame (but not other emotions) predicted increases in urges to self-harm when
talking about recent personal parasuicide (Brown & Linehan, 1996), suggesting that current
shame is a vulnerability to urges to harm oneself. High levels of shame, but not other emotions,
prior to starting therapy, also substantially increased the odds that a patient self-mutilated within
the first four months of therapy. Shame continued to predict parasuicide even when the total
number of parasuicide acts during the past year and other negative emotions were controlled
(Brown, Levensky, & Linehan, 1997).

DIALECTICAL BEHAVIOR THERAPY
        Dialectical Behavior Therapy, (DBT; Linehan, 1993 a,b) is a treatment that addresses the
factors related to self-mutilation and has been found effective at reducing the incidence and
frequency of all forms of parasuicide in women diagnosed with BPD. Designated as an
empirically validated treatment by the American Psychological Association (APA, 1993), it is the
first psychotherapy for the behaviors associated with BPD supported by randomized clinical
trials. DBT was developed by Linehan and colleagues at the University of Washington,
originally as a treatment for chronically parasuicidal women. Over time it became clear to us that
most of these women also met criteria for BPD and the treatment evolved accordingly.
        Standard DBT is a one-year outpatient treatment based on social learning theory,
employing primarily behavioral and cognitive behavioral methods. Patients participate
simultaneously in both weekly individual psychotherapy and in skills training groups that teach
adaptive coping skills in the four primary problem areas attributed to BPD: emotion regulation,
distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, and reduction of confusion about identity and
maladaptive cognition ("mindfulness") (Linehan, 1993 a,b). Individual treatment addresses
specific maladaptive behaviors while strengthening and generalizing skills. Corollary treatment
components include patient telephone consultation, treatment team supervision and ongoing
consultation to the therapist. Both the individual psychotherapy and skills training group are
necessary components in DBT. The individual psychotherapy components of DBT provide the


4
                                                                                                5


relationship and context in which patients use new skills to gain control over self--harm and
suicidal behaviors. Many inpatient or day treatment programs or outpatient practices begin
implementation of DBT by starting with skills training groups or on an individual basis. Skills
training alone, however, should not be confused with comprehensive DBT, as data below
indicate.
Empirical Support
         In the first DBT clinical trial, (Linehan, Armstrong, Suarez, Allmon, & Heard, 1991), 47
chronically parasuicidal women meeting criteria for BPD were randomly assigned to either 12
months of DBT or a community treatment as usual (TAU). Assessments occurred every four
months during treatment and at 12 months follow-up. Results showed that DBT clients were less
likely to engage in any form of parasuicide, or to drop out of therapy than TAU clients. They
also spent less time in psychiatric hospitals, were better adjusted interpersonally, and were less
angry. DBT patients also maintained significantly higher Global Assessment Scale scores
(Endicott, Spitzer, Fleiss, & Cohen, 1976) than TAU subjects (Linehan, Heard & Armstrong,
1993c). A reanalysis of the data (Linehan & Heard, 1993) confirmed that the overall superiority
of DBT was not accounted for by the fact that DBT patients had greater access to psychotherapy
and to telephone consultation than did TAU patients. The mean number of self-mutilation acts
was somewhat lower in DBT than the Tau, but the difference was not significant. The
effectiveness of skills training alone was also examined, minus individual DBT therapy or with
skills coaching between sessions. Skills training alone, without coaching, was not effective as an
additive treatment to ongoing DBT individual psychotherapy. Individuals in this study
essentially did no better (or worse) than those in the TAU condition in the above described trial.
         The second randomized clinical trial and single largest application to date is with BPD
substance-abusing women (Linehan & Dimeff, 1996). Preliminary outcome data indicate
individuals in the DBT condition decreased drug use more than TAU subjects and stayed in
treatment longer. At follow-up, these individuals had made significantly greater gains in global
and social adjustment than the TAU.
         A number of studies evaluating DBT with suicidal, BPD patients have been completed or
are currently in progress at sites in the United States and in Europe. Two randomized controlled
trials just completed (Koons & Robins, 1998; van den Bosch, 1991 and two studies with parallel
comparisons (Barely, Buie, Peterson, Hollingsworth, Griva, Hickerson, Lawson & Bailey, 1993;
Miller, Rathus, Linehan, Wetzler, & Leigh, 1997) found DBT more effective than TAU at
changing patterns of behavior associated with BPD. Since its inception, DBT has been adapted
to a variety of client populations and settings. Telch (1997) is developing, adapting, and testing
DBT skills training for use with obese binge-eating disordered women. Other adaptations which
show excellent promise, albeit on the basis of uncontrolled data, include adaptation for inpatient
psychiatric settings (Swenson, Sanderson & Linehan in press), DBT for inner city suicidal
adolescents (Miller, Rathus, Linehan, Wetzler, & Leigh, 1997) day treatment applications
(Swenson, Sanderson, Hoffman & Linehan, in press) forensic psychiatric settings (including
adaptations for both borderline and antisocial personality disordered patients) (Ball, McCann,
Linehan, & Ivanoff, 1996, unpublished manuscript), and emergency psychiatric settings
(McKeon, 1996, unpublished manuscript).
Biosocial Theory and Procedures
         DBT is distinguished from other cognitive-behavioral treatments for BPD by its
dialectical philosophy of treatment, biosocial theory, and by its treatment stages and targets.


