Implicit and Explicit Self-Concepts of Forgiveness in Women with Borderline Personality Disorder

Implicit and Explicit Self-Concepts of Forgiveness in Women with Borderline Personality Disorder | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Implicit and Explicit Self-Concepts of Forgiveness in Women with Borderline Personality Disorder Philipp Wülfing, Carsten Spitzer, Nikolaus Krämer, Emanuel Severus, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559640/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Sep, 2025 Read the published version in Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background The tendency to forgive is associated with traits such as agreeableness and neuroticism, mental well-being, and interpersonal functioning. Given the high levels of aggression and interpersonal dysfunction in borderline personality disorder (BPD), forgiveness (or, lack thereof) may be particularly relevant for BPD symptomology but remains understudied. This study examines forgiveness in BPD compared to a heterogeneous clinical control group without personality disorder (CC), exploring its associations with aggression and interpersonal dysfunction using both direct (self-reported) and indirect (implicit) measures. Methods Fifty-one female BPD patients and fifty-one CC participants completed self-report measures of forgiveness (Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory, Tendency to Forgive Scale) and a Forgiveness Implicit Association Test (F-IAT), alongside assessments of borderline symptoms, aggression, and interpersonal problems. Independent-samples t -tests compared the two samples, while Pearson correlations explored associations between clinical characteristics within the BPD sample. Results Both groups revealed largely comparable scores in both explicit and implicit forgiveness, with no significant differences across measures. Within the BPD group, higher TRIM–Revenge scores were associated with greater aggression, particularly anger, while TTF scores showed negative associations with overall aggression, physical aggression, and hostility. Circumplex analysis indicated that the F-IAT aligned with nonassertive, TRIM–Revenge with cold and competitive, and TTF with warm and non-dominant interpersonal styles, whereas TRIM–Avoidance and TRIM–Benevolence exhibited limited interpersonal relevance. Conclusions Despite limited prior research suggesting reduced forgiveness in BPD, the present findings indicate that women with BPD exhibit forgiveness tendencies comparable to those of the CC. Notably, explicit forgiveness was systematically associated with aggression and interpersonal difficulties, whereas implicit and explicit measures showed limited convergence. These findings underscore the utility of a multidimensional approach to assessing forgiveness in BPD, revealing distinct clinical and interpersonal correlates across forgiveness dimensions. borderline personality disorder forgiveness interpersonal forgiveness Implicit Association Test (IAT) Figures Figure 1 1. Background Dispositional forgiveness, also referred to as the tendency to forgive, can be conceived as a relatively stable personality trait that influences how readily an individual forgives others over time and across various interpersonal situations [ 1 , 2 ]. It reflects a person’s general propensity to let go of resentment, avoid retaliation, and extend mercy or understanding toward others who have wronged them. Because high forgiveness repairs, maintains, and even improves relationships after transgressions have occurred, it has a prosocial interpersonal effect [ 3 , 4 ]. Moreover, it also has a positive intrapersonal effect as it can help individuals overcome interpersonal violations, especially negative emotions such as anger, worry, fear, and embarrassment, reduce individual anxiety and depression, and improve self-esteem, subjective well-being [ 5 ] and mental health [ 6 ]. Several lines of research suggest that forgiveness may be important in borderline personality disorder (BPD), characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability in self-image, emotions, and interpersonal relationships [ 7 – 9 ]. First, within the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality the most important personality correlates of forgiveness are (high) agreeableness and (low) neuroticism, as supported by a systematic review [ 10 ] and meta-analysis [ 11 ]. The aggregate effect sizes for the associations of forgiveness with agreeableness and neuroticism are substantial ( r = 0.44 and r = -0.28, respectively) [ 11 ]. Second, psychopathological features like depression, anxiety or other negative emotions which are often seen in BPD are inversely associated with forgiveness [ 12 – 14 ]. For example, “inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty in controlling anger” is one of the nine diagnostic criteria for BPD according to the DSM-5 [ 7 ], and meta-analytic evidence indicates a close association between forgiveness and state anger with a weighted mean correlation of r = -0.41 [ 15 ]. Third, the majority of those affected by BPD have experienced childhood maltreatment (CM) and early life adversity [ 16 , 17 ] and, moreover, several studies suggest a negative association between traumatic stress, such as CM, and forgiveness [ 18 , 19 ]. However, individuals with BPD are not only victims of transgressions, but also more likely to be transgressors themselves, with a 2.6 times higher risk of engaging in violent behaviour compared to the general population [ 20 , 21 ]. Unsurprisingly, interpersonal difficulties are a hallmark of BPD [ 22 , 9 ] and it might be argued that low levels of forgiveness contribute to impaired cooperation in BPD resulting in social dysfunctioning. Despite converging indirect evidence of a negative link between forgiveness and BPD, the topic has received little scientific attention. For example, a qualitative study [ 23 ] revealed that longing for reconciliation influences the daily lives of women with BPD and early adversity, as well as their search for the meaning of CM. Holm et al. suggest that forgiveness is key to developing an empathic understanding of oneself in the context of past and present relationships. Using the Forgiveness Scale [ 24 ] and the BPD Scale of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4) [ 25 ], a cross-sectional investigation in internal medicine outpatients indicated a negative and medium effect sized relationship between forgiveness and borderline pathology ( r = -0.55) [ 26 ]. Moreover, a large-scale web-based study focusing on cooperative behavior indicated that borderline pathology is related to impaired reactive cooperation, but unrelated to active cooperation, suggesting that individuals with high levels of BPD features have problems with forgiveness [ 27 ]. The McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD) further revealed that BPD patients had markedly lower scores for indicators of forgiveness than comparison subjects with personality disorders other than BPD [ 28 ]. However, these scores were not static: forgiveness increased significantly over 20 years of prospective follow-up for the BPD group, but not for the control group. Additionally, recovered BPD patients reported approximately three times higher levels of forgiveness indicators than non-recovered patients at the end of the follow-up period [ 28 ]. Finally, a manualized group forgiveness module within dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) for BPD patients showed promising results: The intervention increased forgiveness and decreased attachment insecurity and psychiatric symptoms; these effects were maintained during the 6-week follow-up [ 29 ]. Despite the valuable contributions of the aforementioned studies, it has to be kept in mind that the Forgiveness Scale [ 24 ] used in the investigation of Sansone and co-workers [ 26 ] captures a variety of aspects of forgiveness, but not specifically the tendency to forgive. Moreover, this measure has not been psychometrically evaluated. Zanarini and colleagues [ 28 ] used two items from the Positive Affect Scale (PAS) as proxies for forgiveness (i.e., “accepting of the past” and “that I’ve forgiven those who’ve hurt me”), but no reliable and valid self-report instrument that specifically taps into dispositional forgiveness [ 10 ]. Although the use of well-validated questionnaires to measure forgiveness in individuals affected by BPD can be considered a step forward, their exclusive application might be problematic for several reasons. First, the reliance on one measurement mode can result in mono-method bias possibly increasing the probability of shared error variance in results [ 30 ]. Second, forgiveness represents a value-laden construct – while some view it as socially desirable, others view it as a sign of weakness and therefore undesirable [ 31 ]. As a result, self-report measures of forgiveness are particularly susceptible to self-presentation biases [ 32 ]. Third, they are insensitive to processes outside of awareness [ 33 ]. For example, one might explicitly state that one has forgiven an offense, yet implicitly continue harboring a grudge (hollow forgiveness [ 34 , 35 ]). Thus, incorporating indirect measures in addition to direct ones may be useful to capture forgiveness on both explicit and implicit levels. To this end, the Forgiveness Implicit Association Test (F-IAT) offers a promising tool [ 36 ]. As a latency-based categorization task, the F-IAT assesses the strength of automatic associations between the self (e.g., “me”) and forgiveness-related attributes (e.g., “forgiving” vs. “vengeful”) by measuring reaction times in a speeded classification paradigm. The core assumption is that individuals who implicitly associate themselves with forgiveness respond faster to congruent pairings (e.g., “me–forgiving”) than to incongruent ones (e.g., “me–vengeful”). The F-IAT has demonstrated good internal consistency and incremental validity in predicting forgiveness-related behavior beyond self-report, and may therefore help to circumvent common limitations of direct measures such as social desirability or limited introspective access. In light of the above-mentioned findings and theoretical considerations, our exploratory study aimed to examine whether forgiveness differs between individuals with BPD and a clinical control group (CC) without BPD. By integrating both direct and indirect measures of forgiveness, we aimed to capture explicit and implicit forgiveness tendencies, thereby addressing potential self-presentation biases and unconscious processing of transgressions [ 30 , 36 , 32 ]. Given the high comorbidity of BPD with other mental disorders (e.g., mood, anxiety, somatoform, and eating disorders [ 9 ]), our matched CC consisted of patients diagnosed with these conditions. As previous research suggests gender differences in forgiveness tendencies (with women being more forgiving than men), we confined our sample to female patients to ensure homogeneity [ 37 ]. Building upon prior findings [ 26 , 28 ], we further investigated the interrelations between forgiveness, aggression and interpersonal dysfunction in BPD. Given that BPD is characterized by interpersonal dysfunction, we anticipated that lower forgiveness levels would be associated with increased aggression and interpersonal difficulties. 2. Methods Transparency and Openness The code for reproducing all analyses is available at https://osf.io/rba48/ . For ethical reasons, the study data are available only upon reasonable request from the last author. This study and its analyses were not preregistered. In accordance with JARS guidelines [ 38 ], we report our sample size determination, all data exclusions, and all measures used. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty at the University of Rostock (case number: A2021-0074) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants and Data Collection This study used a sample of 51 female patients diagnosed with BPD and a CC of 51 female patients, matched for age and educational background. Participants were recruited through the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Rostock. BPD diagnoses were established by experienced board-certified psychiatrists and confirmed using the German version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (SCID-5-PD) [ 39 ], administered by the corresponding author. Additionally, all participants were screened for current mental disorders using the German version of the MINI-DIPS [ 40 ]. Exclusion criteria included age under 18, a body mass index (BMI) below 18 kg/m², neurological disorders, psychotic symptoms, mania, substance dependence or active substance use, and an estimated IQ below 70 (assessed via the German Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Test, MWT-B) [ 41 ]. All participants provided written informed consent. The initial screening included 119 individuals, of whom 11 were excluded during diagnostic assessment due to not meeting the inclusion criteria (see Figure S1 ). 2.3. Measures Assessment of forgiveness Forgiveness Implicit Association Test (F-IAT) The Implicit Association Test (IAT) [ 42 ] is a latency-based categorization task designed to measure the strength of associations between target concepts (e.g., “me” vs. “not me”) and specific attributes (e.g., “forgiving” vs. “vengeful”). Fatfouta and colleagues developed and validated a forgiveness-specific F-IAT [ 36 ], which was administered in this study using SoSciSurvey, a software platform for scientific surveys [ 43 ]. The F-IAT followed the standard seven-block structure: Blocks 1 and 2 introduced the target (me vs. not me) and attribute categories (“forgiving” vs. “vengeful”), while Blocks 3–4 and 6–7 presented the critical pairings in both initial and reversed configurations. We applied the improved scoring algorithm [ 44 ], which calculates the D -score by dividing the mean response time difference between critical blocks by the standard deviation of response latencies. Higher D-scores indicate stronger implicit forgiveness. The F-IAT exhibited good internal consistency, with a Spearman-Brown split-half reliability of .89 in the original study [ 36 ], and .87 in the BPD sample and .91 in the CC sample. Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM) The TRIM [ 45 ] is a self-report measure that assesses motivational tendencies toward a specific transgressor across three subscales: Revenge (e.g., “I want him/her to get what he/she deserves”), Avoidance (e.g., “I would avoid him/her”), and Benevolence (e.g., “Even though his/her actions hurt me, I still have goodwill for him/her”). The TRIM consists of 18 items, rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ), with higher scores indicating stronger endorsement of the respective motivational tendency. The scale has demonstrated high internal consistency in previous studies [ 46 – 47 ]. In the present study, McDonald's ω values were .83 (BPD) and .90 (CC) for Revenge, .90 (BPD) and .94 (CC) for Avoidance, and .93 (BPD) and .94 (CC) for Benevolence. Tendency to Forgive Scale (TTF) The TTF [ 1 ] is a brief self-report instrument designed to measure individual differences in the general propensity to forgive transgressions across different contexts and relationships. It comprises four items, each rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). The scale has demonstrated reasonable internal reliability and high test-retest stability over an eight-week period [ 1 ]. In the present study, McDonald's ω for the Total score was .70 in the BPD sample and .60 in the CC sample. Borderline Symptom List Short Version (BSL-23) The BSL-23 [ 48 ] is a 23-item self-report measure assessing the severity of borderline symptoms over the past week. Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 4 = very strong ) and align with DSM-IV/DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Since the short form does not assess self-harm behavior, we additionally administered the self-harm subscale from the BSL-95 [ 49 ]. The questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, with McDonald's ω = .92 for the BPD sample and ω = .90 for the CC sample. Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) The AQ [ 50 ] is a 29-item self-report measure assessing dispositional tendencies toward anger and aggression across four subscales: Physical Aggression (e.g., “If somebody hits me, I hit back”), Verbal Aggression (e.g., “I often find myself disagreeing with people”), Anger (e.g., “I have trouble controlling my temper”), and Hostility (e.g., “I wonder why I sometimes feel so bitter about things”). Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me to 5 = extremely characteristic of me ). McDonald’s ω for the total score was .85 in the BPD sample and .81 in the CC sample. Subscale reliability in the BPD sample ranged from .69 (Anger) to .85 (Physical Aggression), while in the CC sample, it ranged from .63 (Verbal Aggression) to .84 (Hostility). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32 (IIP-32) The IIP-32 [ 51 ] is a 32-item self-report measure assessing interpersonal difficulties. Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 4 = very much ), indicating the extent to which each statement applies to the respondent. Based on the interpersonal circumplex model [ 52 ], the items are grouped into eight octants along the Agency-Communion axes, which were used in this study. The scale demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties, with McDonald's ω for the total score at .80 in the BPD sample and .83 in the CC sample. Subscale reliability was also adequate, with ω values of .73 (Communion) and .79 (Agency) in the BPD sample, and .80 (Communion) and .81 (Agency) in the CC sample. Data Analysis All statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 4.2.3) [ 53 ]. Chi-square tests were used to compare diagnostic frequencies between subsamples. Internal consistency of all measures was assessed using McDonald’s ω. Socio-demographic variables and primary outcomes were compared using Welch‘s t -tests for independent-samples with Bonferroni-Holm correction. Effect sizes for these comparisons are reported as Cohen’s d ( d ≈ 0.2 = small, d ≈ 0.5 = medium, d ≈ 0.8 = large). Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for all measures. To further investigate the relationship between forgiveness and interpersonal dysfunction, we applied the Structural Summary Method (SSM) [ 54 ]. This method projects all forgiveness-related outcomes (F-IAT, TRIM, TTF) onto the circumplex structure defined by the IIP-32, modeling their association with interpersonal traits as a cosine curve. The SSM provides four key parameters to describe these associations: Elevation (e) reflects the general association of a construct with interpersonal dysfunction, with higher values indicating greater overall sensitivity to aversive interpersonal behaviors. Bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (2,000 replicates) were used to determine whether elevation significantly differed from zero. Amplitude (α) represents interpersonal specificity, indicating how strongly a variable aligns with a distinct interpersonal style. Based on previous research [ 54 ], amplitudes of .10, .16, and .23 are considered small, average, and large effects, respectively. Angular displacement (δ) identifies the predominant interpersonal theme with which a construct is most aligned (e.g., intrusive, exploitable, competitive). Displacement was only interpreted for measures that exhibited a prototypical correlation pattern, meaning the pattern of correlations followed a cosine wave. Following recommendations, we set a model fit threshold of R ² ≥ .70 for interpreting displacement [ 55 – 56 ]. Model fit ( R ²) reflects how well the construct conforms to the circumplex structure, with values exceeding this threshold indicating that a construct’s circumplex projection is interpretable. 3. Results The BPD and CC samples were matched for age and years of education, with no significant differences between them. As expected, women with BPD scored significantly higher on measures of borderline pathology, including the BSL-23 total score and the number of BPD criteria, compared to the CC sample (Table 1 ). Additionally, BPD patients had a higher number of comorbid diagnoses, as assessed by the Mini-DIPS. A detailed breakdown of comorbidities is provided in the supplementary material (Table S1 ). Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of BPD (N = 51) and CC sample (N = 51) BPD CC Statistics M ± SD M ± SD t p d Age 33.27 (10.22) 35.76 (12.70) 1.09 .834 0.22 Years of education 13.86 (2.15) 14.49 (1.92) 1.56 .583 0.31 No. of BPD criteria (SCID-5-PD) 6.84 (1.72) 0.35 (0.87) 24.01 < .001 4.75 No. of diagnoses 4.02 (2.01) 1.88 (1.38) 6.27 < .001 1.24 Borderline pathology (BSL-23) 62.69 (17.81) 43.35 (11.87) 6.45 < .001 1.28 Forgiveness (F-IAT, TRIM, TTF) F-IAT 0.34 (0.31) 0.41 (0.29) 1.06 .834 0.21 TRIM – Revenge 1.89 (0.81) 1.73 (0.77) 1.00 .834 0.20 TRIM – Avoidance 3.19 (0.78) 2.94 (0.82) 1.58 .583 0.31 TRIM – Benevolence 2.77 (0.72) 3.10 (0.75) 2.26 .206 0.45 TTF 12.18 (4.26) 13.75 (4.06) 1.9 .359 0.38 Aggression ( AQ ) 78.04 (13.57) 60.75 (10.97) 7.08 < .001 1.40 AQ – Physical aggression 17.43 (5.29) 13.96 (3.54) 3.90 .002 0.77 AQ – Verbal aggression 12.69 (4.11) 10.49 (2.49) 3.26 .016 0.65 AQ – Anger 21.16 (4.43) 16.53 (4.04) 5.51 < .001 1.09 AQ – Hostility 26.76 (5.90) 19.76 (6.42) 5.73 < .001 1.14 Interpersonal Problems (IIP-32) 2.82 (0.43) 2.52 (0.45) 3.35 .013 0.66 Note. BPD = Borderline personality disorder; CC = Clinical controls; BSL-23 = Short version of the Borderline Symptom List; SCID-5-PD = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders; F-IAT = Forgiveness Implicit Association Test; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; TTF = Tendency to Forgive Scale; AQ = Aggression Questionnaire; IIP-32 = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32. Group Differences in Forgiveness Welch’s t -tests with Bonferroni-Holm correction revealed no significant differences between the BPD and CC groups across all forgiveness measures (Table 1 ). While the CC group showed slightly higher scores on F-IAT, TTF, and TRIM – Benevolence, and lower scores on TRIM – Revenge and TRIM – Avoidance, these differences did not reach statistical significance after correcting for multiple comparisons. Overall, the findings suggest that no robust group differences in forgiveness emerged. Associations Between Forgiveness and BPD Indicators Correlational analyses revealed no significant associations between forgiveness measures and BPD indicators (BSL-23 and SCID-5-PD; Table 2 ). While some correlation coefficients suggested weak relationships, none reached statistical significance. Correlation matrices for all variables in both samples are presented in the Supplement (Figures S2 and S3). Table 2 Intercorrelations between DIF (indirect, direct), BPD indicators and clinical variables in BPD (N = 51) F-IAT TRIM TTF Revenge Avoidance Benevolence Borderline pathology (BSL-23) .16 − .20 − .19 .18 .07 No. of BPD criteria (SCID-5-PD) .07 0 − .06 .01 − .15 Aggression (AQ) .05 .30* .14 − .07 − .40** AQ – Physical aggression − .04 .15 − .03 − .10 − .29* AQ – Verbal aggression − .14 .27 .12 − .04 − .18 AQ – Anger .06 .31* .14 -04 − .21 AQ – Hostility .21 .13 .17 − .07 − .38** Note. BPD = Borderline personality disorder; SCL-K-9 = Symptom check list – 9 short version; BSL-23 = Short version of the Borderline Symptom List; SCID-5-PD = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders; F-IAT = Forgiveness Implicit Association Test; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; TTF = Tendency to Forgive Scale; AQ = Aggression Questionnaire. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Associations Between Forgiveness and Clinical Variables Within the BPD sample, higher TRIM – Revenge scores were associated with greater aggression, particularly anger, while TTF showed negative associations with overall aggression, physical aggression, and hostility, suggesting that greater trait forgiveness was linked to lower aggression levels. No associations were found for F-IAT or TRIM – Avoidance and Benevolence. To further examine the interpersonal relevance of forgiveness, outcomes were projected onto the IIP-32 circumplex. Only measures with prototypical correlation profiles ( R ² ≥ .70) are displayed in Fig. 1 . The F-IAT showed moderate elevation (e = 0.114, 95% CI [0.001, 0.213]) and moderate specificity (α = 0.226, 95% CI [0.064, 0.428]), with an acceptable model fit ( R ² = 0.841). This indicates that the F-IAT scores were moderately associated with interpersonal dysfunction, showed a moderately distinct interpersonal pattern, and were well represented within the circumplex structure. Displacement indicated non-assertive interpersonal tendencies (δ = 271.87°, 95% CI [193.17°, 316.26°]). The TRIM – Revenge scale exhibited moderate elevation (e = 0.104, 95% CI [-0.003, 0.211]) and moderate specificity (α = 0.245, 95% CI [0.092, 0.438]), with an adequate model fit (R² = 0.804). This indicates moderately associations with interpersonal dysfunction, a moderately differentiated interpersonal pattern, and scores that were adequately captured within the circumplex structure. Displacement suggested a cold and competitive interpersonal pattern (δ = 144.85°, 95% CI [102.84°, 208.84°]). The TRIM – Avoidance scale showed low elevation (e = 0.074, 95% CI [-0.060, 0.206]) and weak specificity (α = 0.121, 95% CI [0.032, 0.330]), with moderate model fit ( R ² = 0.607), making displacement uninterpretable. The TRIM – Benevolence scale exhibited negligible interpersonal relevance, with very low elevation (e = -0.008, 95% CI [-0.135, 0.122]) and minimal specificity (α = 0.022, 95% CI [0.021, 0.262]). The poor model fit ( R ² = 0.032) ruled out displacement interpretation. The TTF total score showed the strongest interpersonal alignment, with moderate elevation (e = -0.098, 95% CI [-0.221, 0.015]) and high specificity (α = 0.252, 95% CI [0.127, 0.444]). The high model fit ( R ² = 0.853) allowed for displacement interpretation, indicating an association with warm and non-dominant tendencies (δ = 314.92°, 95% CI [275.70°, 8.00°]). 4. Discussion By jointly assessing explicit and implicit forgiveness self-concepts, this study provides a nuanced perspective on how forgiveness may manifest in women with BPD. While previous research has suggested diminished forgiveness tendencies in individuals with BPD [ 26 , 28 ], our study offers a more differentiated perspective. Using both direct (TRIM, TTF) and indirect (F-IAT) measures of forgiveness, we observed largely comparable forgiveness tendencies between women with BPD and a matched clinical control (CC) group. Similarly, associations between forgiveness measures and BPD symptomatology as assessed by the BSL-23 and the number of SCID-5 BPD criteria were small and non-significant. These findings stand in contrast to earlier work and may reflect the high internal variability and conceptual complexity of forgiveness – a socially desirable and context-sensitive construct –which may limit its diagnostic sensitivity in distinguishing between clinical subgroups. Alternatively, the absence of significant effects could be due to sample-specific or methodological factors. First, it is possible that the matched clinical control group – likely also burdened with high levels of interpersonal stress and trauma – showed similar forgiveness tendencies, thereby minimizing between-group contrasts. Second, individuals with BPD may struggle with emotional ambivalence and identity diffusion [ 57 ], which could obscure consistent self-evaluations in both direct and indirect forgiveness measures. Finally, the absence of differences could indicate that forgiveness is not a stable trait-like deficit in BPD but rather context-dependent and dynamically influenced by interpersonal and situational factors. Nonetheless, several differential patterns of association emerged within the BPD group. Explicit measures of forgiveness – particularly the TTF and TRIM-Revenge – showed theoretically consistent associations with clinical characteristics within the BPD group. Specifically, a higher tendency to forgive was associated with lower aggression, particularly hostility and physical aggression, while stronger revenge motivations (TRIM-Revenge) correlated positively with anger and overall aggression. These findings replicate and extend previous work linking forgiveness to maladaptive emotional and behavioral outcomes [ 10 , 46 ], and highlight forgiveness as a potentially relevant correlate of aggressive tendencies in BPD. Interestingly, the F-IAT – our implicit measure of forgiveness – did not exhibit significant associations with aggression, borderline pathology, or self-report forgiveness measures. These findings are consistent with dual-process theories [ 58 – 59 ], which conceptualize implicit and explicit constructs as operating via distinct cognitive systems – automatic versus reflective –and therefore often demonstrate limited convergence [ 60 ]. In line with this framework, our results support the notion that implicit and explicit forgiveness represent related but distinct constructs. This dissociation may be especially pronounced in BPD, a disorder characterized by emotional dysregulation and dissociation [ 9 ]. In this context, individuals may explicitly endorse forgiving attitudes while still harboring unresolved implicit grievances - a phenomenon often referred to as “hollow forgiveness” [ 34 ]. Further insight into the interpersonal relevance of forgiveness emerged from circumplex modeling. The Structural Summary Method revealed that the forgiveness measures varied in their alignment with interpersonal styles. The TTF showed high interpersonal specificity, aligning with warm, non-dominant traits, while TRIM-Revenge was associated with a cold, competitive interpersonal style – consistent with a withdrawal-oriented, retaliatory stance. The F-IAT, though only modestly elevated, aligned with nonassertive interpersonal tendencies, potentially reflecting the passive, internalized nature of implicit forgiveness representations. Notably, the TRIM-Benevolence scale did not meaningfully map onto interpersonal styles, suggesting limited interpersonal salience within this sample. These patterns suggest that specific dimensions of forgiveness are differentially embedded in the interpersonal functioning of individuals with BPD. Taken together, this underscores how forgiveness is not a unitary construct but interacts with interpersonal functioning in nuanced ways. Before concluding, some limitations of the present study should be acknowledged: First, we only compared forgiveness between individuals with BPD and a CC without any personality disorder. As we did not include a comparison group of individuals with other personality disorders (PDs), it remains unclear whether our findings are specific to BPD, as suggested by Zanarini and colleagues [ 28 ], or reflect broader patterns of personality pathology. In addition, since our sample consisted exclusively of female participants, the generalizability of the findings to male individuals with BPD remains uncertain. Prior research has reported gender differences in forgiveness tendencies [ 37 ], which may also extend to clinical populations. Second, no a priori power analysis was conducted, primarily due to the limited availability of previous studies on forgiveness in BPD. Although our sample size of 51 participants per group meets general standards for medium-sized effects, it may be not sufficiently powered to detect more subtle or interaction effects, especially in exploratory analyses involving implicit measures. Accordingly, null findings – particularly those concerning group differences or weak associations – should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should determine sample sizes based on power analyses tailored to forgiveness-related constructs to ensure more robust conclusions. Third, due to the cross-sectional nature of our design, no causal inferences can be drawn regarding the relationship between forgiveness and clinical features of BPD. It remains to be seen whether low forgiveness contributes to increased aggression and interpersonal dysfunction in BPD, or whether these clinical features, in turn, impair an individual’s dispositional tendency to forgive. Longitudinal designs are needed to examine the temporal dynamics of forgiveness and its relevance for symptom trajectories or treatment outcomes in BPD. Finally, our study focused exclusively on forgiveness tendencies and did not differentiate between different targets or types of forgiveness (e.g., forgiveness of close others vs. distant acquaintances, or decisional vs. emotional forgiveness). Furthermore, we did not assess the potential impact of trauma histories, such as CM, on forgiveness processes –despite prior evidence linking trauma to impaired forgiveness [ 18 – 19 ]. Future research should aim to include more fine-grained assessments of forgiveness, incorporate relevant contextual variables (e.g., trauma, attachment), and consider the role of self-forgiveness versus interpersonal forgiveness in BPD populations. In conclusion, our study provides a differentiated view of forgiveness in BPD, highlighting discrepancies between implicit and explicit measures, and underscoring the role of forgiveness in shaping aggressive and interpersonal behaviors. While forgiveness did not distinguish women with BPD from matched clinical controls, it showed meaningful associations with aggression and interpersonal dysfunction. These findings encourage a multidimensional approach to studying forgiveness in BPD and reinforce the value of integrating both direct and indirect methods to capture the complexity of self-related processes in personality pathology. Abbreviations BPD Borderline Personality Disorder CC Clinical Controls IAT Implicit Association Test APA American Psychiatric Association FFM Five Factor Model of personality DSM-5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 th Edition CM Childhood maltreatment DBT Dialectical behavior therapy JARS Journal Article Reporting Standards Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty at the University of Rostock (case number: A2021-0074) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent for publication All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study and for the publication of the results. Availability of data and materials The supplementary materials and R code have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/rba48/. For ethical reasons, the data from this study are available only upon reasonable request from the last author. Competing interests The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. Funding PW received funding from the Landesgraduiertenförderung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of this article. Author contributions PW and RF conceptualized the study and performed data analyses. PW drafted the first manuscript. CS coordinated data acquisition. All authors reviewed the manuscript critically and contributed to the manuscript. Acknowledgements Not applicable References Brown RP. Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29(6):759–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006008 Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2020. Forster DE, Billingsley J, Russell VM, McCauley TG, Smith A, Burnette JL, et al. Forgiveness takes place on an attitudinal continuum from hostility to friendliness: Toward a closer union of forgiveness theory and measurement. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;119(4):861–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000227 Green JD, Reid CA, Coy AE, Hedgebeth MV, Kneuer MA. An interdependence analysis of forgiveness, amends, and relational repair in family and work relationships. In: Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2020. p. 131–41. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-13 Gao F, Li Y, Bai X. Forgiveness and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis review. Pers Individ Dif. 2022;186(Pt B):111350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111350 Webb JR, Toussaint LL. Forgiveness, well-being, and mental health. In: Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2020. p. 188–97. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-18 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013. Kernberg OF. Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 1985. Leichsenring F, Heim N, Leweke F, Spitzer C, Steinert C, Kernberg OF. Borderline Personality Disorder: A Review. JAMA. 2023;329(8):670–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.0589 Fernández-Capo M, Fernández SR, Sanfeliu MG, Benito JG, Worthington EL Jr. Measuring forgiveness: A systematic review. Eur Psychol. 2017;22(4):247–62. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000303 Hodge AS, Captari LE, Mosher DK, Kodali N, Hook JN, Davis DE, et al. Personality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. In: Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2020. p. 97–106. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-10 Griffin BJ, Worthington EL Jr, Lavelock CR, Wade NG, Hoyt WT. Forgiveness and mental health. In: Toussaint LL, Worthington EL Jr, Williams DR, editors. Forgiveness and health: Scientific evidence and theories relating forgiveness to better health. Springer; 2015. p. 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9993-5_6 Rasmussen KR, Stackhouse M, Boon SD, Comstock K, Ross R. Meta-analytic connections between forgiveness and health: The moderating effects of forgiveness-related distinctions. Psychol Health. 2019;34(5):515–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2018.1545906 Webb M, Colburn TA, Heisler D, Call S, Chickering SA. Clinical correlates of dispositional forgiveness. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2008;38(10):2495–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00401.x Fehr R, Gelfand MJ, Nag M. The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychol Bull. 2010;136(5):894–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993 Porter C, Palmier-Claus J, Branitsky A, Mansell W, Warwick H, Varese F. Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020;141(1):6–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13118 Yuan Y, Lee H, Eack SM, Newhill CE. A systematic review of the association between early childhood trauma and borderline personality disorder. J Pers Disord. 2023;37(1):16–35. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2023.37.1.16 Arslan G. Psychological maltreatment, coping strategies, and mental health problems: A brief and effective measure of psychological maltreatment in adolescents. Child Abuse Negl. 2017;68:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03.023 Snyder CR, Heinze LS. Forgiveness as a mediator of the relationship between PTSD and hostility in survivors of childhood abuse. Cogn Emot. 2005;19(3):413–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000175 Allen A, Links PS. Aggression in borderline personality disorder: evidence for increased risk and clinical predictors. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(1):62–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-011-0244-9 Chow RTS, Yu R, Geddes JR, Fazel S. Personality disorders, violence and antisocial behaviour: updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2024. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.226 Lazarus SA, Cheavens JS, Festa F, Rosenthal MZ. Interpersonal functioning in borderline personality disorder: A systematic review of behavioral and laboratory-based assessments. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(3):193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.01.007 Holm AL, Berg A, Severinsson E. Longing for reconciliation: A challenge for women with borderline personality disorder. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2009;30(9):560–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840902838579 Idler E. Forgiveness. Fetzer Institute; 2010. Available from: http://www.fetzer.org/component/content/article/18-main/248-dses Hyler SE. Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4. New York: Author; 1994. Sansone RA, Kelley AR, Forbis JS. The relationship between forgiveness and borderline personality symptomatology. J Relig Health. 2013;52(3):974–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-013-9704-3 Thielmann I, Hilbig BE, Niedtfeld I. Willing to give but not to forgive: Borderline personality features and cooperative behavior. J Pers Disord. 2014;28(6):778–95. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_135 Zanarini MC, Temes CM, Frankenburg FR, Reich DB, Fitzmaurice GM. Levels of Acceptance and Forgiveness Reported by Patients With BPD and Personality-Disordered Comparison Subjects Over 20 Years of Prospective Follow-Up. J Pers Disord. 2020;34(2):262–72. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_395 Sandage SJ, Long B, Moen R, Jankowski PJ, Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, et al. Forgiveness in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: A quasi-experimental study. J Clin Psychol. 2015;71(7):625–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22185 Hoyt WT, McCullough ME. Issues in the multimodal measurement of forgiveness. In: Worthington EL Jr, editor. Handbook of forgiveness. Routledge; 2005. p. 133–48. Fisher RJ, Katz JE. Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychol Mark. 2000;17(2):105–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:23.0.CO;2-9 Strelan P. The measurement of dispositional self-forgiveness. In: Woodyatt L, Worthington EL Jr, Wenzel M, Griffin BJ, editors. Handbook of the psychology of self-forgiveness. Springer; 2017. p. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60573-9_6 Bornstein RF. A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score interrelationships. J Pers Assess. 2002;78(1):47–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_04 Fincham FD. Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close relationships? In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, editors. Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. American Psychological Association; 2010. p. 347–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-018 Takada N, Ohbuchi KI. True and hollow forgiveness, forgiveness motives, and conflict resolution. Int J Conflict Manag. 2013;24(2):184–200. Fatfouta R, Schröder-Abé M, Merkl A. Forgiving, fast and slow: Validity of the implicit association test for predicting differential response latencies in a transgression-recall paradigm. Front Psychol. 2014;5:728. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00728 Miller AJ, Worthington EL Jr, McDaniel MA. Gender and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2008;27:843–76. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.843 Appelbaum M, Cooper H, Kline RB, Mayo-Wilson E, Nezu AM, Rao SM. Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191 Beesdo-Baum K, Zaudig M, Wittchen HU, editors. SCID-5-CV: Strukturiertes klinisches Interview für DSM-5-Störungen – Klinische Version. Deutsche Bearbeitung des Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders – Clinician Version von First MB, Williams JBW, Karg RS, Spitzer RL. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2019. Margraf J, Cwik JC. Mini-DIPS open access: Diagnostisches Kurzinterview bei psychischen Störungen. Bochum: Forschungs- und Behandlungszentrum für psychische Gesundheit, Ruhr-Universität Bochum; 2017. Lehrl S. Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest: MWT-B (Multiple Choice Vocabulary Test, Version B). Balingen: apitta; 2005. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(6):1464–80. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464 Leiner DJ. SoSci Survey (Version 3.5.02) [Computer software]. 2024. Available from: https://www.soscisurvey.de Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197 McCullough ME, Rachal KC, Sandage SJ, Worthington EL Jr, Brown SW, Hight TL. Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM) [Database record]. APA PsycTests; 1998. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03960-000 McCullough ME, Hoyt WT. Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2002;28(11):1556–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237583 Nouri FL, Lotfali S, Sahranavard S, Amiri F, Fatideh ZA, Fatideh NA. Measuring forgiveness among Iranian adolescents: Evaluation of psychometric properties of Persian version of transgression-related interpersonal motivations inventory. Curr Psychol. 2019;40(4):1968–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0135-5 Bohus M, Kleindienst N, Limberger MF, Stieglitz RD, Domsalla M, Chapman AL, et al. The short version of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23): Development and initial data on psychometric properties. Psychopathology. 2009;42(1):32–9. Bohus M, Limberger MF, Frank U, Chapman AL, Kühler T, Stieglitz RD. Psychometric properties of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL). Psychopathology. 2007;40(2):126–32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000098493 Buss AH, Perry M. The Aggression Questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63(3):452–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452 Barkham M, Hardy GE, Startup M. The IIP-32: A short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Br J Clin Psychol. 1996;35(1):21–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01159.x Horowitz LM. The study of interpersonal problems: A Leary legacy. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(2):283–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6602_7 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. Zimmermann J, Wright AGC. Beyond description in interpersonal construct validation: Methodological advances in the circumplex structural summary approach. Assessment. 2017;24(1):3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621795 Gurtman MB, Pincus AL. The circumplex model: Methods and research applications. In: Schinka JA, Velicer WF, editors. Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology. Vol. 2. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2003. p. 407–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0216 Hopwood CJ, Ansell EB, Pincus AL, Wright AGC, Lukowitsky MR, Roche MJ. The circumplex structure of interpersonal sensitivities. J Pers. 2011;79(4):707–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00696.x Faggioli I, Esposito CM, Stanghellini G. Identity and temporal fragmentation in borderline personality disorder: A systematic review. Brain Sci. 2024;14(12):1221. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14121221 Back MD, Schmukle SC, Egloff B. Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97(3):533–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016229 Perugini M, Hagemeyer B, Wrzus C, Back MD. Dual process models of personality. In: Rauthmann JF, editor. The handbook of personality dynamics and processes. San Diego: Academic Press; 2021. p. 551–77. De Cuyper M, De Houwer J, Roets A, van Dessel P, Onraet E. Using indirect measures of personality to predict behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(7):673–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000109 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files WuelfingFIATBPDSupplement.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Sep, 2025 Read the published version in Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 08 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 07 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 29 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 23 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 15 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 14 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 29 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6559640","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":461078404,"identity":"ae458aae-2840-4344-a281-bc7fecc1dac9","order_by":0,"name":"Philipp Wülfing","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Medical Center","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Philipp","middleName":"","lastName":"Wülfing","suffix":""},{"id":461078405,"identity":"8614dd2b-972c-46ee-8613-c48b60b3e2ee","order_by":1,"name":"Carsten Spitzer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Medical Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carsten","middleName":"","lastName":"Spitzer","suffix":""},{"id":461078407,"identity":"7a33da65-ad93-4fd6-8ef8-d6f73e650adb","order_by":2,"name":"Nikolaus Krämer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Asklepios Clinic North — Ochsenzoll","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nikolaus","middleName":"","lastName":"Krämer","suffix":""},{"id":461078409,"identity":"03f15c0b-dca2-436b-a46d-b53555508ad1","order_by":3,"name":"Emanuel Severus","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Asklepios Clinic North — Ochsenzoll","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emanuel","middleName":"","lastName":"Severus","suffix":""},{"id":461078411,"identity":"1b5dfb54-4f14-4e94-a5cd-948141acfb9a","order_by":4,"name":"Ramzi Fatfouta","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Independent Researcher","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ramzi","middleName":"","lastName":"Fatfouta","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-29 22:23:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559640/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559640/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-025-00312-4","type":"published","date":"2025-09-02T15:57:35+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83478888,"identity":"107a6a65-77fe-42e0-8ce9-d8cdba1889da","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-27 06:02:45","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":44200,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProjection of forgiveness outcomes onto the interpersonal circumplex model in the BPD sample (N = 51).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. Forgiveness outcomes were projected using the Structural Summary Method (SSM) with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Only associations with sufficient prototypicality (R² ≥ .70) are displayed; IIP-32 = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32; PA = Domineering; NO = Intrusive; LM = Self-sacrificing; JK = Exploitable; HI = Nonassertive; FG = Socially inhibited; DE = Cold; BC = Vindictive; DIF = Dispositional Interpersonal Forgiveness; F-IAT = Forgiveness Implicit Association Test; TRIM = Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; TTF = Tendency to Forgive Scale.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559640/v1/19ba2647eefecd954487d9a6.jpg"},{"id":90828115,"identity":"558c4e40-68ba-4b6b-a8b2-9503a2bb3e00","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-08 16:05:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":927389,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559640/v1/ddd84d6f-a281-4f43-990b-245bd351bce9.pdf"},{"id":83479474,"identity":"0942d180-567e-4d26-b359-78a2ffba2e7d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-27 06:10:45","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":778425,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"WuelfingFIATBPDSupplement.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6559640/v1/615e26fd8afae1f7d93f9a6d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Implicit and Explicit Self-Concepts of Forgiveness in Women with Borderline Personality Disorder","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eDispositional forgiveness, also referred to as the tendency to forgive, can be conceived as a relatively stable personality trait that influences how readily an individual forgives others over time and across various interpersonal situations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. It reflects a person\u0026rsquo;s general propensity to let go of resentment, avoid retaliation, and extend mercy or understanding toward others who have wronged them. Because high forgiveness repairs, maintains, and even improves relationships after transgressions have occurred, it has a prosocial interpersonal effect [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, it also has a positive intrapersonal effect as it can help individuals overcome interpersonal violations, especially negative emotions such as anger, worry, fear, and embarrassment, reduce individual anxiety and depression, and improve self-esteem, subjective well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e] and mental health [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral lines of research suggest that forgiveness may be important in borderline personality disorder (BPD), characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability in self-image, emotions, and interpersonal relationships [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR8\" citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. First, within the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality the most important personality correlates of forgiveness are (high) agreeableness and (low) neuroticism, as supported by a systematic review [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] and meta-analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. The aggregate effect sizes for the associations of forgiveness with agreeableness and neuroticism are substantial (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.44 and \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -0.28, respectively) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Second, psychopathological features like depression, anxiety or other negative emotions which are often seen in BPD are inversely associated with forgiveness [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. For example, \u0026ldquo;inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty in controlling anger\u0026rdquo; is one of the nine diagnostic criteria for BPD according to the DSM-5 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], and meta-analytic evidence indicates a close association between forgiveness and state anger with a weighted mean correlation of \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -0.41 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Third, the majority of those affected by BPD have experienced childhood maltreatment (CM) and early life adversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] and, moreover, several studies suggest a negative association between traumatic stress, such as CM, and forgiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. However, individuals with BPD are not only victims of transgressions, but also more likely to be transgressors themselves, with a 2.6 times higher risk of engaging in violent behaviour compared to the general population [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Unsurprisingly, interpersonal difficulties are a hallmark of BPD [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] and it might be argued that low levels of forgiveness contribute to impaired cooperation in BPD resulting in social dysfunctioning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite converging indirect evidence of a negative link between forgiveness and BPD, the topic has received little scientific attention. For example, a qualitative study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] revealed that longing for reconciliation influences the daily lives of women with BPD and early adversity, as well as their search for the meaning of CM. Holm et al. suggest that forgiveness is key to developing an empathic understanding of oneself in the context of past and present relationships. Using the Forgiveness Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] and the BPD Scale of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], a cross-sectional investigation in internal medicine outpatients indicated a negative and medium effect sized relationship between forgiveness and borderline pathology (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -0.55) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, a large-scale web-based study focusing on cooperative behavior indicated that borderline pathology is related to impaired reactive cooperation, but unrelated to active cooperation, suggesting that individuals with high levels of BPD features have problems with forgiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. The McLean Study of Adult Development (MSAD) further revealed that BPD patients had markedly lower scores for indicators of forgiveness than comparison subjects with personality disorders other than BPD [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. However, these scores were not static: forgiveness increased significantly over 20 years of prospective follow-up for the BPD group, but not for the control group. Additionally, recovered BPD patients reported approximately three times higher levels of forgiveness indicators than non-recovered patients at the end of the follow-up period [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Finally, a manualized group forgiveness module within dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) for BPD patients showed promising results: The intervention increased forgiveness and decreased attachment insecurity and psychiatric symptoms; these effects were maintained during the 6-week follow-up [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the valuable contributions of the aforementioned studies, it has to be kept in mind that the Forgiveness Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] used in the investigation of Sansone and co-workers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] captures a variety of aspects of forgiveness, but not specifically the tendency to forgive. Moreover, this measure has not been psychometrically evaluated. Zanarini and colleagues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] used two items from the Positive Affect Scale (PAS) as proxies for forgiveness (i.e., \u0026ldquo;accepting of the past\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;that I\u0026rsquo;ve forgiven those who\u0026rsquo;ve hurt me\u0026rdquo;), but no reliable and valid self-report instrument that specifically taps into dispositional forgiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the use of well-validated questionnaires to measure forgiveness in individuals affected by BPD can be considered a step forward, their exclusive application might be problematic for several reasons. First, the reliance on one measurement mode can result in mono-method bias possibly increasing the probability of shared error variance in results [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Second, forgiveness represents a value-laden construct \u0026ndash; while some view it as socially desirable, others view it as a sign of weakness and therefore undesirable [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. As a result, self-report measures of forgiveness are particularly susceptible to self-presentation biases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Third, they are insensitive to processes outside of awareness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. For example, one might explicitly state that one has forgiven an offense, yet implicitly continue harboring a grudge (hollow forgiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]). Thus, incorporating indirect measures in addition to direct ones may be useful to capture forgiveness on both explicit and implicit levels. To this end, the Forgiveness Implicit Association Test (F-IAT) offers a promising tool [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. As a latency-based categorization task, the F-IAT assesses the strength of automatic associations between the self (e.g., \u0026ldquo;me\u0026rdquo;) and forgiveness-related attributes (e.g., \u0026ldquo;forgiving\u0026rdquo; vs. \u0026ldquo;vengeful\u0026rdquo;) by measuring reaction times in a speeded classification paradigm. The core assumption is that individuals who implicitly associate themselves with forgiveness respond faster to congruent pairings (e.g., \u0026ldquo;me\u0026ndash;forgiving\u0026rdquo;) than to incongruent ones (e.g., \u0026ldquo;me\u0026ndash;vengeful\u0026rdquo;). The F-IAT has demonstrated good internal consistency and incremental validity in predicting forgiveness-related behavior beyond self-report, and may therefore help to circumvent common limitations of direct measures such as social desirability or limited introspective access.