A Laboratory Task to Assess Epistemic Mistrust: Behavioral Evidence for Mediation Between Childhood Trauma and Borderline Personality Features in Young Adults

A Laboratory Task to Assess Epistemic Mistrust: Behavioral Evidence for Mediation Between Childhood Trauma and Borderline Personality Features in Young Adults | 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 A Laboratory Task to Assess Epistemic Mistrust: Behavioral Evidence for Mediation Between Childhood Trauma and Borderline Personality Features in Young Adults Elizabeth Li, Chloe Campbell, Linda C. Mayes, Georgia McRedmond, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7156789/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Disruptions in epistemic trust have been recognised as key sequelae of trauma and as markers of vulnerability to borderline personality pathology. However, prior research has largely relied on self-reports and lacks behavioural measures of epistemic stance. The present studies introduce a novel behavioural task—the Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust (BART-ET)—and examine its associations with borderline personality features, trauma history, and psychological distress. Methods Two cross-sectional studies were conducted with a combined sample of 273 young adults aged 18–25 (Study 1: N = 120; Study 2: N = 153). Participants completed self-report measures of borderline personality features (PAI-BOR) and epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity (ETMCQ). Study 2 additionally included the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-GSI). All participants completed the BART-ET in a laboratory setting, which operationalised epistemic stance as the degree of deviation from a confederate experimenter’s advice during a risk-taking task. Analyses involved correlational tests and structural equation modelling (SEM) to evaluate the hypothesised associations and mediation effects. Results Across both samples, higher levels of borderline personality traits were associated with greater epistemic mistrust—both behaviourally (on the BART-ET) and via self-report (ETMCQ)—and with greater epistemic credulity, but not with epistemic trust. Behavioural and self-report measures of mistrust were significantly correlated, supporting the BART-ET’s convergent validity as an index of epistemic stance. In Study 2, childhood trauma exposure was positively associated with borderline features and with epistemic mistrust (but not significantly with epistemic trust or credulity). SEM analyses indicated that epistemic mistrust partially mediated the association between childhood trauma and borderline personality features. Conclusions This research provides the first behavioural evidence linking epistemic mistrust with borderline personality features and childhood trauma in young adults. The findings highlight that high epistemic mistrust—rather than a simple absence of trust—is a social-cognitive process potentially underlying personality vulnerability. The results also support the utility of the BART-ET as a novel behavioural tool for studying epistemic stance in clinical contexts. epistemic mistrust borderline personality features childhood trauma behavioural assessment BART-ET social-cognitive vulnerability Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Background Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a complex and impairing condition marked by chronic interpersonal instability, affective dysregulation, and identity disturbance [1]. Although BPD affects up to 2% of the general population, its prevalence is considerably higher in clinical settings (ranging from 10% to 50% among psychiatric patients and individuals seeking psychological support). One emerging theoretical account highlights the role of epistemic mistrust —an enduring tendency to distrust information conveyed by others—in the development and maintenance of BPD [2]. Epistemic trust, by contrast, is thought to develop within secure attachment relationships, where contingent, attuned caregiving fosters openness to social communication and learning. Epistemic trust allows individuals to internalise socially relevant knowledge and adapt to their environment through social learning [3]. In contrast, early interpersonal adversity—such as parental maltreatment—can disrupt attachment security and mentalizing abilities [4, 5], impairing the capacity to evaluate the trustworthiness of others’ communications. In such contexts, maladaptive epistemic strategies may emerge, including rigid skepticism toward others’ communications (i.e. epistemic mistrust ) and overly passive acceptance of information (i.e. epistemic credulity ). These strategies may initially serve as adaptive responses to inconsistent, abusive, or invalidating caregiving [6]. When generalized beyond the original context, however, entrenched mistrust or credulity can impede adaptive social learning. Heightened mistrust may lead individuals to reject even trustworthy or authoritative sources, instead favoring unverified alternatives that confirm pre-existing suspicions. Conversely, extreme credulity may manifest as an indiscriminate or overly trusting acceptance of interpersonal information, leaving one vulnerable to manipulation or misinformation due to insufficient scrutiny of the communicator’s intent. Over time, such disruptions in epistemic stance may undermine personality and social functioning—affecting identity integration, emotion regulation, and interpersonal boundaries—which are core impairments observed in borderline presentations [3, 7]. Indeed, BPD is often viewed as an exemplar of the clinical consequences of entrenched epistemic mistrust (and sometimes credulity), marked by volatile relationships and distorted social-cognitive processing [2]. Experimental evidence supports the association between BPD traits and social-cognitive disturbance. Individuals with BPD often show reduced trust in social interactions [8] and lower expectations of inclusion [9] and respond less cooperatively even when primed with positive social signals [10-12]. They are also more likely to interpret neutral or ambiguous social cues as threatening or untrustworthy [13-18]. A recent meta-analysis further supports this tendency, finding consistent evidence of heightened mistrust in individuals with BPD when assessed through laboratory-based tasks [19]. Interestingly, intranasal oxytocin— a neuropeptide usually known to enhance prosocial behaviour—failed to increase trust in individuals with BPD [20]. These patterns suggest a deep-seated disruption in their social information processing and capacity to engage in trusting interpersonal exchanges. To date, a few empirical studies have relied on self-report to examine the role of epistemic stance in the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features. Knapen et al. [21] found that epistemic trust mediated the link between childhood trauma and BPD features, although trust explained less variance than attachment or mentalizing. In a second study, Knapen et al. [22] showed that individuals with personality disorders, especially BPD, report lower epistemic trust than both healthy and clinical controls. More comprehensive models have been proposed by Kumpasoğlu et al. [23] and Schwarzer et al. [24], who modelled all three epistemic stance dimensions as mediators of the trauma–BPD link. Kumpasoğlu et al. [23] found that trauma predicted increased mistrust and credulity, but only these dimensions—not epistemic trust—significantly mediated the trauma–BPD link. Similarly, Schwarzer et al. [24] demonstrated that mistrust, but not trust, mediated the effects of trauma on personality functioning. These findings suggest that mistrust and credulity are more strongly linked to personality vulnerability than the mere absence of trust. While disruptions in epistemic trust have been closely linked to borderline personality features, it remains unclear whether this association reflects a distinct interpersonal dysfunction characteristic of BPD or a broader, transdiagnostic marker of psychological distress. General distress has been associated with altered social-cognitive functioning [25], raising the possibility that elevated epistemic mistrust and credulity may emerge as non-specific responses to emotional dysregulation or general psychopathology [26]. Disentangling these possibilities is essential for clarifying the construct validity of epistemic stance and requires controlling for overall symptom severity. Additionally, dose–response evidence suggests that greater trauma exposure predicts more severe interpersonal dysfunction [27], highlighting the importance of examining whether epistemic mistrust and borderline pathology increase proportionally with trauma severity. Hence, despite promising findings, little is still known about whether epistemic stance can be measured through behaviour—rather than self-perception—and whether such behavioural indicators align with self-reported epistemic stance and borderline personality traits. Existing research has relied exclusively on self-report measures, limiting the ecological validity of their conclusions and leaving open questions about how epistemic stance is enacted in real-time interpersonal contexts—how individuals respond to advice or social input under uncertainty. It also remains unclear whether epistemic mistrust reflects a social-cognitive construct specific to borderline personality vulnerability, or a broader transdiagnostic marker of psychological distress. Furthermore, no studies have tested whether epistemic stance patterns vary according to trauma