5
                                                                                                    6


Dialectics function as a world view, a theory of disorder, a model for persuasive dialogue, and as
a frame for interrelationships between individuals, or among behaviors, events, and cognition.
Futhermore, effective treatment strategies also emerge from this basic philosophical stance of
dialectics. The theory used to explain BPD is based in a dialectical philosophy that combines
both stress-diathesis and learning models of psychopathology as the framework for synthesizing
biological and environmental approaches to the etiology and maintenance of BPD. Dialectical
philosophy emphasizes interconnectedness and wholeness; all things are seen as inherently
heterogeneous and comprised of opposing forces that synthesize to produce change and to
facilitate the construction of truth over time. Change is therefore viewed as a fundamental aspect
of reality. Within individuals, there can be no dysfunction unless it serves some function;
analyzing individual components of a system is useful only if each component is related to the
whole. Identification and placement in the correct behavioral and environmental context is also
necessary to fully understand behavior. From a dialectic perspective, self-mutilation may be
viewed as a "saving" event that enables patients to feel they can cope with life demands, while it
is also a destructive event contributing to depression, shame, suicide risk, and longer-term
decreased coping. Both are true.
         A biosocial theory provides the primary lens for understanding how self-mutilation, and
other dysfunctional behaviors associated with BPD, are developed and maintained. Within this
perspective, individual dysfunction is regarded as extreme vulnerability to emotional
dysregulation, while behavioral patterns such as self-mutilation arise from systemic dysregulation
of primary emotions. Such dysregulation is the result of an ongoing transaction between
individuals with varying degrees of biologically-based difficulty regulating emotion and
environments that, to varying degrees, invalidate the individual's responses to the world.
Invalidating environments are characterized by a tendency to disregard emotional experiences,
particularly negative ones, to place a high value on positive thinking, and to oversimplify the ease
of solving difficult problems.
         Communications of non-public events and difficulties meeting social expectations are
often not taken seriously in these vulnerable individuals. Such invalidating environments,
especially those involving physical and sexual abuse, contribute to emotional dysregulation as
well as failing to teach appropriate labeling of emotional experience, regulation of arousal,
tolerance of emotional distress, and trust in one's own emotional experiences. The accumulation
of such dysregulation, inability to discern, trust and accurately evaluate emotional experience is
naturally self-reinforcing. DBT attributes the development and continued maintenance of BPD
behavioral patterns to the incompatible transaction between this biologic vulnerability to emotion
dysregulation and an invalidating environment.

Treatment Stages and Targets
        DBT is comprised of four stages: A pretreatment stage and three discrete treatment
stages. A hierarchy of DBT targets determines the treatment agenda within and across sessions;
each individual session agenda is set based on the client's behavior since the last session. It is the
therapist's responsibility to remain mindful of treatment goals and to ensure that client activities
are pointed in the direction of creating a life worth living.
        In pretreatment, the patient is orientated to the philosophy and structure of DBT with the
goal of making an agreement or commitment to pursue the goals of DBT. These goals are clearly
prescribed. If a patient is currently engaging in parasuicide or self-mutilation, she must agree


6
                                                                                                    7


that reducing or eliminating such behavior is a goal to strive for: curtailing parasuicide of all
types, including self-mutilation is, at all times, the first priority. Patients must also agree not to
kill themselves while they are in DBT. Although the dialectic co-existence of self-mutilation or
other parasuicidal behavior and wishes to live is understood within DBT, treatment cannot
progress beyond this target until these parasuicidal behaviors are under control. Obtaining
explicit patient agreement is necessary prior to full participation in treatment; in settings where
patients may be reluctant to commit themselves to DBT goals, an ongoing pre-treatment phase
may be used to focus on commitment-enhancing strategies.
         Stage 1 DBT targets life threatening and all suicidal behaviors, including parasuicide and
self-mutilation. Forming and maintaining a good therapeutic relationship with a strong
connection to the therapist and establishing stability are also primary targets. The targets during
this stage include: 1) decreasing self-harm, suicidal, or homicidal behaviors; 2) decreasing
therapy interfering behaviors, and 3) decreasing quality of life-interfering behaviors; and 4)
increasing behavioral skills needed to make life changes, i.e., core mindfulness skills (the ability
to focus thought and thinking), distress tolerance, emotion regulation skills, and interpersonal
effectiveness skills.
         Weekly diary cards are used to collect ongoing information about target problems.
Targets are added to those listed on standard diary cards as needed, but always include
parasuicide, including self-mutilation, suicidal ideation and urges, prescription, licit and illicit
drug abuse drug use, binge eating, general misery level, and a checklist to indicate DBT skills
used during the week. Reviewed at the beginning of each individual session, the presence or
absence of target problems since the last session identifies priorities for that session agenda.
Self-monitoring via diary cards has a number of advantages over traditional memory-based
narrative recall of events. It provides a source of feedback and data to the client and therapist
unavailable through other means, and it may increase the accuracy of reported events.
Structurally, the cards provide specific detail about the timing and relationship between self-
mutilation and other dysfunctional behaviors and daily fluctuations in anxious or depressed
mood, e.g., intensity of anxious or depressed mood tied to self-mutilation, the level of mood that
can be tolerated without resorting to self-mutilation, etc.
         Any direct self-harm, suicide crisis behavior, intrusive and intense suicidal ideation,
images or communications, as well as significant changes in suicidal ideation or urges to self-
destruct, are addressed in individual therapy immediately following their occurrence. Self-
mutilation or other parasuicide is never ignored. As good predictors of future lethal acts, these
behaviors can cause substantial harm and, as primary targets, must be addressed before treatment
can progress.
         Stage 2 DBT addresses post-traumatic stress and invalidating experiences and may
include processing and re-experiencing past trauma or emotionally important events. This does
not occur however, until the targets of Stage 1 are under control. A strong and capable
commitment to being alive and the basic skills necessary to cope with dysregulation are regarded
as prerequisites to entering Stage 2. Although patients might enter Stage 2 with suicidal ideation
and strong wishes to be dead, they are not in Stage 2 if they are self-mutilating, buying guns for
suicide, hoarding pills, or making other concrete plans. If Stage 1 may be thought of as guiding
the patient to a state of quiet desperation (beginning from one of loud desperation), then Stage 2
is to raise the patient from unremitting emotional desperation (Koerner & Linehan, 1997). Stage
3 treatment targets self-respect and achievement of individual goals through synthesis of prior


7
                                                                                                      8