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn light of the above-mentioned findings and theoretical considerations, our exploratory study aimed to examine whether forgiveness differs between individuals with BPD and a clinical control group (CC) without BPD. By integrating both direct and indirect measures of forgiveness, we aimed to capture explicit and implicit forgiveness tendencies, thereby addressing potential self-presentation biases and unconscious processing of transgressions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Given the high comorbidity of BPD with other mental disorders (e.g., mood, anxiety, somatoform, and eating disorders [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]), our matched CC consisted of patients diagnosed with these conditions. As previous research suggests gender differences in forgiveness tendencies (with women being more forgiving than men), we confined our sample to female patients to ensure homogeneity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Building upon prior findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], we further investigated the interrelations between forgiveness, aggression and interpersonal dysfunction in BPD. Given that BPD is characterized by interpersonal dysfunction, we anticipated that lower forgiveness levels would be associated with increased aggression and interpersonal difficulties.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTransparency and Openness\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe code for reproducing all analyses is available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/rba48/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/rba48/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. For ethical reasons, the study data are available only upon reasonable request from the last author. This study and its analyses were not preregistered. In accordance with JARS guidelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], we report our sample size determination, all data exclusions, and all measures used. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty at the University of Rostock (case number: A2021-0074) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eParticipants and Data Collection\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study used a sample of 51 female patients diagnosed with BPD and a CC of 51 female patients, matched for age and educational background. Participants were recruited through the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Rostock. BPD diagnoses were established by experienced board-certified psychiatrists and confirmed using the German version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (SCID-5-PD) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e], administered by the corresponding author. Additionally, all participants were screened for current mental disorders using the German version of the MINI-DIPS [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Exclusion criteria included age under 18, a body mass index (BMI) below 18 kg/m\u0026sup2;, neurological disorders, psychotic symptoms, mania, substance dependence or active substance use, and an estimated IQ below 70 (assessed via the German Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Test, MWT-B) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. All participants provided written informed consent. The initial screening included 119 individuals, of whom 11 were excluded during diagnostic assessment due to not meeting the inclusion criteria (see Figure \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAssessment of forgiveness\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eForgiveness Implicit Association Test (F-IAT)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Implicit Association Test (IAT) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] is a latency-based categorization task designed to measure the strength of associations between target concepts (e.g., \u0026ldquo;me\u0026rdquo; vs. \u0026ldquo;not me\u0026rdquo;) and specific attributes (e.g., \u0026ldquo;forgiving\u0026rdquo; vs. \u0026ldquo;vengeful\u0026rdquo;). Fatfouta and colleagues developed and validated a forgiveness-specific F-IAT [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], which was administered in this study using SoSciSurvey, a software platform for scientific surveys [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. The F-IAT followed the standard seven-block structure: Blocks 1 and 2 introduced the target (me vs. not me) and attribute categories (\u0026ldquo;forgiving\u0026rdquo; vs. \u0026ldquo;vengeful\u0026rdquo;), while Blocks 3\u0026ndash;4 and 6\u0026ndash;7 presented the critical pairings in both initial and reversed configurations. We applied the improved scoring algorithm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e], which calculates the \u003cem\u003eD\u003c/em\u003e-score by dividing the mean response time difference between critical blocks by the standard deviation of response latencies. Higher D-scores indicate stronger implicit forgiveness. The F-IAT exhibited good internal consistency, with a Spearman-Brown split-half reliability of .89 in the original study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], and .87 in the BPD sample and .91 in the CC sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTransgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe TRIM [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] is a self-report measure that assesses motivational tendencies toward a specific transgressor across three subscales: Revenge (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I want him/her to get what he/she deserves\u0026rdquo;), Avoidance (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I would avoid him/her\u0026rdquo;), and Benevolence (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Even though his/her actions hurt me, I still have goodwill for him/her\u0026rdquo;). The TRIM consists of 18 items, rated on a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e), with higher scores indicating stronger endorsement of the respective motivational tendency. The scale has demonstrated high internal consistency in previous studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. In the present study, McDonald's ω values were .83 (BPD) and .90 (CC) for Revenge, .90 (BPD) and .94 (CC) for Avoidance, and .93 (BPD) and .94 (CC) for Benevolence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTendency to Forgive Scale (TTF)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe TTF [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e] is a brief self-report instrument designed to measure individual differences in the general propensity to forgive transgressions across different contexts and relationships. It comprises four items, each rated on a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e). The scale has demonstrated reasonable internal reliability and high test-retest stability over an eight-week period [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. In the present study, McDonald's ω for the Total score was .70 in the BPD sample and .60 in the CC sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBorderline Symptom List Short Version (BSL-23)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe BSL-23 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e] is a 23-item self-report measure assessing the severity of borderline symptoms over the past week. Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003enot at all\u003c/em\u003e to 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003every strong\u003c/em\u003e) and align with DSM-IV/DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Since the short form does not assess self-harm behavior, we additionally administered the self-harm subscale from the BSL-95 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. The questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, with McDonald's ω\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.92 for the BPD sample and ω\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.90 for the CC sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAggression Questionnaire (AQ)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe AQ [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e] is a 29-item self-report measure assessing dispositional tendencies toward anger and aggression across four subscales: Physical Aggression (e.g., \u0026ldquo;If somebody hits me, I hit back\u0026rdquo;), Verbal Aggression (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I often find myself disagreeing with people\u0026rdquo;), Anger (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I have trouble controlling my temper\u0026rdquo;), and Hostility (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I wonder why I sometimes feel so bitter about things\u0026rdquo;). Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eextremely uncharacteristic of me\u003c/em\u003e to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eextremely characteristic of me\u003c/em\u003e). McDonald\u0026rsquo;s ω for the total score was .85 in the BPD sample and .81 in the CC sample. Subscale reliability in the BPD sample ranged from .69 (Anger) to .85 (Physical Aggression), while in the CC sample, it ranged from .63 (Verbal Aggression) to .84 (Hostility).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInventory of Interpersonal Problems-32 (IIP-32)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe IIP-32 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e] is a 32-item self-report measure assessing interpersonal difficulties. Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003enot at all\u003c/em\u003e to 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003every much\u003c/em\u003e), indicating the extent to which each statement applies to the respondent. Based on the interpersonal circumplex model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], the items are grouped into eight octants along the Agency-Communion axes, which were used in this study. The scale demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties, with McDonald's ω for the total score at .80 in the BPD sample and .83 in the CC sample. Subscale reliability was also adequate, with ω values of .73 (Communion) and .79 (Agency) in the BPD sample, and .80 (Communion) and .81 (Agency) in the CC sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eData Analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were conducted using \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e (version 4.2.3) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Chi-square tests were used to compare diagnostic frequencies between subsamples. Internal consistency of all measures was assessed using McDonald\u0026rsquo;s ω. Socio-demographic variables and primary outcomes were compared using Welch\u0026lsquo;s \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests for independent-samples with Bonferroni-Holm correction. Effect sizes for these comparisons are reported as Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;0.2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;small, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;medium, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;0.8\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;large). Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for all measures. To further investigate the relationship between forgiveness and interpersonal dysfunction, we applied the Structural Summary Method (SSM) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. This method projects all forgiveness-related outcomes (F-IAT, TRIM, TTF) onto the circumplex structure defined by the IIP-32, modeling their association with interpersonal traits as a cosine curve. The SSM provides four key parameters to describe these associations: Elevation (e) reflects the general association of a construct with interpersonal dysfunction, with higher values indicating greater overall sensitivity to aversive interpersonal behaviors. Bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (2,000 replicates) were used to determine whether elevation significantly differed from zero. Amplitude (α) represents interpersonal specificity, indicating how strongly a variable aligns with a distinct interpersonal style. Based on previous research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e], amplitudes of .10, .16, and .23 are considered small, average, and large effects, respectively. Angular displacement (δ) identifies the predominant interpersonal theme with which a construct is most aligned (e.g., intrusive, exploitable, competitive). Displacement was only interpreted for measures that exhibited a prototypical correlation pattern, meaning the pattern of correlations followed a cosine wave. Following recommendations, we set a model fit threshold of \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; \u0026ge; .70 for interpreting displacement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. Model fit (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2;) reflects how well the construct conforms to the circumplex structure, with values exceeding this threshold indicating that a construct\u0026rsquo;s circumplex projection is interpretable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe BPD and CC samples were matched for age and years of education, with no significant differences between them. As expected, women with BPD scored significantly higher on measures of borderline pathology, including the BSL-23 total score and the number of BPD criteria, compared to the CC sample (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, BPD patients had a higher number of comorbid diagnoses, as assessed by the Mini-DIPS. A detailed breakdown of comorbidities is provided in the supplementary material (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic and clinical characteristics of BPD (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51) and CC sample (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBPD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33.27 (10.22)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.76 (12.70)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYears of education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.86 (2.15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.49 (1.92)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.583\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo. of BPD criteria (SCID-5-PD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.84 (1.72)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35 (0.87)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo. of diagnoses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.02 (2.01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.88 (1.38)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBorderline pathology (BSL-23)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62.69 (17.81)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.35 (11.87)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eForgiveness (F-IAT, TRIM, TTF)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF-IAT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.34 (0.31)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41 (0.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTRIM \u0026ndash; Revenge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.89 (0.81)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.73 (0.77)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTRIM \u0026ndash; Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.19 (0.78)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.94 (0.82)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.583\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTRIM \u0026ndash; Benevolence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.77 (0.72)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.10 (0.75)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.206\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTTF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.18 (4.26)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.75 (4.06)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.359\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAggression (\u003c/b\u003eAQ\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78.04 (13.57)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.75 (10.97)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Physical aggression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.43 (5.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.96 (3.54)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Verbal aggression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.69 (4.11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.49 (2.49)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Anger\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.16 (4.43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.53 (4.04)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Hostility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.76 (5.90)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.76 (6.42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInterpersonal Problems (IIP-32)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.82 (0.43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.52 (0.45)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote. BPD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Borderline personality disorder; CC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Clinical controls; BSL-23\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Short version of the Borderline Symptom List; SCID-5-PD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders; F-IAT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Forgiveness Implicit Association Test; TRIM\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; TTF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Tendency to Forgive Scale; AQ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Aggression Questionnaire; IIP-32\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGroup Differences in Forgiveness\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWelch\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests with Bonferroni-Holm correction revealed no significant differences between the BPD and CC groups across all forgiveness measures (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). While the CC group showed slightly higher scores on F-IAT, TTF, and TRIM \u0026ndash; Benevolence, and lower scores on TRIM \u0026ndash; Revenge and TRIM \u0026ndash; Avoidance, these differences did not reach statistical significance after correcting for multiple comparisons. Overall, the findings suggest that no robust group differences in forgiveness emerged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAssociations Between Forgiveness and BPD Indicators\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelational analyses revealed no significant associations between forgiveness measures and BPD indicators (BSL-23 and SCID-5-PD; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). While some correlation coefficients suggested weak relationships, none reached statistical significance. Correlation matrices for all variables in both samples are presented in the Supplement (Figures S2 and S3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntercorrelations between DIF (indirect, direct), BPD indicators and clinical variables in BPD (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF-IAT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTRIM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTTF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRevenge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenevolence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBorderline pathology (BSL-23)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo. of BPD criteria (SCID-5-PD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAggression (AQ)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.30*\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.40**\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Physical aggression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.29*\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Verbal aggression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Anger\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.31*\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAQ \u0026ndash; Hostility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.38**\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote. BPD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Borderline personality disorder; SCL-K-9\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Symptom check list \u0026ndash; 9 short version; BSL-23\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Short version of the Borderline Symptom List; SCID-5-PD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders; F-IAT\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Forgiveness Implicit Association Test; TRIM\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory; TTF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Tendency to Forgive Scale; AQ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Aggression Questionnaire. *p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, **p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, ***p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAssociations Between Forgiveness and Clinical Variables\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the BPD sample, higher TRIM \u0026ndash; Revenge scores were associated with greater aggression, particularly anger, while TTF showed negative associations with overall aggression, physical aggression, and hostility, suggesting that greater trait forgiveness was linked to lower aggression levels. No associations were found for F-IAT or TRIM \u0026ndash; Avoidance and Benevolence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further examine the interpersonal relevance of forgiveness, outcomes were projected onto the IIP-32 circumplex. Only measures with prototypical correlation profiles (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; \u0026ge; .70) are displayed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The F-IAT showed moderate elevation (e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.114, 95% CI [0.001, 0.213]) and moderate specificity (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.226, 95% CI [0.064, 0.428]), with an acceptable model fit (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.841). This indicates that the F-IAT scores were moderately associated with interpersonal dysfunction, showed a moderately distinct interpersonal pattern, and were well represented within the circumplex structure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisplacement indicated non-assertive interpersonal tendencies (δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;271.87\u0026deg;, 95% CI [193.17\u0026deg;, 316.26\u0026deg;]). The TRIM \u0026ndash; Revenge scale exhibited moderate elevation (e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.104, 95% CI [-0.003, 0.211]) and moderate specificity (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.245, 95% CI [0.092, 0.438]), with an adequate model fit (R\u0026sup2; = 0.804). This indicates moderately associations with interpersonal dysfunction, a moderately differentiated interpersonal pattern, and scores that were adequately captured within the circumplex structure. Displacement suggested a cold and competitive interpersonal pattern (δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;144.85\u0026deg;, 95% CI [102.84\u0026deg;, 208.84\u0026deg;]). The TRIM \u0026ndash; Avoidance scale showed low elevation (e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.074, 95% CI [-0.060, 0.206]) and weak specificity (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.121, 95% CI [0.032, 0.330]), with moderate model fit (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.607), making displacement uninterpretable. The TRIM \u0026ndash; Benevolence scale exhibited negligible interpersonal relevance, with very low elevation (e = -0.008, 95% CI [-0.135, 0.122]) and minimal specificity (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022, 95% CI [0.021, 0.262]). The poor model fit (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.032) ruled out displacement interpretation. The TTF total score showed the strongest interpersonal alignment, with moderate elevation (e = -0.098, 95% CI [-0.221, 0.015]) and high specificity (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.252, 95% CI [0.127, 0.444]). The high model fit (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = 0.853) allowed for displacement interpretation, indicating an association with warm and non-dominant tendencies (δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;314.92\u0026deg;, 95% CI [275.70\u0026deg;, 8.00\u0026deg;]).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBy jointly assessing explicit and implicit forgiveness self-concepts, this study provides a nuanced perspective on how forgiveness may manifest in women with BPD. While previous research has suggested diminished forgiveness tendencies in individuals with BPD [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], our study offers a more differentiated perspective. Using both direct (TRIM, TTF) and indirect (F-IAT) measures of forgiveness, we observed largely comparable forgiveness tendencies between women with BPD and a matched clinical control (CC) group. Similarly, associations between forgiveness measures and BPD symptomatology as assessed by the BSL-23 and the number of SCID-5 BPD criteria were small and non-significant. These findings stand in contrast to earlier work and may reflect the high internal variability and conceptual complexity of forgiveness \u0026ndash; a socially desirable and context-sensitive construct \u0026ndash;which may limit its diagnostic sensitivity in distinguishing between clinical subgroups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlternatively, the absence of significant effects could be due to sample-specific or methodological factors. First, it is possible that the matched clinical control group \u0026ndash; likely also burdened with high levels of interpersonal stress and trauma \u0026ndash; showed similar forgiveness tendencies, thereby minimizing between-group contrasts. Second, individuals with BPD may struggle with emotional ambivalence and identity diffusion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e], which could obscure consistent self-evaluations in both direct and indirect forgiveness measures. Finally, the absence of differences could indicate that forgiveness is not a stable trait-like deficit in BPD but rather context-dependent and dynamically influenced by interpersonal and situational factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonetheless, several differential patterns of association emerged within the BPD group. Explicit measures of forgiveness \u0026ndash; particularly the TTF and TRIM-Revenge \u0026ndash; showed theoretically consistent associations with clinical characteristics within the BPD group. Specifically, a higher tendency to forgive was associated with lower aggression, particularly