severity, or whether epistemic mistrust uniquely mediates the impact of childhood trauma on borderline personality features when general psychological distress is controlled. Understanding these mechanisms is particularly important in young adults, a developmental period during which social learning continues to shape identity formation and interpersonal functioning [28, 29]. The present research was designed to address these gaps. The Present Study This study introduces the Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust (BART-ET), a novel behavioural paradigm that assesses epistemic stance by measuring advice-taking behaviour under uncertainty. Adapted from the original BART [30], which has been validated as a behavioural measure of risk-taking and risk-avoidant strategies [31, 32], the BART-ET repurposes this task to quantify the discrepancy between advice received and behaviour enacted, indexing epistemic trust. Two cross-sectional studies were conducted. Study 1 ( N = 120) piloted the BART-ET and examined its associations with self-reported BPD traits and epistemic stance, using the Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR) and the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ). Study 2 ( N = 153) aimed to address some of the limitations of Study 1 by including the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-GSI), enabling the examination of the role of childhood trauma exposure, and general psychological distress, and epistemic stance in relation to BPD features. In addition, by including the BSI-GSI we investigated whether the above hypothesized associations between epistemic stance and BPD reflect a distinct interpersonal dysfunction characteristic of BPD or a broader, transdiagnostic marker of psychological distress. Based on research reviewed above, we tested the following pre-registered hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 (Study 1): Higher levels of borderline personality features (PAI-BOR) will be associated with greater advice resistance on the BART-ET, indexed by larger discrepancies between the experimenter's suggestions and participants’ responses. Hypothesis 2 (Study 1): Borderline personality features (PAI-BOR) will correlate positively with self-reported epistemic mistrust and credulity, and negatively with epistemic trust (ETMCQ), reflecting difficulties in appropriately evaluating others' communications. Hypothesis 3 (Study 1): Behavioural indicators of epistemic stance (BART-ET scores) will correspond to self-report measures: BART-ET scores were expected to correlate positively with epistemic mistrust and negatively with epistemic trust (ETMCQ subscales). Hypothesis 4 (Study 2): Greater exposure to childhood trauma (CTQ) will be associated with higher BPD features (PAI-BOR) and greater epistemic mistrust and credulity, and lower epistemic trust as captured by the three ETMCQ subscales. These associations were expected to follow a dose–response pattern, such that increasing severity of childhood trauma would correspond to progressively more maladaptive epistemic stance scores as assessed by the self-report measure (ETMCQ) and epistemic mistrust assessed with the BART-ET, and higher BPD-related traits. Hypothesis 5 (Study 2): Epistemic mistrust will mediate the relationship between childhood trauma (CTQ) and borderline personality features (PAI-BOR), even when controlling for general psychological distress (BSI-GSI) as a covariate. Mistrust will be operationalised both via BART-ET scores and ETMCQ subscales (mistrust and credulity), allowing comparison across behavioural and self-report indices. Methods Participants Participants in both Study 1 and Study 2 were recruited via the UCL Psychology Subject Pool and broader university platforms. In Study 1, 120 young adults (93 females, 26 males, 1 non-binary), aged 18 to 25 years (M = 20.06, SD = 1.96), participated between October 2022 and March 2023. The sample comprised 65.8% Asian, 23.3% White, 5.8% Black, 2.5% Mixed ethnic backgrounds, and 2.5% Other. Of the 120 participants, 37% reported experiencing emotional problems—such as feelings of depression, sadness, or anxiety—during the past four weeks; 10% rated their general mental health as poor or somewhat poor; 25% had previously received or were currently receiving counselling or psychological support; and 4% were currently taking medication for mental health conditions. In Study 2, 153 young adults (121 females, 32 males), aged 18 to 25 years (M = 19.99, SD = 1.85), participated between March and April 2025. The sample comprised 52% Asian, 27% White, 5.2% Black, 7.8% Mixed, and 7.8% Other. Among these participants, 45% reported emotional problems in the past four weeks; 17% rated their general mental health as poor or somewhat poor; 28% had received or were receiving psychological support; and 5% were currently taking mental health medication. A detailed demographic breakdown is provided in Table 1 . The combined sample of 273 participants (Study 1: N = 120; Study 2: N = 153) exceeds the minimum required sample sizes identified through a priori power analyses and Monte Carlo simulations [33, 34], providing ≥80% power at α = .05 to detect moderate effects ( r = .30, d = 0.50) across dimensional analyses, categorical comparisons, structural equation modelling (SEM), and mediation models [21, 22, 27, 35]. Power estimates assumed a maximum of 10% missing data and were based on bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals for indirect effects. Both studies received ethical approval from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (18057.001 for Study 1; 0466 for Study 2), and all participants provided informed consent. Procedures All participants first read an online information sheet and provided written informed consent before completing a battery of self-report questionnaires hosted on Qualtrics.In Study 1 , participants completed demographic questions, the Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR), and the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ), which took approximately 5 minutes. In Study 2 , an expanded battery was administered, including the same measures as Study 1 along with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and took approximately 15 minutes. Following the online questionnaires, participants were scheduled for an in-person session via direct email. Upon arrival at the UCL Psychology Laboratories, they were welcomed by a trained experimenter and escorted to an individual cubicle for the laboratory task.The laboratory task was the Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust version (BART-ET), which lasted approximately 25 minutes. In the first round, participants completed 30 trials, during which balloon explosions were pre-programmed to occur in 21 trials, irrespective of their responses. This was followed by a scripted verbal intervention from the experimenter, introducing a co-play scenario and offering advice on how many pumps to enter in the second round of 30 trials. This manipulation was designed to simulate interpersonal advice and assess behavioural expressions of epistemic trust. Participants were told the task measured decision-making and risk-taking strategies.To encourage engagement, participants were informed that compensation included a performance-based incentive: in Study 1, a base payment of £3 and a bonus of up to £2 based on task performance (totalling £5); in Study 2, a base payment of £5 and a potential bonus of £3 (totalling £8). In practice, all participants received the full amount, regardless of performance. Participation lasted approximately 30 minutes in Study 1 and 40 minutes in Study 2. To ensure data quality in the self-report measures, two attention check items were embedded in the questionnaire battery. These instructed participants to select a specific response (e.g., “Please select ‘3 (Very true)’ to show that you are reading the questions carefully”). All participants passed the attention checks, and no invariant response patterns were detected.For the in-person task, the experimenter remained present throughout to monitor comprehension and engagement. Given the interactive format—which required responses on every trial—and the task’s relatively brief duration, the risk of inattentiveness was considered minimal. After completing the BART-ET, participants were asked to guess the true purpose of the task. Most believed the study concerned decision-making, risk-taking, or strategy optimisation; others mentioned social influence, bias, or conformity. No participants correctly identified epistemic trust as the study’s focus.Finally, participants were fully debriefed and provided with a written debriefing sheet explaining the use of deception and listing support services. No participants reported emotional distress. Measures Demographic and Mental Health Characteristics Participants reported age, gender, ethnicity, along with mental health-related information in both studies. These included whether they had experienced emotional problems affecting daily life in the past four weeks, their overall self-rated mental health, whether they had received or were currently receiving psychological treatment, and any current use of psychiatric medication. In Study 2, an additional item assessed socio-economic background based on parental occupation, with response options including professional, intermediate, and lower socio-economic backgrounds. Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR) The PAI-BOR is a 24-item self-report measure of borderline personality features in nonclinical populations [36]. It comprises four subscales—affective instability, identity problems, negative relationships, and self-harm—each with six items. Responses are rated on a 4-point scale (0 = false to 3 = very true). A total score of 38 or higher suggests clinically significant borderline features. The scale has demonstrated excellent internal consistency ( α > .80) and construct validity in diverse populations [37]. In the current study, internal consistency was α = .90 in Study 1 and α = .86 in Study 2. Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) The ETMCQ is a 15-item self-report measure assessing individuals’ tendencies to accept, reject, or over-accept interpersonal information [6]. It comprises three 5-item subscales: epistemic trust (e.g., “I usually ask people for advice when I have a personal problem”), epistemic mistrust (e.g., “I often feel that people do not understand what I want and need”), and epistemic credulity (e.g., “I am often considered naïve because I believe almost anything that people tell me”). Items are rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The scale has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity in community samples [6]. In the current study, internal consistency in Study 1 was α = .71 (Trust), α = .66 (Mistrust), and α = .78 (Credulity); in Study 2, α = .75 (Trust), α = .55 (Mistrust), and α = .79 (Credulity). Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) The CTQ is a 28-item retrospective self-report measure of childhood maltreatment across five domains: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect [38]. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never true to 5 = very often true). Clinically validated cut-offs are available to classify levels of exposure [38]. For emotional abuse, scores of 13 or more indicate moderate exposure, and scores of 18 or more indicate severe exposure. For physical abuse, scores of 10 or more suggest moderate exposure, and 13 or more indicate severe exposure. For sexual abuse, moderate exposure is defined as a score of 8 or above, and severe exposure as 13 or above. For emotional neglect, scores of 15 or more represent moderate exposure, while scores of 18 or more indicate severe exposure. For physical neglect, scores of 10 or more suggest moderate exposure, and scores of 15 or more indicate severe exposure. The CTQ has demonstrated strong psychometric properties in both clinical and nonclinical samples, with internal consistency coefficients ranging from α = .63 to .95 across subscales and criterion-related validity correlations of r = .50–.75 [39, 40]. In the current study (Study 2), internal consistency was α = .91. Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index (BSI-GSI) The BSI is a 53-item self-report measure of psychological distress across nine symptom dimensions and three global indices [41]. In the current study, only the Global Severity Index (GSI) was used as an overall index of current distress. Participants rated how much each symptom distressed them over the past seven days on a 5-point scale (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely). The GSI has demonstrated excellent internal consistency ( α > .80) and robust construct and convergent validity across clinical and nonclinical samples [41]. According to standard interpretive guidelines, T scores below 55 are considered within the normal range; T scores of 55–59 indicate mild psychological distress; T scores of 60–64 reflect moderate or borderline clinical distress; and T scores of 65 or above suggest clinically significant levels of distress [41]. In the current study (Study 2), the BSI-GSI demonstrated excellent internal consistency ( α = .96). Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust (BART-ET) The Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust (BART-ET) is a computerised, laboratory-based task designed to assess epistemic trust and mistrust through behavioural responses to advice. The task yields a single behavioural score, with higher scores indicating greater epistemic mistrust and correspondingly lower epistemic trust. The BART-ET is adapted from the original Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) [30], which was designed to measure risk-taking. In the original BART, each trial presents a balloon that participants inflate by clicking a “PUMP” button. With each pump, the balloon expands and accumulates points, but may explode at an unpredictable threshold. Participants may choose to stop pumping and bank the points at any time. If the balloon explodes, all points for that trial are lost, though previously banked points remain safe. The task requires participants to balance risk and reward to maximise their overall score. The BART-ET repurposes this format to assess advice-taking behaviour under uncertainty, rather than risk-taking. Participants complete two rounds of 30 trials, spaced approximately 10 minutes apart. In the first round (see Figure 1a ), 21 of 30 balloons (70%) are programmed to explode regardless of the number of pumps entered, producing repeated negative outcomes.Following this, participants see the message: “Be careful! So far, you had 21 balloons explode, and your earned points are lower than 73% of players in this game. Let’s try another round of 30 balloons.” This feedback is designed to elicit mild negative affect and increase receptivity to external guidance. Immediately afterward, the experimenter delivers a standardised verbal prompt: “I’m sorry that you didn’t do very well in the first round. However, we have another round of 30 balloons. I have played this game several times myself before—how about we play together in the second round? I'll give you my advised pump number for each balloon, but there's no pressure to follow it. Let’s play together?” This scripted intervention is designed to simulate a realistic interpersonal interaction, introducing advice from a seemingly experienced other while preserving the participant’s autonomy. It serves to test openness to interpersonally transmitted knowledge in a context of uncertainty and prior failure. During the second round (see Figure 1b ), advice accuracy is deliberately varied to model real-world social communication where guidance can be helpful but not infallible. The experimenter provides correct advice for the first three non-exploding trials, then deliberately gives inaccurate advice for three exploding trials, followed by five accurate non-exploding trials. The remaining 19 trials include 15 accurate and 4 inaccurate pieces of advice. In total, advice is correct for 23 out of 30 trials (76.7%) and incorrect for seven (23.3%). The BART-ET score is calculated as the mean absolute difference between the participant’s entered pump number and the experimenter’s advised number across all 30 trials in the second round, regardless of whether the participant pumped more or less. Higher BART-ET scores reflect greater resistance to advice, interpreted as higher epistemic mistrust and lower epistemic trust, while lower BART-ET scores reflect lower resistance and closer adherence to the guidance received, suggesting lower epistemic mistrust and higher epistemic trust. To disguise the true aim of assessing epistemic trust, an additional task modification was included: balloon colour varied across trials. This encouraged participants to infer a (non-existent) relationship between balloon colour and explosion probability, leading them to focus on superficial features rather than the role of advice. This misdirection was intended to reduce demand characteristics and enhance the ecological validity of the advice-taking context. Statistical Analysis All analyses were conducted in RStudio (v4.2.1). Descriptive statistics summarised sample characteristics. Assumption checks were conducted using Shapiro–Wilk tests, and non-parametric alternatives (e.g., Spearman’s ρ) were used where key variables showed significant non-normality and transformations were insufficient. The following sections outline the statistical models, variables, covariates, and adjustments applied for each hypothesis. Bonferroni corrections were used where multiple comparisons were made across conceptually distinct outcome variables, with specific alpha levels reported per hypothesis. Missing data were minimal due to the design of the questionnaires and behavioural task; all analyses were conducted on complete cases. Pearson correlations explored associations between general psychological distress (BSI-GSI) and epistemic mistrust (BART-ET and ETMCQ subscales). Where significant associations emerged, BSI-GSI was included as a covariate in follow-up analyses (e.g., partial correlations or SEM). Hypothesis 1 (Study 1) Pearson correlations tested associations between borderline personality features (PAI-BOR total score) and epistemic mistrust as measured by the BART-ET discrepancy score. The BART-ET score reflects the mean absolute difference between the participant’s pump entries and the experimenter’s advice across trials, with larger discrepancies indicating greater advice resistance (i.e., lower epistemic trust). Normality was checked and transformations applied where appropriate; where assumptions were violated, non-parametric alternatives (Spearman’s rho) were used. Correlations were conducted separately by study. A positive association between PAI-BOR and BART-ET was hypothesised. Hypothesis 2 (Study 1) Pearson correlations examined associations between PAI-BOR scores and self-reported epistemic stance (ETMCQ subscales). Borderline features were expected to correlate negatively with epistemic trust, and