DBT learning tasks. Developing an ongoing sense of connection to self, others, and to life, is
important as patients work toward resolving problems in living.
Individual Treatment Strategies
        DBT treatment strategies are conceptually divided into those related to acceptance and
those related to change. There are four fundamental sets of treatment strategies that remain
conceptually intact across all applications of DBT: dialectical strategies, core strategies
(validation and problem-solving), communication strategies (irreverent and reciprocal
communication) and case management strategies (consultation-to-the-patient, environmental
intervention, and supervision/consultation with therapists) (see Table 1).
        The DBT practitioner tries to balance the use of acceptance and change strategies within
each treatment interaction. For example, behavior such as mutilation may prove both appropriate
or valid, as it may provide immediate relief from emotional pain or anxiety, while it is at the
same time highly dysfunctional and in need of change.
        Dialectical strategies. These are best described as the struggle to balance acceptance of
patients as they are now with producing and pushing for movement toward change. Both a world
view on the nature of reality as well as a change process, dialectics provide the framework for the
synthesis of biological and environmental approaches to the etiology and maintenance of BPD.
Change occurs though the active synthesis of opposing forces; dialectical strategies emphasize
balance and helping patients find reality in shades other than black and white. Increasing
patients' comfort with inconsistency, ambiguity, and change is an important aim. Through
admitting and accepting incompatible realities as necessary, traditional behavior therapy methods
are joined with acceptance of a fuller, often more realistic, perspective. Through the use of
stories, metaphors and philosophizing, dialectical strategies can be used to promote change or
acceptance. Typical metaphors include those illustrating the difficulty of pursuing treatment,
"like climbing out of hell on an aluminum ladder", of accepting responsibility for pursuing help,
"if you were hit by a car and broke your leg, would you refuse to have it set because it wasn't
your fault the car hit you?", and acknowledging personal risk, "getting into your own warm bed
with a poisonous snake, hoping against hope it will be asleep and won't bite you".
        Validation Strategies. These begin with empathy and extends to analyzing the patient's
response in relationship to its context and function. There are three types of validation: verbal
(direct communication that a statement is valid, e.g., "Yes, I can see that you're really upset"),
functional (behavioral response that indicates the therapist accepts the client's statement as valid,
e.g., "Let's take a look at what's upsetting you), and cheerleading (validating individual capacity,
not necessarily beliefs, e.g., client says "I can't do it", and therapist replies, "I know you think you
can't do it, but I have complete faith that you really can do it"). The function of validation is to
make the unreasonable reasonable, and to help the patient learn how and when to trust
themselves. Validation can also serve as acceptance to balance change, and can function to
strengthen clinical progress and the therapeutic relationship.
        Validation is further broken down into six levels: Level 1, Active Observing, is unbiased
listening and observing; Level 2, Reflecting the Observed, is accurate reflection and discussion
toward identification, description, and labeling of client behavioral patterns; Level 3, Articulating
the Unobserved, is articulating thoughts, memories, assumptions, and feelings that the patient is
not verbalizing or expressing directly; Level 4, Validation in Terms of the Past or of Biology, is
identifying the learning experiences and/or biological factors that make the patient's current
responses inevitable while still identifying the behavior as dysfunctional in the moment; Level 5,


8
                                                                                                    9


Validation in Terms of the Present, is identifying events in the current environment that make
current response patterns that "make sense" or are functional or normal response patterns; and
Level 6, Radical Genuineness, is treating the individual as valid. The task is to see and respond
to the patient's strengths and capacities while remaining empathic toward actual difficulty and
incapacity. For therapists this involves throwing off preconceptions of patient role and acting
fully, completely, and spontaneously, treating the patient as a person, i.e., without role, not as
fragile or invalid (mostly conveyed through voice tone). Therapist condescending behavior, as
felt by the patient, is often perceived as invalidating at level six, although it may be validating at
levels 4 and 5. The therapist who responds with a traditional "I wonder why..." therapeutic
comment to the patient who arrives for session dressed almost identically to the therapist.
        Problem-solving Strategies. Based on the primary assumption that the lives of BPD
individuals are currently unbearable, DBT places great emphasis on change. DBT problem
solving strategies address each instance of parasuicide or other major dysfunctional behavior.
Behavioral analysis is the most important method used for analyzing and understanding
dysfunctional behavior which provides the framework for generating solutions to such behavior.
Behavioral analysis identifies the problem (self-mutilation), the preceding events and context
(antecedents, conditioned cues, precipitant events, internal and external), and the events
following the problem (consequences that may influence the behavior). A "chain" analysis is a
very precise behavioral analysis on a single instance of a problem that results in a detailed step-
by-step description of the precipitating events, and the patient's emotional, cognitive, and overt
behaviors that preceded the problem behavior. Finally, the consequences of engaging in the
dysfunctional actions are examined, for the client and the environment. Once the chain of
antecedents, behaviors, and consequences is clarified, the task becomes "solution analysis",
identifying how the basic change strategies can ameliorate the problem: 1) Skills training to
address incapability to engage in more adaptive responses; 2) Contingency management
strategies to address reinforcement strategies that support problematic behavior; 3) Cognitive
modification procedures to address faulty beliefs and assumptions interfering with problem-
solving capabilities; and/or 4) Exposure-based strategies to address anxiety, shame, or other
emotional responses that interfere with adaptive problem-solving attempts. It may comprise a
portion, or even the entirety of a session. Table 2 illustrates a basic behavioral analysis.
        Problem-solving procedures such as skills training, contingency management, cognitive
modification, and exposure are adopted directly from the cognitive-behavioral literature. Patient
and clinician together identify public and private problematic behaviors, and factors associated
with the initiation and maintenance of these problem patterns. Next the behavioral excesses and
deficits that interfere with the client engaging in goal behaviors are identified, followed by what
the patient must learn, experience, and do to perform the goal behavior.
        Exposure Strategies. Based on the important associations described earlier between
shame and self-mutilation, change strategies using non-reinforced exposure to fear or emotions
unwarranted in current situations are particularly salient in treating self-mutilation. As described
by others (Foa & Rothbaum, 1998; Resick & Schnicke, 1993; Steketee, 1993) basic exposure
procedures include: 1) presenting stimuli that elicit the emotion; 2) providing corrective
information so that the affective response is not reinforced; 3) blocking escape and other
avoidance; and 4) enhancing the patient's sense of self-control. Functionally, three commonly
used exposure strategies are : 1) discussing and commenting on the fear cues in a matter of fact
or non-judgemental manner; 2) discussing in detail the antecedents eliciting fear or anxiety, i.e.,