hostility and physical aggression, while stronger revenge motivations (TRIM-Revenge) correlated positively with anger and overall aggression. These findings replicate and extend previous work linking forgiveness to maladaptive emotional and behavioral outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e], and highlight forgiveness as a potentially relevant correlate of aggressive tendencies in BPD. Interestingly, the F-IAT \u0026ndash; our implicit measure of forgiveness \u0026ndash; did not exhibit significant associations with aggression, borderline pathology, or self-report forgiveness measures. These findings are consistent with dual-process theories [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e], which conceptualize implicit and explicit constructs as operating via distinct cognitive systems \u0026ndash; automatic versus reflective \u0026ndash;and therefore often demonstrate limited convergence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. In line with this framework, our results support the notion that implicit and explicit forgiveness represent related but distinct constructs. This dissociation may be especially pronounced in BPD, a disorder characterized by emotional dysregulation and dissociation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. In this context, individuals may explicitly endorse forgiving attitudes while still harboring unresolved implicit grievances - a phenomenon often referred to as \u0026ldquo;hollow forgiveness\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther insight into the interpersonal relevance of forgiveness emerged from circumplex modeling. The Structural Summary Method revealed that the forgiveness measures varied in their alignment with interpersonal styles. The TTF showed high interpersonal specificity, aligning with warm, non-dominant traits, while TRIM-Revenge was associated with a cold, competitive interpersonal style \u0026ndash; consistent with a withdrawal-oriented, retaliatory stance. The F-IAT, though only modestly elevated, aligned with nonassertive interpersonal tendencies, potentially reflecting the passive, internalized nature of implicit forgiveness representations. Notably, the TRIM-Benevolence scale did not meaningfully map onto interpersonal styles, suggesting limited interpersonal salience within this sample. These patterns suggest that specific dimensions of forgiveness are differentially embedded in the interpersonal functioning of individuals with BPD. Taken together, this underscores how forgiveness is not a unitary construct but interacts with interpersonal functioning in nuanced ways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore concluding, some limitations of the present study should be acknowledged: First, we only compared forgiveness between individuals with BPD and a CC without any personality disorder. As we did not include a comparison group of individuals with other personality disorders (PDs), it remains unclear whether our findings are specific to BPD, as suggested by Zanarini and colleagues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], or reflect broader patterns of personality pathology. In addition, since our sample consisted exclusively of female participants, the generalizability of the findings to male individuals with BPD remains uncertain. Prior research has reported gender differences in forgiveness tendencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], which may also extend to clinical populations. Second, no a priori power analysis was conducted, primarily due to the limited availability of previous studies on forgiveness in BPD. Although our sample size of 51 participants per group meets general standards for medium-sized effects, it may be not sufficiently powered to detect more subtle or interaction effects, especially in exploratory analyses involving implicit measures. Accordingly, null findings \u0026ndash; particularly those concerning group differences or weak associations \u0026ndash; should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should determine sample sizes based on power analyses tailored to forgiveness-related constructs to ensure more robust conclusions. Third, due to the cross-sectional nature of our design, no causal inferences can be drawn regarding the relationship between forgiveness and clinical features of BPD. It remains to be seen whether low forgiveness contributes to increased aggression and interpersonal dysfunction in BPD, or whether these clinical features, in turn, impair an individual\u0026rsquo;s dispositional tendency to forgive. Longitudinal designs are needed to examine the temporal dynamics of forgiveness and its relevance for symptom trajectories or treatment outcomes in BPD.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, our study focused exclusively on forgiveness tendencies and did not differentiate between different targets or types of forgiveness (e.g., forgiveness of close others vs. distant acquaintances, or decisional vs. emotional forgiveness). Furthermore, we did not assess the potential impact of trauma histories, such as CM, on forgiveness processes \u0026ndash;despite prior evidence linking trauma to impaired forgiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Future research should aim to include more fine-grained assessments of forgiveness, incorporate relevant contextual variables (e.g., trauma, attachment), and consider the role of self-forgiveness versus interpersonal forgiveness in BPD populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, our study provides a differentiated view of forgiveness in BPD, highlighting discrepancies between implicit and explicit measures, and underscoring the role of forgiveness in shaping aggressive and interpersonal behaviors. While forgiveness did not distinguish women with BPD from matched clinical controls, it showed meaningful associations with aggression and interpersonal dysfunction. These findings encourage a multidimensional approach to studying forgiveness in BPD and reinforce the value of integrating both direct and indirect methods to capture the complexity of self-related processes in personality pathology.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eBPD\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Borderline Personality Disorder\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCC\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Clinical Controls\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIAT\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Implicit Association Test\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAPA\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;American Psychiatric Association\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFFM\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Five Factor Model of personality\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDSM-5\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e Edition\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCM\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Childhood maltreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDBT\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Dialectical behavior therapy\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJARS \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Journal Article Reporting Standards\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty at the University of Rostock (case number: A2021-0074) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study and for the publication of the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe supplementary materials and R code have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/rba48/. For ethical reasons, the data from this study are available only upon reasonable request from the last author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePW received funding from the Landesgraduiertenf\u0026ouml;rderung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.\u0026nbsp;The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of this article.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePW and RF conceptualized the study and performed data analyses. PW drafted the first manuscript. CS coordinated data acquisition. All authors reviewed the manuscript critically and contributed to the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown RP. Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29(6):759\u0026ndash;71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group; 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForster DE, Billingsley J, Russell VM, McCauley TG, Smith A, Burnette JL, et al. Forgiveness takes place on an attitudinal continuum from hostility to friendliness: Toward a closer union of forgiveness theory and measurement. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;119(4):861\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000227\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen JD, Reid CA, Coy AE, Hedgebeth MV, Kneuer MA. An interdependence analysis of forgiveness, amends, and relational repair in family and work relationships. In: Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group; 2020. p. 131\u0026ndash;41. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao F, Li Y, Bai X. Forgiveness and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis review. Pers Individ Dif. 2022;186(Pt B):111350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111350\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebb JR, Toussaint LL. Forgiveness, well-being, and mental health. In: Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group; 2020. p. 188\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-18\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmerican Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKernberg OF. Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 1985.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeichsenring F, Heim N, Leweke F, Spitzer C, Steinert C, Kernberg OF. Borderline Personality Disorder: A Review. JAMA. 2023;329(8):670\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.0589\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez-Capo M, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez SR, Sanfeliu MG, Benito JG, Worthington EL Jr. Measuring forgiveness: A systematic review. Eur Psychol. 2017;22(4):247\u0026ndash;62. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000303\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHodge AS, Captari LE, Mosher DK, Kodali N, Hook JN, Davis DE, et al. Personality and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review. In: Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, editors. Handbook of forgiveness. 2nd ed. Routledge/Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group; 2020. p. 97\u0026ndash;106. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351123341-10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffin BJ, Worthington EL Jr, Lavelock CR, Wade NG, Hoyt WT. Forgiveness and mental health. In: Toussaint LL, Worthington EL Jr, Williams DR, editors. Forgiveness and health: Scientific evidence and theories relating forgiveness to better health. Springer; 2015. p. 77\u0026ndash;90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9993-5_6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRasmussen KR, Stackhouse M, Boon SD, Comstock K, Ross R. Meta-analytic connections between forgiveness and health: The moderating effects of forgiveness-related distinctions. Psychol Health. 2019;34(5):515\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2018.1545906\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebb M, Colburn TA, Heisler D, Call S, Chickering SA. Clinical correlates of dispositional forgiveness. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2008;38(10):2495\u0026ndash;517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00401.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFehr R, Gelfand MJ, Nag M. The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychol Bull. 2010;136(5):894\u0026ndash;914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePorter C, Palmier-Claus J, Branitsky A, Mansell W, Warwick H, Varese F. Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020;141(1):6\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13118\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYuan Y, Lee H, Eack SM, Newhill CE. A systematic review of the association between early childhood trauma and borderline personality disorder. J Pers Disord. 2023;37(1):16\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2023.37.1.16\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArslan G. Psychological maltreatment, coping strategies, and mental health problems: A brief and effective measure of psychological maltreatment in adolescents. Child Abuse Negl. 2017;68:96\u0026ndash;106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03.023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSnyder CR, Heinze LS. Forgiveness as a mediator of the relationship between PTSD and hostility in survivors of childhood abuse. Cogn Emot. 2005;19(3):413\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000175\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen A, Links PS. Aggression in borderline personality disorder: evidence for increased risk and clinical predictors. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(1):62\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-011-0244-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChow RTS, Yu R, Geddes JR, Fazel S. Personality disorders, violence and antisocial behaviour: updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2024. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.226\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLazarus SA, Cheavens JS, Festa F, Rosenthal MZ. Interpersonal functioning in borderline personality disorder: A systematic review of behavioral and laboratory-based assessments. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(3):193\u0026ndash;205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.01.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolm AL, Berg A, Severinsson E. Longing for reconciliation: A challenge for women with borderline personality disorder. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2009;30(9):560\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840902838579\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdler E. Forgiveness. Fetzer Institute; 2010. Available from: http://www.fetzer.org/component/content/article/18-main/248-dses\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyler SE. Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4. New York: Author; 1994.