positively with epistemic mistrust and credulity. Separate analyses were run for each study. Bonferroni correction was applied across the three comparisons ( α ≈ .017). As an alternative, the false discovery rate (FDR) was considered. If general psychological distress (BSI-GSI) was associated with any epistemic stance subscale, it was included as a covariate in partial correlations. Hypothesis 3 (Study 1) Pearson correlations tested the association between the behavioural index (BART-ET) and self-reported epistemic stance (ETMCQ subscales). Specifically, BART-ET scores were expected to correlate negatively with epistemic trust and positively with epistemic mistrust. Bonferroni correction was applied ( α = .025). Spearman’s rho was used where assumptions of normality were violated. Hypothesis 4 (Study 2) Pearson correlations tested associations between childhood trauma (CTQ total score) and: (a) behavioural epistemic trust/mistrust (BART-ET), (b) self-reported epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity (ETMCQ subscales), and (c) borderline features (PAI-BOR). Trauma severity was hypothesised to correlate negatively with epistemic trust and positively with epistemic mistrust, credulity, BPD features, and BART-ET. Bonferroni correction was applied across the five comparisons ( α = .01). Where necessary, transformations or non-parametric alternatives were applied. Dose–response associations were also explored descriptively using CTQ severity categories and visualised using bar charts, with the expectation that higher trauma severity would relate to increased mistrust, credulity, and borderline traits. Hypothesis 5 (Study 2) SEM was used to test whether epistemic mistrust mediated the relationship between childhood trauma (CTQ) and borderline features (PAI-BOR), controlling for general distress assessed with the BSI. Mistrust was operationalised both behaviourally (BART-ET) and via self-report (ETMCQ subscales), allowing comparison of mediation effects across methods. Models used maximum likelihood estimation with bootstrapped confidence intervals (5,000 resamples) to assess indirect effects. Results Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics for variables in Study 1 are presented in Table 2a , and for Study 2 in Table 2b . For the BART-ET, mean discrepancy scores between the advice given and actual pump entries were comparable across studies. Participants in Study 1 ( N = 120) had a mean discrepancy of M = 14.26 ( SD = 8.02; range = 1.00–36.90), and participants in Study 2 ( N = 153) had a mean of M = 14.86 ( SD = 9.49; range = 0.00–46.87). Scores on the PAI-BOR were slightly higher in Study 2 ( M = 27.63, SD = 10.48; range = 3.00–58.00) than in Study 1 ( M = 25.67, SD = 11.99; range = 5.00–67.00).Scores on the ETMCQ were consistent across studies. In Study 1, participants reported mean scores of M = 26.67 ( SD = 4.54; range = 13.00–35.00) for epistemic trust, M = 20.96 ( SD = 4.89; range = 9.00–33.00) for epistemic mistrust, and M = 16.57 ( SD = 5.90; range = 5.00–34.00) for credulity. In Study 2, corresponding means were M = 26.53 ( SD = 4.24; range = 14.00–35.00), M = 21.50 ( SD = 4.13; range = 12.00–32.00), and M = 16.67 ( SD = 6.25; range = 5.00–31.00), respectively. Study 2 additionally assessed childhood trauma and general psychological distress. The CTQ total score had a mean of M = 42.45 ( SD = 10.25; range = 28.00–96.00). Subscale means ranged from M = 6.13 for physical abuse ( SD = 2.88; range = 5.00–21.00) to M = 12.05 for emotional abuse ( SD = 3.59; range = 5.00–21.00), with other subscales reported in Table 2b .The BSI-GSI raw scores averaged M = 0.96 ( SD = 0.58; range = 0.00–2.55), with T scores averaging M = 60.50 ( SD = 14.75; range = 39.94–100.59). Given that the average T score in this sample falls within the 60–64 range, participants reported, on average, psychological distress at a borderline clinical level. Assumption Checks Normality of key continuous variables was assessed using Shapiro–Wilk tests in both studies. In Study 1, the distributions of BART-ET, PAI-BOR, and epistemic trust significantly deviated from normality (all p .05). In Study 2, BART-ET, epistemic trust, credulity, the CTQ total score, and raw BSI-GSI scores were non-normally distributed (all p < .001), while PAI-BOR and epistemic mistrust met normality assumptions. Where appropriate, variables were log- or square-root-transformed to improve normality; however, in several cases (e.g., CTQ, BART-ET) transformations did not fully normalize the distributions. Therefore, for hypothesis tests involving these variables, we report Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) alongside or in place of Pearson’s r when assumptions were violated. Unless explicitly noted otherwise, the reported correlation results below used Pearson’s r (with two-tailed significance) for normally distributed measures and Spearman’s ρ for non-normal measures. In all cases, using non-parametric versus parametric tests did not meaningfully alter the conclusions. Hypothesis 1: Behavioural Epistemic Mistrust and BPD Features As hypothesised, increased presence of borderline personality features ( PAI–BOR ) was associated with higher behavioural epistemic mistrust ( r = .27, p < .001), as indexed by BART–ET discrepancy scores in Study 1. Study 2 replicated these findings, showing a slightly stronger association ( r = .44, p < .001). These results support the prediction that individuals with more pronounced borderline traits exhibit increased behavioural epistemic mistrust. Hypothesis 2: Self-Reported Epistemic Stance and BPD Features As predicted, PAI–BOR was significantly positively correlated with self-reported epistemic mistrust ( r = .43, p < .001) and epistemic credulity ( r = .43, p < .001) in Study 1. Again, these findings were replicated in Study 2 (with epistemic mistrust ( r = .40, p < .001) and credulity ( r = .37, p < .001). However, contrary to expectations, PAI–BOR was not significantly associated with epistemic trust ( r = –.06, p = .76) in Study 1, a finding which was replicated in Study 2 ( r = .09, p = .24). Bonferroni corrections ( α ≈ .017) confirmed that the positive associations with mistrust and credulity remained statistically significant in both studies. Hypothesis 3: Concordance Between Behavioural and Self-Report Measures In Study 1, as expected, BART-ET scores were significantly positively correlated with self-reported epistemic mistrust ( r = .33, p < .001). The correlation with epistemic trust was negative but non-significant ( r = –.11, p = .18). In Study 2, BART-ET again correlated positively with self-reported epistemic mistrust ( r = .40, p < .001), but not with epistemic trust ( r = .06, p = .26). Although not specified in our preregistered hypotheses, we also examined the correlation between BART-ET scores and the self-reported epistemic credulity as an exploratory analysis. A modest association was observed in Study 1 ( r = .18, p = .01), but this did not replicate in Study 2 ( r = .07, p = .27). After applying a Bonferroni correction ( α = .025), only the positive associations between BART-ET and self-reported epistemic mistrust remained statistically significant across both studies. These results indicated that the behavioural task primarily reflects the mistrust dimension of epistemic stance, and importantly, that high BART-ET scores are not simply equivalent to low Trust scores. General Distress as a Covariate (Study 2) Before testing trauma-related hypotheses, we conducted an exploratory check of whether general psychological distress (BSI-GSI) might confound or broadly influence the associations of interest in Study 2. Spearman correlations (due to non-normal distributions) showed that BSI-GSI scores were positively correlated with the BART-ET behavioural mistrust measure ( ρ = .29, p < .001). Similarly, higher distress was associated with higher self-reported Mistrust ( ρ = .28, p < .001) and Credulity ( ρ = .27, p < .001). The correlation between distress and self-reported Trust was small and nonsignificant ( ρ = .06, p = .40). These patterns suggest that individuals experiencing greater general distress also tend to be more epistemically mistrustful and credulous, and they show less openness to advice on the behavioural task. Given these findings, BSI-GSI was included as a covariate in subsequent analyses involving epistemic mistrust and BPD features (e.g., in the mediation models) to parse out variance attributable to general distress. We note that because this examination of distress was not a preregistered hypothesis (it was an exploratory addition to inform covariate use), we did not apply multiple comparison corrections for these particular correlations. Hypothesis 4: Childhood Trauma, Epistemic Stance, and BPD Features (Study 2) In line with Hypothesis 4, primary analyses focused on the association between total childhood trauma exposure and key psychological outcomes in Study 2. Due to significant non-normality in CTQ total scores (skew = 1.47, kurtosis = 7.09), Spearman’s ρ was used for all correlational analyses. As shown in Table 2b , higher CTQ total scores, as expected, were significantly associated with higher self-reported epistemic mistrust ( ρ = .28, p < .05) and with higher borderline features ( ρ = .46, p < .001). Associations with other variables—self-reported epistemic credulity ( ρ = .23, p = .06), epistemic trust ( ρ = –.13, p = .19), and behaviourally assessed epistemic mistrust (BART-ET) ( ρ = .19, p = .09)—however, were not statistically significant, although a trend-level association with self-reported epistemic credulity was observed. After applying Bonferroni correction ( α = .01), only the associations with epistemic mistrust and PAI-BOR remained statistically significant. These results partially supported that childhood trauma was linked to greater mistrust and elevated BPD features, but its expected associations with credulity, trust, and behavioural mistrust were weak or non-significant in this non-clinical sample. We further explored potential dose–response relationships between subtypes of trauma and psychological outcomes using CTQ subscale scores. Although a tertile-based approach (low, moderate, severe; Bernstein & Fink, 1998) was initially considered, most subscales had too few participants in the severe trauma category ( n < 3), limiting statistical power. Binary grouping was therefore adopted, with moderate and severe cases combined into a single “high exposure” category. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were conducted to compare levels of epistemic trust/mistrust (as measured behaviourally by BART-ET ), self-reported epistemic stance ( ETMCQ subscales), borderline personality features ( PAI-BOR ), and psychological distress ( BSI-GSI ) between “low trauma” and “high trauma” groups. Group differences were examined separately for behaviourally assessed epistemic mistrust (BART-ET) and self-reported epistemic stance (ETMCQ subscales), alongside borderline personality features (PAI-BOR) and general distress (BSI-GSI). As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2 , BART-ET scores were significantly higher in the high trauma group for emotional abuse ( p = .032), physical abuse ( p = .047), and physical neglect ( p = .029), suggesting greater behavioural epistemic mistrust in participants with these trauma histories. While these findings align with the hypothesis that childhood trauma is associated with heightened epistemic mistrust, none of the BART-ET differences remained significant after Bonferroni correction ( α ≈ .002), indicating only partial support for this association. Self-reported epistemic mistrust was also significantly higher in the high trauma group overall and then for emotional neglect ( p = .028) and physical neglect ( p = .029), while epistemic credulity was higher in relation to emotional abuse ( p < .001) and physical neglect ( p = .002). Only the latter association with credulity remained significant after correction for multiple testing. More robust and consistent effects were observed for PAI-BOR and BSI-GSI. Both were significantly higher in the high trauma group when total CTQ scores were used as the grouping variable ( ps < .001), consistent with preregistered expectations. Exploratory subscale comparisons also revealed elevated PAI-BOR and BSI-GSI scores across all CTQ subscales ( ps < .001), and all of these effects remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. These results indicated strong associations between childhood trauma and both borderline personality features and general psychological distress. Hypothesis 5: Mediation of Childhood Trauma and BPD Features via Epistemic Mistrust (Study 2) To test whether epistemic mistrust mediates the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, we conducted a series of bootstrapped SEMs using 5,000 resamples. The models estimated indirect effects and reported standard model fit indices. In line with the preregistered analysis plan, epistemic mistrust was modelled using two separate manifest indicators: (1) behavioural epistemic mistrust, measured via BART–ET discrepancy scores; and (2) self-reported epistemic mistrust, measured using the ETMCQ Mistrust subscale. Each indicator was tested in an independent mediation model to assess whether it accounted for the indirect pathway from childhood trauma (CTQ total score) to borderline personality features (PAI–BOR). As shown in Table 4a and Figure 3a , the mediation model using BART–ET as the mediator tested whether behaviourally assessed epistemic mistrust explained the relationship between childhood trauma and BPD features, controlling for general distress. Model fit indices could not be computed due to the model’s just-identified structure (i.e., zero degrees of freedom). Childhood trauma did not significantly predict the BART-ET mediator (path a : β = 0.08, 95% CI [–0.09, 0.25], p = .247). While higher trauma was associated with slightly higher BART-ET scores on average, this path was weak and nonsignificant. The path from BART-ET to BPD features (path b ) was, however, significant: β = 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.40], p < .001, indicating that independent of trauma, participants who showed more behavioural mistrust tended to have higher BPD trait scores. The indirect effect of trauma on BPD via BART-ET was β = 0.02 (95% CI [–0.03, 0.07]), which was not statistically significant ( p = .068). The direct effect of trauma on BPD (path c’ ) remained significant (β = 0.21, 95% CI [0.06, 0.36], p < .01). Additionally, the covariate general distress (BSI-GSI) had significant influences on both BART-ET (β = 0.26, p < .001) and BPD features (β = 0.47, p < .001), consistent with our earlier finding that distress correlates with both. In sum, this model provided no significant mediation : although BART-ET was related to BPD features, childhood trauma did not reliably affect BART-ET in this model, so there was no significant indirect pathway. As shown in Table 4b and Figure 3b , the model used the ETMCQ Mistrust subscale as the mediator. Model fit indices were again not applicable due to the model’s just-identified nature. In this case, childhood trauma significantly predicted the self-reported mistrust mediator (path a : β = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.33], p = .022). In turn, higher mistrust significantly predicted higher BPD features (path b : β = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05, 0.29], p = .007). However, the indirect effect via self-reported mistrust was β = 0.03 (95% CI [–0.004, 0.06]), which did not reach statistical significance ( p = .082). The direct effect of trauma on BPD remained significant (β = 0.21, p = .007), and general distress was again a significant covariate for both mistrust (β = 0.23, p = .006) and BPD (β = 0.50, p < .001). Thus, this model also did not find a clear-cut significant mediation ; it suggested a small indirect effect (consistent with partial mediation) but one that fell short of conventional significance ( p ~ .08). Taken together, these two primary models indicate that while both behavioural and self-report mistrust were associated with BPD features, neither accounted for a statistically significant portion of the trauma–BPD link when controlling for distress in this sample. Given the marginal nature of the mediation effects in the preregistered models, we ran exploratory SEM analyses to examine the specificity of the mediation pathway to BPD features, as opposed to general distress. In these follow-up models, we treated general distress (BSI-GSI) as a second outcome rather than a covariate. This approach allowed us to test whether epistemic mistrust mediates the impact of trauma on BPD specifically, beyond its impact on overall psychopathology. In other words, does mistrust play a more critical role for BPD traits than for general distress? We estimated two parallel mediation models with two outcomes (a bivariate outcome SEM). In one model, BART-ET was the mediator; in the other, ETMCQ Mistrust was the mediator. Both models were just-identified (with one mediator and two outcomes), so fit indices were again not applicable. As shown in Table 4c and Figure 3c , a parallel mediation model was estimated using BART–ET as the mediator to evaluate whether behavioural epistemic mistrust explained the relationship between childhood trauma and both BPD features and general psychological distress. Childhood trauma significantly predicted BART-ET scores in this model (β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.037, 0.349], p = .015), indicating that when not partialling out distress, trauma had a modest positive association with behavioural mistrust. In turn, BART-ET significantly predicted both BPD features (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.257, 0.503], p < .001) and general distress (β = 0.22, 95% CI [0.092, 0.344], p = .001) as outcomes. We observed a significant indirect effect of trauma on BPD via BART-ET (β = 0.07, 95% CI [0.011, 0.135], p = .020). However, the indirect effect of trauma on general distress via BART-ET was not significant (β = 0.04, 95% CI [–0.002, 0.087], p = .063). In this model, the direct effect of trauma on BPD remained significant (β = 0.40, p < .001), as did the direct effect on distress (β = 0.40, p < .001). Thus, when considering both outcomes simultaneously, behavioural epistemic mistrust mediated a significant portion of the trauma effect on BPD features, but did not significantly mediate the effect on general distress . As shown in Table 4d and Figure 3d , this model used ETMCQ Mistrust as mediator. Childhood trauma again had a significant effect on self-reported mistrust (β = 0.28, 95% CI [0.153, 0.406], p < .001), which in turn significantly predicted both outcomes—BPD features (β = 0.27, 95% CI [0.138, 0.400], p < .001) and general distress (β = 0.20, 95% CI [0.053, 0.356], p = .008). Here, the indirect effects of trauma via self-reported mistrust were significant for both outcomes: for BPD features, β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.041, 0.124], p = .003; for general distress, β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.023, 