9
                                                                                                    10


conducting a behavioral analysis; and 3) discussing in detail the ultimate feared consequences
(catastrophes) of the feared situations.
         Common fear cues and the therapist behaviors or events that elicit these topics
encountered in DBT include the following:
         1. Fear of failure or of disappointing others. Expectation of failures at tasks important to
the patient and highlighting such failure.
         2. Fear of being disliked. Criticism or confrontation of a patient's dysfunctional behavior.
         3. Fear of success (implying potential withdrawal of help and/or eventually failing).
Demands of expectations that the patient can do things she says are not possible or might succeed
at them.
         4. Fear of losing control, linked to the belief that the patient is not and cannot actually be
in control.
         5. Fear of existential aloneness or of being more alone than is wanted.
         6. Fear of not being loved or being rejected based on the fact that the therapeutic
relationship is not one of friendship, but is a professional relationship.
         In Stage 1 DBT, there is no formal protocol or procedure for using exposure strategies
and uncovering or re-exposure to past trauma is avoided. Informally, exposure strategies are
used to decrease emotional responses to present traumatic cues (e.g., loud noises, darkness, men)
and to increase tolerance to current negative emotions (e.g., anger, shame). Particularly useful in
treating dissociative behavior often linked to self-mutilation, the skills of mindfulness and
emotion regulation (described below) are paired with exposure strategies. In some patients,
particularly those whose trauma cues are related to more direct cues, such as memories, of past
trauma, or those who "re-experience" symptoms of trauma, the formal use of exposure to the
actual traumatic experiences is required as part of Stage 2 DBT. The patient is presented with
the memories, thoughts, emotions, or events that elicit the emotion related to the traumatic
experience (Wagner & Linehan, in press).
Skills Training
         DBT assumes that many of the problems experienced by patients who self-mutilate are
due to a combination of motivation problems and behavioral skill deficits; that is, the necessary
skills to regulate painful affect were never originally learned. For this reason, DBT emphasizes
skills-building to facilitate behavior change and acceptance. In standard DBT, skills are taught
weekly in 2.5 hour psychoeducational training groups. These skills are outlined and described in
detail in the Skills Training Manual for Borderline Personality Disorder (Linehan, 1993b).
Individuals are taught specific behavioral skills necessary to ameliorate mutilation and other
individual dysfunctional behavior patterns. Groups use a standard behavioral skills-building
format and procedures, including modeling, instructions, behavioral rehearsal, feedback and
coaching, and homework assignments.
         Group skills training works in tandem with individual therapy. Simultaneous group and
individual treatment create dedicated time to learn much-needed skills, and a separate context for
coached individual application. BPD clients frequently arrive for individual sessions in crisis,
and as the clinician therapist typically attends to these issues, little time is left to learn skills.
When skills are taught in group, the individual therapist can deal with current crises and serve as
skills coach encouraging transfer and generalization of particular skills. The group format has
several advantages over individual skills training: participants learn from each other and practice
skills with others engaged in the same tasks; skills practice coaching and feedback are available


10
                                                                                                   11


for a variety of members' responses; and group membership often decreases isolation and
increases clients' sense of connection. The co-therapist role may be used and discussed as an
interpersonal model. Socially phobic patients or those who must begin skills training in
individual sessions, are moved to group skills training as soon as possible. The four DBT skills
training modules directly target the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive instability and
dysregulation of BPD: mindfulness, interpersonal effectiveness, emotion regulation, and distress
tolerance. In standard DBT, the first two weeks of any given module are spent on mindfulness
and the remaining six weeks are spent on the particular module.
        Mindfulness is a psychological and behavioral translation of meditation skills usually
taught in eastern spiritual practices. The goal of this module is attentional control, awareness,
and sense of true self. Three primary states of mind are presented: reasonable mind (the logical,
analytical, problem-solving), emotion mind (the creative, passionate, and dramatic), and wise
mind (the integration of both reasonable and emotion mind). Wise mind involves intuition and
knowing what is right beyond reasoning and beyond direct experience. This synthesis of
reasonable mind and emotion mind enables appropriate response; one responds as needed given
the situation.
        Group members first learn to just observe, and then to describe external and internal
stimuli. Self-mutilation is regarded as a response of emotion mind, i.e., while the results may
feel positive in the short-term, they are negative in the longer term, leading to other painful states
or events. Particularly among individuals with impulse control difficulty, or those who use drugs
or alcohol, acknowledging and labeling affective states is a major goal. Fully entering
experiences, or "participate" is the next mindfulness skill. Finally, patients learn that these acts
are most useful when performed non-judgmentally, one-mindfully, and effectively. While these
may sound like lofty Zen goals for patient mindfulness, the basic principles are expressed simply
for learning and practice.
        Distress Tolerance focuses on the ability to accept both oneself and the current
environmental situation in a non-evaluative manner. It is particularly useful in situations where
nothing can be immediately done to change the environment, such as the patient who, alone in
her apartment at 3 a.m. begins thinking the distressing series of thoughts that lead her to self-
mutilation, but does not want to engage in the behavior. While implying acceptance of reality, it
does not imply approval. Activity-oriented distraction toward improving the moment, sensory
self-soothing, and consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of distress tolerance are
skills within this module.
        Interpersonal Effectiveness skills are similar to standard interpersonal problem-solving
and assertion training (Bower and Bower, 1991), these skills include effective strategies for
asking for what one needs and saying no to requests. Effectiveness here is obtaining changes or
objectives one wants, keeping the relationship, and building and maintaining self-respect.
Developing clarity about expected and reasonable outcomes of interpersonal situations is a
challenging task for many patients. As part of improving skills, strategies and procedures for
analyzing and planning interpersonal situations and for anticipating outcomes can decrease
emotional vulnerability.
        Emotion Regulation: This is defined as the ability to: 1) increase or decrease
physiological arousal associated with emotion; 2) reorient attention; 3) inhibit mood-dependent
actions; 4) experience emotions without escalating or blunting; and 5) organize behavior in the
service of external non-mood dependent goals. Begins with identification and labeling of current