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSansone RA, Kelley AR, Forbis JS. The relationship between forgiveness and borderline personality symptomatology. J Relig Health. 2013;52(3):974\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-013-9704-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThielmann I, Hilbig BE, Niedtfeld I. Willing to give but not to forgive: Borderline personality features and cooperative behavior. J Pers Disord. 2014;28(6):778\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_135\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZanarini MC, Temes CM, Frankenburg FR, Reich DB, Fitzmaurice GM. Levels of Acceptance and Forgiveness Reported by Patients With BPD and Personality-Disordered Comparison Subjects Over 20 Years of Prospective Follow-Up. J Pers Disord. 2020;34(2):262\u0026ndash;72. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_395\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSandage SJ, Long B, Moen R, Jankowski PJ, Worthington EL Jr, Wade NG, et al. Forgiveness in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: A quasi-experimental study. J Clin Psychol. 2015;71(7):625\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22185\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoyt WT, McCullough ME. Issues in the multimodal measurement of forgiveness. In: Worthington EL Jr, editor. Handbook of forgiveness. Routledge; 2005. p. 133\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher RJ, Katz JE. Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychol Mark. 2000;17(2):105\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2\u0026lt;105::AID-MAR3\u0026gt;3.0.CO;2-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStrelan P. The measurement of dispositional self-forgiveness. In: Woodyatt L, Worthington EL Jr, Wenzel M, Griffin BJ, editors. Handbook of the psychology of self-forgiveness. Springer; 2017. p. 75\u0026ndash;86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60573-9_6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBornstein RF. A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score interrelationships. J Pers Assess. 2002;78(1):47\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_04\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFincham FD. Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close relationships? In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, editors. Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. American Psychological Association; 2010. p. 347\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTakada N, Ohbuchi KI. True and hollow forgiveness, forgiveness motives, and conflict resolution. Int J Conflict Manag. 2013;24(2):184\u0026ndash;200.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFatfouta R, Schr\u0026ouml;der-Ab\u0026eacute; M, Merkl A. Forgiving, fast and slow: Validity of the implicit association test for predicting differential response latencies in a transgression-recall paradigm. Front Psychol. 2014;5:728. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00728\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller AJ, Worthington EL Jr, McDaniel MA. Gender and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2008;27:843\u0026ndash;76. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.843\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAppelbaum M, Cooper H, Kline RB, Mayo-Wilson E, Nezu AM, Rao SM. Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):3\u0026ndash;25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeesdo-Baum K, Zaudig M, Wittchen HU, editors. SCID-5-CV: Strukturiertes klinisches Interview f\u0026uuml;r DSM-5-St\u0026ouml;rungen \u0026ndash; Klinische Version. Deutsche Bearbeitung des Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders \u0026ndash; Clinician Version von First MB, Williams JBW, Karg RS, Spitzer RL. G\u0026ouml;ttingen: Hogrefe; 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMargraf J, Cwik JC. Mini-DIPS open access: Diagnostisches Kurzinterview bei psychischen St\u0026ouml;rungen. Bochum: Forschungs- und Behandlungszentrum f\u0026uuml;r psychische Gesundheit, Ruhr-Universit\u0026auml;t Bochum; 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLehrl S. Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest: MWT-B (Multiple Choice Vocabulary Test, Version B). Balingen: apitta; 2005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(6):1464\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeiner DJ. SoSci Survey (Version 3.5.02) [Computer software]. 2024. Available from: https://www.soscisurvey.de\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):197\u0026ndash;216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCullough ME, Rachal KC, Sandage SJ, Worthington EL Jr, Brown SW, Hight TL. Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM) [Database record]. APA PsycTests; 1998. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03960-000\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCullough ME, Hoyt WT. Transgression-related motivational dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the Big Five. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2002;28(11):1556\u0026ndash;73. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237583\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNouri FL, Lotfali S, Sahranavard S, Amiri F, Fatideh ZA, Fatideh NA. Measuring forgiveness among Iranian adolescents: Evaluation of psychometric properties of Persian version of transgression-related interpersonal motivations inventory. Curr Psychol. 2019;40(4):1968\u0026ndash;78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0135-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBohus M, Kleindienst N, Limberger MF, Stieglitz RD, Domsalla M, Chapman AL, et al. The short version of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23): Development and initial data on psychometric properties. Psychopathology. 2009;42(1):32\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBohus M, Limberger MF, Frank U, Chapman AL, K\u0026uuml;hler T, Stieglitz RD. Psychometric properties of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL). Psychopathology. 2007;40(2):126\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000098493\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuss AH, Perry M. The Aggression Questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63(3):452\u0026ndash;9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarkham M, Hardy GE, Startup M. The IIP-32: A short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Br J Clin Psychol. 1996;35(1):21\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01159.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHorowitz LM. The study of interpersonal problems: A Leary legacy. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(2):283\u0026ndash;300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6602_7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimmermann J, Wright AGC. Beyond description in interpersonal construct validation: Methodological advances in the circumplex structural summary approach. Assessment. 2017;24(1):3\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621795\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGurtman MB, Pincus AL. The circumplex model: Methods and research applications. In: Schinka JA, Velicer WF, editors. Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology. Vol. 2. Hoboken: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Inc.; 2003. p. 407\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0216\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHopwood CJ, Ansell EB, Pincus AL, Wright AGC, Lukowitsky MR, Roche MJ. The circumplex structure of interpersonal sensitivities. J Pers. 2011;79(4):707\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00696.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaggioli I, Esposito CM, Stanghellini G. Identity and temporal fragmentation in borderline personality disorder: A systematic review. Brain Sci. 2024;14(12):1221. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14121221\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBack MD, Schmukle SC, Egloff B. Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97(3):533\u0026ndash;48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016229\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerugini M, Hagemeyer B, Wrzus C, Back MD. Dual process models of personality. In: Rauthmann JF, editor. The handbook of personality dynamics and processes. San Diego: Academic Press; 2021. p. 551\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Cuyper M, De Houwer J, Roets A, van Dessel P, Onraet E. Using indirect measures of personality to predict behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(7):673\u0026ndash;99. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000109\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"borderline-personality-disorder-and-emotion-dysregulation","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bded","sideBox":"Learn more about [Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation](http://bpded.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"40479","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40479/3","title":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","twitterHandle":"@BioMedCentral","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"borderline personality disorder, forgiveness, interpersonal forgiveness, Implicit Association Test (IAT)","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559640/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559640/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe tendency to forgive is associated with traits such as agreeableness and neuroticism, mental well-being, and interpersonal functioning. Given the high levels of aggression and interpersonal dysfunction in borderline personality disorder (BPD), forgiveness (or, lack thereof) may be particularly relevant for BPD symptomology but remains understudied. This study examines forgiveness in BPD compared to a heterogeneous clinical control group without personality disorder (CC), exploring its associations with aggression and interpersonal dysfunction using both direct (self-reported) and indirect (implicit) measures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFifty-one female BPD patients and fifty-one CC participants completed self-report measures of forgiveness (Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory, Tendency to Forgive Scale) and a Forgiveness Implicit Association Test (F-IAT), alongside assessments of borderline symptoms, aggression, and interpersonal problems. Independent-samples \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests compared the two samples, while Pearson correlations explored associations between clinical characteristics within the BPD sample.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth groups revealed largely comparable scores in both explicit and implicit forgiveness, with no significant differences across measures. Within the BPD group, higher TRIM\u0026ndash;Revenge scores were associated with greater aggression, particularly anger, while TTF scores showed negative associations with overall aggression, physical aggression, and hostility. Circumplex analysis indicated that the F-IAT aligned with nonassertive, TRIM\u0026ndash;Revenge with cold and competitive, and TTF with warm and non-dominant interpersonal styles, whereas TRIM\u0026ndash;Avoidance and TRIM\u0026ndash;Benevolence exhibited limited interpersonal relevance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite limited prior research suggesting reduced forgiveness in BPD, the present findings indicate that women with BPD exhibit forgiveness tendencies comparable to those of the CC. Notably, explicit forgiveness was systematically associated with aggression and interpersonal difficulties, whereas implicit and explicit measures showed limited convergence. These findings underscore the utility of a multidimensional approach to assessing forgiveness in BPD, revealing distinct clinical and interpersonal correlates across forgiveness dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Implicit and Explicit Self-Concepts of Forgiveness in Women with Borderline Personality Disorder","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-27 06:02:41","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6559640/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-07-08T21:14:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-07T14:55:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-30T01:16:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"104516763690020134214428077891730015824","date":"2025-06-22T21:53:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"320295325792687666889268442823016254555","date":"2025-06-17T22:27:54+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"285164018944142703696572111189206390048","date":"2025-06-16T21:36:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-23T15:39:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-15T05:43:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-14T09:34:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","date":"2025-04-29T22:11:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"borderline-personality-disorder-and-emotion-dysregulation","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bded","sideBox":"Learn more about [Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation](http://bpded.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"40479","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40479/3","title":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","twitterHandle":"@BioMedCentral","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"be26eaf5-e979-4705-a62d-506a394400fb","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 27th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-08T16:05:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6559640","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-025-00312-4","journal":{"identity":"borderline-personality-disorder-and-emotion-dysregulation","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation"},"publishedOn":"2025-09-02 15:57:35","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 2nd, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-27 06:02:41","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40479-025-00312-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-025-00312-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6559640","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6559640","identity":"rs-6559640","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}