0.108], p = .023. The direct effects of trauma on BPD and on distress remained significant (β = 0.40 and β = 0.39, respectively, both p < .001). This indicates partial mediation : self-reported epistemic mistrust carried a small but significant portion of the effect of trauma on both borderline traits and overall symptom distress. In summary, when not partialling out shared variance with general distress, both behavioural and self-reported mistrust showed evidence of mediating the trauma–BPD link , consistent with our theoretical expectation. However, the behavioural measure’s mediation effect was weaker and specific to BPD (not significant for general distress), whereas the self-report mistrust measure mediated the impact of trauma on both BPD features and general distress. These findings suggested that while both behavioural and self-report indices capture epistemic processes relevant to borderline features, self-reported mistrust may more sensitively reflect internal distress linked to trauma. Age and Gender as Covariates Age and gender were examined as potential covariates across both studies. Age was not significantly associated with any primary variables of interest, including epistemic stance measures (BART-ET, ETMCQ subscales), borderline personality features (PAI-BOR), childhood trauma (CTQ), or psychological distress (BSI-GSI). Accordingly, age was not included in any further analyses. Gender showed a significant association with self-reported epistemic trust ( r = –.32, p < .01), with males reporting lower trust levels than females. However, as epistemic trust was not significantly associated with other primary outcomes (e.g., PAI-BOR, CTQ, or BART-ET), gender was not retained as a covariate in subsequent models. These findings indicate that demographic variables did not meaningfully confound the key associations under investigation and were therefore excluded from the final analytic models. Discussion This study investigated how epistemic mistrust—operationalised through both a novel behavioural paradigm and established self-report measures—relates to borderline personality features, childhood trauma, and psychological distress in young adults. Drawing on data from two independent samples (Study 1: N = 120; Study 2: N = 153), we tested five preregistered hypotheses and evaluated the construct validity of the newly developed BART-ET. Consistent with hypotheses, higher borderline traits were reliably associated with greater epistemic mistrust across both behavioural and self-report indices. Childhood trauma was also positively related to borderline features and epistemic mistrust, and our mediation analyses suggested that epistemic mistrust partially mediated this relationship. By contrast, epistemic trust itself was not significantly associated with trauma, BPD traits, or psychological distress in our non-clinical sample. These findings reinforce the centrality of epistemic mistrust—not simply the absence of trust—as a mechanism of personality vulnerability. Overall, consistent with emerging theoretical models, our findings extend prior work by demonstrating that the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features is partially explained by epistemic mistrust. This adds empirical support to proposals that epistemic stance—particularly mistrust—may function as a developmental mechanism linking early relational adversity to later personality vulnerability [ 2 , 21 ]. In line with recent findings [ 24 ], we observed that trauma was associated with higher BPD traits, but crucially, we show that this association is partially mediated by mistrust, using both self-report and a novel behavioural measure. The BART-ET task offers a new means of capturing epistemic stance in real-time decision-making, and our findings provide the first evidence that these interpersonal cognitive processes can be observed behaviourally—advancing beyond previous reliance on self-report. In doing so, the study contributes novel evidence for epistemic mistrust as a measurable and potentially dynamic mechanism of psychological vulnerability. While moderately correlated with the ETMCQ Mistrust subscale, the BART-ET appears to capture unique variance. It may reflect behavioural tendencies such as cautious decision-making, sensitivity to uncertainty, or resistance to social influence—dimensions not fully accessible through introspective self-report. Consistent with prior observations [ 23 ], our findings highlight a potential asymmetry in epistemic stance: the maladaptive forms of stance—epistemic mistrust and, to a lesser extent, epistemic credulity—were more predictive of borderline vulnerability than the mere absence of trust per se . This pattern supported theoretical accounts suggesting that disruptions to epistemic calibration emerge in response to early relational adversity, fostering patterns of pervasive doubt or over-acceptance that may persist even when no longer adaptive. In particular, individuals reporting higher borderline personality features demonstrated greater epistemic mistrust on both the BART-ET and the ETMCQ, with moderate effect sizes replicated across two independent samples. These findings align with prior work suggesting that BPD traits are marked by persistent interpersonal vigilance and difficulties integrating social information—even in benign or affiliative contexts [ 42 , 43 ]. In our paradigm, the experimenter was framed as friendly and experienced, and the advice provided was mostly accurate—conditions known to foster epistemic trust in typical development [ 44 ]—yet participants with elevated BPD features remained resistant to guidance. This supported the idea that epistemic mistrust in BPD reflects a generalised or inflexible stance rather than a context-sensitive adaptation. While such mistrust may have emerged as a protective response to past interpersonal unreliability, it may persist in ways that hinder social learning and reinforce maladaptive expectations, even in the absence of threat. In both studies, borderline personality features were associated not only with heightened epistemic mistrust but also with elevated credulity. Although this dual pattern may seem paradoxical, it aligns with theoretical accounts suggesting that early adversity can lead to heightened interpersonal sensitivity, manifesting as oscillations between defensive scepticism and uncritical acceptance [ 6 ]. This dynamic mirrors the interpersonal instability central to borderline pathology, wherein individuals may swing between distrust and excessive trust in response to relational cues and emotional states. The lack of a significant association for epistemic trust in our studies aligns with prior work indicating that the ETMCQ’s trust subscale may be less sensitive to clinical variation, perhaps because it taps general affiliative tendencies rather than specific vulnerabilities in social information processing [ 6 , 44 ]. From a developmental standpoint, epistemic trust may represent a default baseline stance established in safe relational contexts [ 45 ], whereas mistrust and credulity reflect adaptations to past relational unpredictability. Taken together, these findings suggest that disruptions in epistemic calibration—whether through excessive vigilance or uncritical acceptance—are more characteristic of borderline personality features than a simple absence of trust. This highlights the need for interventions that support the development of more stable and calibrated epistemic orientations, rather than merely aiming to increase trust. Results from both studies also supported the construct validity of the BART-ET as a behavioural measure of epistemic mistrust. The task showed consistent, moderate correlations with self-reported epistemic mistrust (ETMCQ) and with borderline personality features, supporting convergent validity. Crucially, BART-ET scores were not significantly associated with self-reported epistemic trust, highlighting discriminant validity and reinforcing the conceptual distinction between mistrust and the mere absence of trust. Latent models combining BART-ET and self-reported epistemic mistrust were tested but yielded weak psychometric indicators, supporting our decision to model behavioural and self-report indices separately. Nonetheless, the inclusion of both types of measures underscores the value of multi-method approaches for capturing interpersonal cognitive styles that may not be fully accessible through self-report alone [ 46 , 47 ]. Overall, our findings suggested that the BART-ET captures unique variance in epistemic stance that complements, rather than duplicates, self-report measures, strengthening its potential utility for assessing social-cognitive vulnerabilities in both research and applied settings. Moreover, consistent with theories linking early adversity to enduring interpersonal vulnerabilities [ 2 ], we found that childhood trauma was significantly associated with both epistemic mistrust and borderline personality features in Study 2. Among trauma subtypes, emotional neglect and emotional abuse showed the strongest associations with these outcomes [ 27 ]. However, trauma did not show significant associations with epistemic trust, credulity, or the behavioural BART-ET measure. This pattern suggests that early relational adversity may heighten enduring suspicion (i.e., epistemic mistrust) more than it directly diminishes affiliative openness or increases credulity. Alternatively, these null findings could reflect limitations of retrospective trauma reporting or of the BART-ET’s sensitivity to subtle trust-related changes. Still, the