11
                                                                                                     12


emotions. This occurs through observing and describing events that prompt emotions and their
interpretations of these events, and understanding the physiological responses, emotionally
expressive behaviors, and aftereffects of emotions. Reducing vulnerability to emotional
reactivity and decreasing emotional suffering is also targeted. The focus on describing, labeling,
and understanding primary emotional states is followed by strategies for reducing vulnerability to
biological needs and steps for increasing positive emotions. A patient identifies the emotions
that precipitate her self-mutilation, explores their function, and learns to monitor her specific
vulnerabilities, e.g., sleep, eating alcohol or drug use, and to build in positive, pleasant, goal-
oriented, competence-enhancing experiences that strengthen her resistance to the emotion mind
that precedes self-mutilation.
        Although the above are taught as independent skills sets, avoidance of repetitive
dysfunctional behavior such as self-mutilation may involve use of two or more skills, determined
by the individual's behavioral chain leading to the event.
Communication and Stylistic Strategies.
        Reciprocal communication is characterized by genuineness, warm engagement, and
responsiveness. Responsiveness requires the therapist to take the patient's agenda and wishes
seriously and respond directly to the content of the communications rather than interpreting or
suggesting the content or intent of the patient's communication is invalid. The use of self-
involving self-disclosures such as pointing out the effects of the patient's behavior on the
therapist in a non-judgmental manner, and the use of personal self-disclosures which are used to
validate and model coping and normative responses are encouraged. Irreverent communication
involves a direct, confrontational, matter-of-fact, or "off-the-wall" style. Used to move the
patient from a rigid stance to that admits uncertainty, irreverent communication is highly useful
when the therapist and patient are stuck or at an impasse. Irreverence may be attained when the
therapist pays closer attention to the patient's indirect rather than direct communications. For
example, when a patient says, "I am going to kill myself, the therapist might irreverently respond,
"But I thought you agreed not to drop out of therapy". Care is taken in observing the effects of
irreverent communication, to avoid misuse and potentially alienating the patient.
Supervision and Consultation.
        DBT is best applied as a treatment system in which the therapist applies DBT to patients,
while the supervisor or consultation team simultaneously apply DBT to the therapist.
Consultation to the therapist serves several functions, most importantly, ensuring the clinician
remains in the therapeutic relationship and remains effectively in that relationship. Without
ongoing supervision or consultation, clinicians working with this patient population can become
extreme in their positions, blame the patient and themselves, and become less open to feedback
from others about the conduct of their treatment.
Telephone Consultation
        Between-session contact is an integral component of DBT and serves three functions: 1)
coaching in skills and promoting skills generalization; 2) emergency crisis intervention in an
contingent manner; and 3) an opportunity to resolve misunderstandings and conflicts that arise
during therapy sessions, instead of waiting until the next session to deal with the emotions.
Typical skills coaching situations include those when the patient is not certain which skill to use
or feels the skill is inhibited. DBT clients are typically invited to call before suicidal crises, or at
least before they harm themselves. Consistent with the therapist's role as coach for adaptive
behavior, this contact must occur prior to the self-mutilation or other parasuicidal behavior: if


12
                                                                                                       13


the patient has already engaged in self-mutilation, the "24-hour rule" stipulates that patients
cannot have supportive phone contact with the therapist for 24 hours after parasuicide and phone
contact is limited to management only. This provides reinforcement for adaptive coping and
realistic consequences after the fact, i.e., "What help can I give you after you've already decided
to hurt yourself?"
Environmental Components: Casework and Consultation
         Case management or environmental intervention strategies are the least developed
component of standard DBT, but contain strategies critical to skills generalization: patients learn
self-advocacy and therapists perform casework activities only when the patient lacks the skill and
cannot learn it quickly enough to prevent an immediately adverse outcome from occurring.
DBT's strong learning theory orientation applies case management strategies differently than
traditionally described in the case management literature. The skills building focus fosters belief
in the clients' ability to learn more effective ways of intervening in their own environments.
Advocacy for its own sake is not regarded as an empowering or helpful act. Direct
environmental intervention by the therapist is approved only under certain conditions.
Conditions requiring direct intervention include: 1) when the client is unable to act on her own
and the outcome is very important, e.g., the suicidal, depersonalizing client who cannot to tell her
family she needs them to stay with her; 2) when the environment is intransigent and high in
power, e.g., an application for social services that requires professional involvement; 3) to save
the life of the client or avoid substantial risk to others, e.g., high suicidality or risk of child abuse;
4) when it is the humane thing to do and will cause no harm, that is, does not substitute passive
for active problem-solving, e.g., meeting with client outside ordinary setting in a crisis; 5) when
the client is a minor.
         DBT case management helps the client manage the physical and social environment to
enhance overall life functioning and well-being. Case management strategies include
consultation to the patient, environmental intervention, and therapist supervision/consultation.
These function as guidelines for applying the DBT core strategies to the environment outside the
client-therapist relationship. The therapist coaches the client on effective interaction with the
environment, working to generalize skills. If the client does not possess the requisite skill for
effectively intervening in the environment and the situation requires immediate resolution, the
therapist acts as advocate and model, interacting with other professional on behalf of the client,
but only in the client's presence.
Marital and family involvement was originally limited to consultation-to-the-patient on how to
handle family and friends, with others not actively involved in DBT. Consultation helps the
client communicate effectively with her family about treatment and about needs from friends and
family. Conflict resolution and problem-solving are also frequently part of consultation. Family
sessions are held if client and therapist agree they would be useful, but never without the client.
         In response to high distress on the part of families of BPD clients and in an effort to more
directly access this important aspect of the client's environment, recent adaptations of DBT have
included direct family involvement. Fruzetti, Hoffman & Linehan (in press) have extended DBT
to BPD families and significant others. DBT for families contains both psychoeducational
didactic and skills building components. Families meet in multiple family groups or in
individual sessions, generally with the patient present. The biosocial model of BPD is explained
and characteristics of BPD identified and normalized. Families learn DBT skills to help support
clients in their change efforts and to help themselves cope with patients' dysfunctional behavior


13
                                                                                               14


patterns: mindfulness, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness and emotion regulation are
taught in similar fashion to their presentation in the skills manual.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN TREATMENT
        DBT is an empirically-derived treatment for parasuicide, including self-mutilation, and
other characteristic behaviors associated with BPD. It is humane, and incorporates a biosocial
perspective, acknowledging the powerful role of the environment in the etiology and
maintenance of these often longstanding behavioral patterns. It has demonstrated effectiveness
in two randomized clinical trials treating women suffering from BPD and less controlled studies
suggest promising adaptations are developing. As development and adaptation of DBT to other
problems and settings occurs, it is important that those conducting these efforts remain clear
about the need to continue essential empirical validation of this treatment. Efforts to more
specifically target and classify self-mutilation comprise a significant focus of DBT development
and                                                                                 investigation.