clear convergence between trauma exposure and self-reported mistrust aligns with the view that early relational disruptions sensitize individuals to potential epistemic threat, especially in contexts requiring trust in others’ intentions. Our analyses indicated that epistemic mistrust partly mediated the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, as observed with both self-report and behavioural indicators. However, the indirect effect did not reach statistical significance in the preregistered models that controlled for psychological distress; significant mediation paths emerged only in exploratory models. These findings supported developmental theories proposing that early relational adversity—particularly in the form of emotional neglect or abuse—can shape how individuals interpret and respond to social communication, fostering enduring difficulties in openness to interpersonal input [ 48 ]. Importantly, direct effects of trauma on BPD features remained significant in all models, indicating partial (rather than full) mediation. This underscores the importance of epistemic mistrust as a developmental mechanism, while also suggesting that other processes—such as attachment insecurity or emotional dysregulation—likely contribute to this pathway. Notably, our results provide the first behavioural evidence of this indirect association—previously observed only with self-report measures [ 6 ]—underscoring the need for longitudinal research to clarify how epistemic stance develops over time and under what conditions it becomes maladaptive. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that general psychological distress was significantly associated with epistemic mistrust, credulity, and the behavioural BART-ET score, but not with epistemic trust. These findings indicate that individuals experiencing higher levels of distress may adopt a more cautious or conflicted stance toward social information—manifesting as heightened suspicion or uncritical acceptance—rather than simply exhibiting reduced trust. This suggests that general distress may amplify maladaptive social-cognitive processing [ 25 ], particularly in contexts where epistemic vigilance becomes exaggerated or poorly calibrated. Previous studies using the ETMCQ have consistently found that while mistrust and credulity show strong relationships with both childhood adversity and psychopathology, epistemic trust tends to have only weak or non-significant negative associations with these outcomes [ 49 – 51 ]. This has been attributed to potential limitations of the ETMCQ’s trust subscale [ 44 , 52 ]. However, the emergence of a similar pattern when assessing trust via our behavioural task tentatively supported the view that mistrust and trust are not merely opposite ends of a continuum [ 6 ]; instead, epistemic mistrust may represent a distinct psychological process with particular relevance for understanding vulnerability to psychopathology. Notably, reductions in epistemic mistrust over the course of treatment have been shown to predict symptom improvement [ 53 – 55 ], further highlighting its clinical relevance. Exploratory analyses also revealed that males in our sample reported significantly lower levels of epistemic trust compared to females. This finding partially aligns with prior research indicating that men tend to score lower on epistemic trust and higher on epistemic mistrust and credulity [ 6 ], suggesting potential gender-based differences in epistemic stance. Given that borderline personality traits also show gender-linked variation—with higher reported prevalence among females but possible underdiagnosis in males [ 56 ]—these findings underscore the need to examine gender more systematically in future work. Limitations and Future Research Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, some relate to the characteristics of the study sample, including its clinical status, ethnicity and gender composition, and developmental range. Although participants were drawn from a non-clinical population, a meaningful subset scored above the clinical threshold for borderline personality features on the PAI-BOR and reported borderline clinical levels of psychological distress on the BSI-GSI. Future research should examine whether similar patterns emerge in clinical samples, where epistemic difficulties may be more pervasive or entrenched. Our sample was predominantly Asian and female and drawn from a university population, which may limit the generalisability of the results. Future research should explore whether individuals from different ethnic, gender, cultural, socio-economic, or educational backgrounds experience or develop epistemic mistrust in distinct ways, shaped by their unique social and cultural environments. Additionally, given that epistemic stance likely develops across the lifespan, it would be valuable to replicate this paradigm across different age groups to examine how epistemic mistrust may shift across development. Second, the BART-ET was developed by adapting the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) but departs from its original focus on risk-taking behaviours, such as reward sensitivity or risk aversion. In the present design, the task was reframed entirely to assess discrepancy from social input as an index of epistemic stance, rather than decision-making under risk. Round 1 served to generate an emotional context by setting a fixed high explosion rate to induce a sense of unpredictability or failure, while Round 2 assessed openness to advice under this induced stress through pump discrepancies. As such, the BART-ET does not capture the original task’s constructs related to risk-taking under uncertainty—such as risk-taking propensity, impulsivity, reward sensitivity, or risk aversion—which were typically measured through metrics like mean pumps on non-exploded balloons, total earnings, or number of explosions. Future research could incorporate parallel measures of risk propensity or reintegrate components of the original BART to examine whether and how epistemic mistrust intersects with risk sensitivity, reward expectancy, and impulsivity. Third, the BART-ET scoring method calculates only the absolute discrepancy from the advised pump number, treating over- and under-responses as equivalent. This approach may obscure whether participants are actively rejecting advice (e.g., overshooting: “I mistrust the advice and I’ll go beyond it to test or reject it”) or playing cautiously due to mistrust or uncertainty (e.g., undershooting: “I don’t believe the advice and I’ll play it safe”). These behaviours may reflect distinct epistemic mistrust strategies—such as active opposition versus cautious withdrawal—that are not captured when directionality is ignored. Future versions of the task could disaggregate these response types to better differentiate the cognitive-affective processes underlying epistemic mistrust. Fourth, the current version of the BART-ET does not distinguish between epistemic trust and credulity. Participants who follow the experimenter's advice closely—showing low discrepancy scores—may be doing so out of openness to new information (i.e. epistemic trust) or out of indiscriminate acceptance of information (i.e., epistemic credulity). Without a mechanism to assess whether advice-taking reflects appropriate calibration or blind acceptance, the task cannot reliably differentiate adaptive trust from maladaptive credulity. This limitation complicates the interpretation of convergence between the behavioural task and the ETMCQ trust subscale, and may partially explain the lack of significant associations. Future iterations of the BART-ET could integrate conditions with misleading or clearly unreliable advice to test whether participants are sensitive to context cues, which would help distinguish epistemic trust from credulity. Finally, the social environment simulated by the task in Round 2 (i.e., 75% accurate, 25% misleading advice) may reflect a relatively benign interpersonal world. Future research should vary the reliability of advice in Round 2 to simulate a broader range of social environments—including those that more closely mirror adverse or unpredictable interpersonal contexts. This would allow researchers to test whether individuals adjust their epistemic stance in response to social cues about reliability (indicating context sensitivity), or whether they continue to distrust advice regardless of accuracy (suggesting more rigid, trait-like mistrust linked to personality vulnerability). Conclusions This study introduces a novel behavioural paradigm for assessing epistemic stance and provides evidence that elevated epistemic mistrust plays a key role in linking childhood trauma to borderline personality vulnerability. By combining behavioural and self-report methods, we demonstrate that epistemic stance can be captured both through reflective self-report measures and in-the-moment interpersonal behaviour. The BART-ET showed unique predictive value, underscoring the benefit of a multi-method assessment approach. Although the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, the pattern of associations supported conceptualising epistemic mistrust as a socially calibrated adaptation to early adversity. Future refinements of the BART-ET (for example, incorporating conditions to clearly distinguish trust from credulity) could further enhance its value for both research and clinical applications. Overall, these findings supported growing calls to consider epistemic stance as a transdiagnostic marker of social-cognitive vulnerability, particularly in