14
                                                                                                      15


REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd
    ed.). Washington, D.C.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
    ed.). Washington, D.C.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Task force on promotion and dissemination of
    psychological procedures: A report adopted by the Division 12 Board. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, L. (1981). Notes on the linkage between the sexually abused child and the suicidal adolescent.
    Journal of Adolescence, 4, 157-162.
Bach-y-Rita. (1974). Habitual violence and self-mutilation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 1018-
    1029.
Ball, E., McCann, R. A., Ivanoff, A., & Linehan, M.M. (1996 - Unpublished manuscript). DBT in an
    inpatient forensic setting: Preliminary outcomes.
Barley, W.D., Buie, S.E., Peterson, E.W., Hollingsworth, A.S., Griva, M., Hickerson, S.C., Lawson, J. E.,
    & Bailey, B.J. (1993). The development of an inpatient cognitive-behavioral treatment program for
    borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorder, 7(3), 232-240.
Black, D.W., Winokur, G., & Nasrallah, A. (1988). Effect of psychosis on suicidal risk in 1, 593 patients
    with unipolar and bipolar affective disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 849-852.
Bongar, B. (1992). Suicide: Guidelines for assessment, management, and treatment. New York: Oxford
    University Press.
Bongar, B., Berman, A.L., Maris, R.W., Silverman, M.M., Harris, E.A., & Packman, W.L. (1998). Risk
    management with suicidal patients. New York: The Guilford Press.
Bower, S. A., & Bower, G. H. (1991). Asserting yourself: A practical guide for positive change. New
    York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Brown, M., Levensky, E., & Linehan, M.M. (1997, November). The relationship between shame and
    parasuicide in borderline personality disorder. Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy.
    Miami Beach, FL.
Brown, M., & Linehan, M.M. (1996). The relationship between negative emotions and parasuicide in
    borderline personality disorder. Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy. New York, NY.
Craig, R.J. (1988). A psychometric study of the prevalence of DSM-III personality disorders among
    treated opiate addicts. International Journal of the Addictions, 23, 115-124.
Dulit, R.A., Fyer, M.R., Leon, A.C., Brodsky, B.F., & Frances, A.J. (1994). Clinical correlates of self-
    mutilation in borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 1305-1311.
Endicott, J., Spitzer, R.L., Fleiss, J.L., & Cohen, J. (1976). The Global Assessment Scale. Archives of
    General Psychiatry, 33, 766-771.
Favazza, A. (1989). Why patients mutilate themselves. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 40(2), 137-
    145.
Favazza, A., & Conterio, K. (1989, March). Female habitual self-mutilators. Acta Psychiatrica
    Scandinavica, 79(3), 283-289.
Foa, E. B., & Rothbaum, B. O. (1998). Treating the Trauma of Rape Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for
    PTSD. New York: The Guilford Press.
Frances, A. J., Fyer, M. R., & Clarkin, J.F. (1986). Personality and suicide. Annals of the New York
    Academy of Sciences, 487, 281-293.
Freud, A. (1949). Aggression in relation to emotional development in the psychoanalytic study of the
    child. New York: Universities Press.
Friedman, C.J., Shear, M.C., & Frances, A.J. (1987). DSM-III personality disorders in panic patients.
    Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 132-135.
Fruzetti, A.E., Hoffman, P.D., & Linehan, M.M. (in press). Dialectical behavior therapy with couples and
    families. New York: Guilford Press.



15
                                                                                                          16


Fyer, M.R. (1988). Suicide attempts in patients with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of
    Psychiatry, 145, 737-739.
Fyer, M.R., Frances, A.J., Sullivan, T., Hurt, S.W., & Clarkin, J. (1988). Comorbidity of borderline
    personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 348-352.
Gaff, H., & Mallin, R. (1967). The syndrome of the wrist cutter. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127,
    127-132.
Gardner, A.R., & Gardner, A.J. (1975). Self-mutilation, obessionality and narcissism. Br Journal of
    Psychiatry, 127, 127-132.
Gardner, D.L., & Cowdry, R.W. (1985). Suicidal and parasuicidal behavior in borderline personality.
    Psychiatry Clinic North America, 8(2), 389-403.
Greenspan, G.S., & Samuel, S.E. (1989). Self-cutting after rape. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146(6),
    789-790.
Gunderson, J. G. (1984). Borderline personality disorder. Washington, D.C.: APA Press.
Haines, J., Williams, C., Brian, K., & Wilson, G. (1996). The psychophysiology of self-mutilation.
    Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(3), 479-489.
Hillbrand, M., Krystal, J., Sharpe, K., & Foster, H. (1994, January). Clinical predictors of self-mutilation
    in hospitalized forensic patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 182(1), 9-13.
Inman, D.J., Bascue, L.O., & Skoloda, T. (1985). Identification of borderline personality disorders
    among substance abusing patients. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2, 229-232.
Ivanoff, A., Smyth, N.J., Grochowski, S., Jang, S. J., & Klein, K. E. (1992). Problem Solving and
    Suicidality Among Prison Inmates. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 970-973.
Jones, A. (1986). Self-mutilation in prison. A comparison of mutilators and nonmutilators. Criminal
    Justice and Behavior, 13(3), 286-296.
Jones, I.H., Congin, L., Stevenson, J., Strauss, N., & Frei, D.Z. (1979). A biological approach to two
    forms of human self-injury. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 167, 74-78.
Kaplan, H., & Pokorny, A. (1969). Self-derogation and psychosocial adjustment. The Journal of Nervous
    and Mental Disease, 149, 421-434.
Kehrer, C. A., & Linehan, M.M. (1996). Interpersonal and emotional problem solving skills and
    parasuicide among women with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders,
    10(2), 153-163.
Kemperman, I., Russ, M., & Shearin, E. N. (1997). Self-injurious behavior and mood regulation in
    borderline patients. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11(2), 146-157.
Kernberg, O., Selzer, M., Koenigsberg, H., Carr, A., & Appelbaum, A. (1989). Psychodynamic
    psychotherapy of borderline patients. New York: Basic Books.
Koerner, K., & Linehan, M.M. (1997). Case formulation in dialectical behavior therapy for borderline
    personality disorder. In T. Eells (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy case formulation. New York:
    Guilford Press.
Kreitman, N. (1977). Parasuicide. England: John Wiley & Sons.
    Leibenluft, E., Gardner, D.L., & Cowdry, R.W. (1987). The inner experience of the borderline self-
    mutilator. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1(4), 317-324.
Lewinsohn, P.M., Rohde, P., & Seeley, J.R. (1994). Psychosocial risk factors for future adolescent
    suicide attempts. Journal Consult Clinical Psychology, 62(297-305).
Lewinsohn, P.M., Rohde, P., & Seeley, J.R. (1996). Adolescent suicidal ideation and attempts:
    Prevalence, risk factors, and clinical implications. Clinical Psychology Science Practice, 3(25-46).
Liebowitz, M.R. (1987). A medication approach. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 325-327.
Linehan, M.M. (1981). A social-behavioral analysis of suicide and parasuicide: Implications for clinical
    assessment and treatment. In H. Glazer & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), Depression: Behavioral and directive
    intervention strategies (pp. 229-294). New York: Garland.




16
                                                                                                        17


Linehan, M.M. (1993). Dialectical behavior therapy for treatment of borderline personality disorder:
    Implications for the treatment of drug abuse. In L. Onken, J. Blaine & J. Boren (Eds.), NIDA
    Research Monograph Series: Behavioral Treatments for Drug Abuse and Dependence (pp. 201-215).
Linehan, M.M. (1993). Implications for the treatment of drug abuse. In: Behavioral treatments of drug
    abuse and dependence. Rockville, MD.
Linehan, M.M. (1993a). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for borderline personality disorder. New York:
    Guilford Press.
Linehan, M.M. (1993b). Skills training manual for treating borderline personality disorder. New York:
    Guilford Press.
Linehan, M.M. (1996). Dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder. In B. Schmitz
    (Ed.), Treatment of Personality Disorders (pp. 179-199). Germany: Psychologie Verlags Union.
Linehan, M.M. (1997). Behavioral treatment of suicidal behaviors: Definitional obfuscation and
    treatment outcomes. In D. M. Stoff & J. J. Mann (Eds.), Neurobiology of Suicide: From the Bench to
    the Clinic. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Linehan, M.M. (1997). Validation and psychotherapy. In A. Bohart & L. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy
    Reconsidered: New Directions in Psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
    Association.
Linehan, M.M., Armstrong, H.E., Suarez, A., Allmon, D., & Heard, H.L. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral
    treatment of chronically parasuicidal borderline patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1060-
    1064.
Linehan, M.M., Camper, P., Chiles, J.A., Strosahl, K.D., & Shearin, E.N. (1987). Interpersonal problem
    solving and parasuicide. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11(1), 1-12.
Linehan, M.M., & Dimeff, L. A. (1996). Extension of Standard Dialectical Behavior Therapy to
    Treatment of Substance Abusers with Borderline Personality Disorder. Unpublished manual.
Linehan, M.M., & Heard, H. L. (1993). Impact of treatment accessibility on clinical course of
    parasuicidal patients: In reply to R.E. Hoffman [Letter to editor]. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50,
    157-158.
Linehan, M.M., Heard, H. L., & Armstrong, H.E. (1993c). Naturalistic follow-up of a behavioral
    treatment for chronically parasuicidal borderline patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50(971-
    974).
Linehan, M.M., Schmidt, H., Kanter, J.W., Craft, J.C., Dimeff, L.A., Comtois, K.A., & McDavid, J.
    (1998). Randomized controlled trial of DBT-S vs. treatment-as-usual with BPD substance abusers
    [Symposium]. American Psychiatric Association. Toronto, Canada.
Maeziali, E.A., & Munroe-Blum, H. (1994). Interpersonal group psychotherapy for borderline personality
    disorder. New York: Basic Books.
Maris, R. (1981). Pathways to suicide: A survey of self-destructive behaviors. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
    University Press.
McKeon, R. (1996 unpublished manuscript). DBT in an emergency psychiatric setting.
    Miller, A., Rathus, J.H., Linehan, M.M., Wetzler, S., & Leigh, E. (1997). Dialectical behavior
    therapy adapted for suicidal adolescents. Journal of Practical Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, 3,
    78-86.
Millon, T., & Everly, G.F. (1985). Personality and its disorders: A biosocial learning approach. New
    York: John Wiley & Sons.
Morey, L.C. (1988). Personality disorders in DSM-III and DSM-IIIR: Convergence, coverage, and
    internal consistency. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 573-578.
Morgan, H.G. (1979). Death wishes?. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Nace, E.P., Saxon, J.J., & Shore, N. (1983). A comparison of borderline and non-borderline alcoholic
    patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 157-158.
Pao, P.E. (1969). The syndrome of delicate self-cutting. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 42, 195-
    206.


17
                                                                                                      18


Pattison, E.M., & Kahan, J. (1983). The deliberate self-harm syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry,
    140, 867-872.
Resick, P.A., & Schnicke, M.K. (1993). Cognitive Processing Therapy for Rape Victims: A Treatment
    Manual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R.J., Rinzler, C., Walsh, R., & Klausner, E. (1972). Wrist-cutting syndrome: The meaning of
    a gesture. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 1363-1368.
Ross, R., McKay, H., Palmer, W., & Kenny, C. (1978). Self-mutilation in adolescent female offenders.
    Canadian Journal of Criminology, 20, 375-392.
Roy, A. (1978). Self-mutilation. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 51, 201-203.
    Russell-Diana, E.H. (1995, Summer). From Nazi Germany to South Africa: A personal story of
    incest and "necklace murder." Journal of Psychohistory, 23(1), 75-93.
Schaffer, C.B., Carroll, J., & Abramowitz, S. I. (1982). Self-mutilation and the borderline personality.
    The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 170, 468-473.
Schotte, D.E., & Clum, G. A. (1987). Problem-solving skills in suicidal psychiatric patients. Journal of
    Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 49-54.
Shapiro, S. (1987, January). Self-mutilation and self-blame in incest victims. American Journal of
    Psychotherapy, XLI(1).
Shneidman, E.S. (1987). A psychological approach to suicide. In G. R. VandenBos & B. K. Bryant
    (Eds.), Cataclysms, crises, and catastrophes: Psychology in action. The master lectures (pp. 147-
    183). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Simeon, D., Stanley, B., Frances, A., Mann, J.J., Winchel R., & Stanley, M. (1992). Self-mutilation in
    personality disorders: Psychological and biological correlates. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149,
    221-226.
Simpson, M.A. (1975). The phenomenology of self-mutilation in a general hospital setting. Canadian
    Psychiatric Association Journal, 20(6), 429-433.
    Simpson, M. A. (1976). Self-mutilation and suicide. In E.S. Shneidman (Ed.), Suicidology:
    Contemporary developments. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Steketee, G.S. (1993). Treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. New York: The Guilford Press.
Stone, M.H., Hurt, S.W., & Stone, D.K. (1987). The PI 500: Long-term follow-up of borderline
    inpatients meeting DSM-III criteria. I: Global Outcome. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 291-298.
Swenson, C., Sanderson, C., & Linehan, M.M. (in press). Applying dialectical behavior therapy on
    inpatient units.
Tanney, B.L. (1992). Mental disorders, psychiatric patients and suicide. In R. W. Maris, Berman (Ed.),
    Assessment and prediction of suicide (pp. 277-320). New York: Guilford.
Telch, C. F. (1997). Skills Training Treatment for Adaptive Affect Regulation in a Woman with Binge-
    Eating Disorder. Int J Eat Disord, 22, 77-81.
Wagner, A.W., & Linehan, M.M. (1997). The relationship between childhood sexual abuse and suicidal
    behaviors in borderline patients. In M. Zanarini (Ed.), The Role of Sexual Abuse in the Etiology of
    Borderline Personality Disorder (pp. 203-223). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Wagner, A.W., & Linehan, M.M. (in press). Dissociation. In V. M. Follette, J. I. Ruzek & F. R. Abueg
    (Eds.), Trauma in Context: A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Waldinger, R. J. (1987). Intensive psychodynamic therapy with borderline patients: An overview.
    American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 267-274.
Walsh, B. W. (1987). Adolescent self-mutilation: An empirical study [Diss], Boston, MA: Boston
    College Graduate School of Social Work.
Walsh, B. W., & Rosen, P. M. (1988). Theory, research and treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Widiger, T.A., & Frances, A. J. (1987). Epidemiology, diagnosis, and comorbidity of borderline
    personality disorder. In A. Tasman, R.E. Hales & A.J. Frances (Eds.), American Psychiatric Press
    Review of Psychiatry, Vol. 8 (pp. 8-24). Washington, DC: American Psychiatry Press, Inc.



18
                                                                                                   19


Widiger, T.A., & Weissman, M.M. (1991). Epidemiology of borderline personality disorder. Hospital &
   Community Psychiatry, 42, 1015-1021.
Winchel, R.M., & Stanley M. (1991). Self-injurious behavior: A review of the behavior and biology of
   self-mutilation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 306-317.




19
                                                                                                 20


TABLE 1: STEPS IN BEHAVIORAL (CHAIN) ANALYSIS

1. Operational description of target problem behavior. Detail overt behavior, verbalizations,
cognitions, and affect, including intensity of the feelings.

Overt Behavior: Located razor blade wrapped in kleenex and stored in bottom of sock drawer.
Undressed and went into shower with razor. With water running, made a series of horizontal
cuts across right wrist and forearm. Cuts were progressively deeper.
Verbal: When mother knocked on door and asked what, "What are you doing?", replied "Getting
clean".
Cognition: I deserve this, I need to do this, then reports she "stopped thinking"
Affect: Anxious (8=intensity), angry at self for being stupid (7), shame (9).

2. Specific precipitating event that began the chain. Start with environmental events, e.g., "Why
did the problem occur yesterday rather than the day before?"
Went to see movie Titanic with cousin and Aunt. Was very emotional throughout movie; felt it
somehow was about her life. Afterwards, as they were discussing movie, tried to convey how
important movie felt to her, felt ineffective, misunderstood, and thought they made fun at her for
taking a movie so seriously.

3. Vulnerability enhancing factors present, e.g., physical illness, poor sleeping, drug or alcohol
abuse, or intense emotions.
Did not sleep well night before; had not eaten properly past 2-3 days- trying to diet, but binging
and eating junk due to holiday foods and sweets "around all the time". Feeling vulnerable
emotionally due to holiday expectations, missing old boyfriend.

4. Detail the moment-by-moment chain of events. Examine thoughts, feelings, and actions, and
determine whether there were any possible alternatives to these.

5. Identify the consequences of the problem behavior.
Felt better, more in control, as though things had been set right and she could go to bed. Also felt
stupid, has sabotaged treatment progress by allowing herself to "indulge" in self-mutilation. Felt
will disappoint therapist.

6. Generate alternative solutions, i.e., what skills might the client have used to avoid the problem
behavior as a solution?
Calling therapist, reviewing plans for these occasions, using distress tolerance skills

7. Identify a prevention strategy to reduce future vulnerability to this problem chain.
Anticipate, think about realistic interpersonal expectations of others. When I share with others
who are not as sensitive as I am, what is my priority, i.e., should/do I want to
expect them to understand and be disappointed by their reaction?

8. Repair the significant consequences of the problem behavior.
Cheerleading, reducing vulnerability, reaffirming commitment.


20
                                                                                                  21




TABLE 2: DBT PROCEDURES AND STRATEGIES

Acceptance                            Change
1. Dialectical                        1. Dialectical
2. Validation                         2. Problem solving*
3. Relationship                       3. Contingency management
4. Environmental intervention         4. Capability enhancement/skills acquisition
5. Reciprocal communication                   5. Cognitive modification
                                      6. Exposure
                                      7. Consultation to the client
                                      8. Irreverent communication


*includes behavioral analysis, insight/interpretation, solution analysis, didactic, trouble shooting,
and commitment strategies




21

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:11/11/2011
language:English
pages:21