the context of personality development. Abbreviations BART Balloon Analogue Risk Task BART‑ET Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust version BPD Borderline Personality Disorder PAI‑BOR Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale ETMCQ Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire CTQ Childhood Trauma Questionnaire BSI Brief Symptom Inventory BSI‑GSI Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index SEM Structural Equation Modelling SD Standard Deviation M Mean N Sample size (number of participants) Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This research comprises two studies, each of which was preregistered separately on the Open Science Framework (OSF): Study 1 https://osf.io/h95jb, and Study 2 https://osf.io/yh7ja. Both studies received ethical approval from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Study 1: 18057.001; Study 2: 0466). All participants read an information sheet and provided written informed consent before taking part. Data Availability Statement The data from this study are not publicly available, as consent for data sharing was not included in the participant consent form. However, the laboratory task (BART-ET) can be made available upon request by contacting the authors. Authors’ contributions This research study was conceptualised, carried out, and written up as part of Elizabeth Li’s doctoral thesis for her PhD in Developmental Psychopathology and Psychotherapy at UCL Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology. The project was closely supervised by Patrick Luyten and Chloe Campbell, who made substantial intellectual contributions from its inception through to its completion. The behavioural task introduced in this study was developed by Patrick Luyten and Linda Mayes. Georgia McRedmond contributed to the data analysis. Funding No external funding was received specifically for this study. The conduct of the study received departmental and funding support from the UCL Psychoanalysis Unit and the UCL Psychology and Language Sciences Division. Competing interests We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. Acknowledgements Not applicable. General Scientific Summary This research introduces a new behavioural task—the BART-ET—to measure how open people are to trusting advice from others. Across two studies with young adults, we found that individuals with more borderline personality traits were less likely to follow interpersonal advice, especially if they had experienced childhood trauma. This reluctance was linked to a general mistrust of others’ knowledge rather than low trust alone. Our findings suggested that epistemic mistrust may play an important role in personality difficulties and that behavioural tasks like the BART-ET can offer new ways to study social thinking in clinical contexts. References Bohus M, Stoffers-Winterling J, Sharp C, Schmahl C, Lieb K. Borderline personality disorder. Lancet. 2021;398(10310):1528–40. Fonagy P, Luyten P, Allison E, Campbell C. What we have changed our minds about: Part 1. Borderline personality disorder as a limitation of resilience. Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2017;4:9. Fonagy P, Luyten P, Allison E. Epistemic petrification and the restoration of epistemic trust: a new conceptualization of borderline personality disorder and its treatment. J Pers Disord. 2015;29(5):575–609. Bateman A, Rüfenacht E, Perroud N, Debbané M, Nolte T, Shaverin L, Fonagy P. Childhood maltreatment, dissociation and borderline personality disorder: preliminary data on the mediational role of mentalizing in complex post‐traumatic stress disorder. Psychology and Psychotherapy . 2024;97(Suppl 1):58–74. van Dijke A, Hopman JAB, Ford JD. Affect dysregulation, psychoform dissociation, and adult relational fears mediate the relationship between childhood trauma and complex posttraumatic stress disorder independent of the symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2018;9(1):1400878. Campbell C, Tanzer M, Saunders R, Booker T, Allison E, Li E, O’Dowda C, Luyten P, Fonagy P. Development and validation of a self‑report measure of epistemic trust. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 16;16(4):e0250264. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250264. Sharp C, Fonagy P. Practitioner review: Borderline personality disorder in adolescence—recent conceptualization, intervention, and implications for clinical practice. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56(12):1266–88. King‑Casas B, Sharp C, Lomax‑Bream L, Lohrenz T, Fonagy P, Montague PR. The rupture and repair of cooperation in borderline personality disorder. Science. 2008;321(5890):806–10. Liebke L, Koppe G, Bungert M, Thome J, Hauschild S, Defiebre N, et al. Difficulties with being socially accepted: an experimental study in borderline personality disorder. J Abnorm Psychol. 2018;127(7):670–82. De Panfilis C, Riva P, Preti E, Cabrino C, Marchesi C. When social inclusion is not enough: implicit expectations of relational damage in borderline personality disorder. Pers Disord Theory Res Treat. 2015;6(3):230–8. Franzen N, Hagenhoff M, Baer N, Schmidt A, Mier D, Sammer G, et al. Superior ‘theory of mind’ in borderline personality disorder: an analysis of interaction behavior in a virtual trust game. Psychiatry Res. 2011;187(1–2):224–33. Unoka Z, Seres I, Aspán N, Bódi N, Kéri S. Trust game reveals restricted interpersonal transactions in patients with borderline personality disorder. J Pers Disord. 2009;23(4):399–409. Fertuck EA, Grinband J, Stanley B. Facial trust appraisal negatively biased in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2013;207(3):195–202. Kleindienst N, Hauschild S, Liebke L, Thome J, Bertsch K, Hensel S, et al. A negative bias in decoding positive social cues characterizes emotion processing in patients with symptom‑remitted borderline personality disorder. Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2019;6:1–9. Miano A, Fertuck EA, Arntz A, Stanley B. Rejection sensitivity is a mediator between borderline personality disorder features and facial trust appraisal. J Pers Disord. 2013;27(4):442–56. Preißler S, Dziobek I, Ritter K, Heekeren HR, Roepke S. Social cognition in borderline personality disorder: evidence for disturbed recognition of the emotions, thoughts, and intentions of others. Front Behav Neurosci. 2010;4:182. Sharp C. The social‑cognitive basis of borderline personality disorder: a theory of hypermentalizing. In: Sharp C, Tackett JL, editors. The handbook of borderline personality disorder in children and adolescents. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 211–28. Vaskinn A, Antonsen BT, Fretland RA, Dziobek I, Sundet K, Wilberg T. Theory of mind in women with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia: differences in overall ability and error patterns. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1239. Kurt Y, Walker M, Luyten P, Fonagy P. Laboratory‑assessed mistrust in borderline personality disorder: a meta‑analytic review. Pers Disord Theory Res Treat. In press. Bartz JA, Simeon D, Hamilton H, Kim S, Crystal S, Braun A, et al. Oxytocin can hinder trust and cooperation in borderline personality disorder. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011;6(5):556–63. Knapen SRY, Mensink W, Hoogendoorn AW, Swildens WE, Duits P, Hutsebaut J, Beekman ATF. Associations between childhood trauma and epistemic trust, attachment, mentalizing, and symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Psychopathology. 2025;58(3):187–98. Knapen SRY, Mensink W, Swildens WE, Hoogendoorn AW, Duits P, Hutsebaut J, Beekman ATF. Associations between epistemic trust and the severity of personality disorder: results from a study comparing patients with personality disorder, anxiety disorder, and controls. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2025;213(3):65–70. Kumpasoğlu GB, Saunders R, Campbell C, Nolte T, Montague R, Pilling S, Fonagy P. Mentalizing, epistemic trust and interpersonal problems in emotion regulation: a sequential path analysis across common mental health disorders and community control samples. J Affect Disord. 2025;372:502–11. Schwarzer NH, Behringer N, Dees P, Gingelmaier S, Henter M, Kirsch H, Nolte T. Epistemic mistrust mediates the association between childhood maltreatment and impairments in mentalizing in a sample of university students. Child Abuse Negl. 2025;163:107436. Cotter J, Granger K, Backx R, Hobbs M, Looi CY, Barnett JH. Social cognitive dysfunction as a clinical marker: a systematic review of meta‑analyses across 30 clinical conditions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;84:92–9. Gluschkoff K, Jokela M, Rosenström T. General psychopathology factor and borderline personality disorder: evidence for substantial overlap from two nationally representative surveys of US adults. Pers Disord . 2021;12(1):86–92. 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. Wood D, Crapnell T, Lau L, Bennett A, Lotstein D, Ferris M, Kuo A. Emerging adulthood as a critical stage in the life course. In: Halfon N, Forrest CB, Lerner RM, Faustman EM, editors. Handbook of life course health development. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 123–43. Wright AG, Pincus AL, Lenzenweger MF. Interpersonal development, stability, and change in early adulthood. J Pers. 2012;80(5):1339–72. Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8(2):75–84. White TL, Lejuez CW, de Wit H. Test–retest characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;16(6):565–70. Reddy LF, Lee J, Davis MC, Altshuler L, Glahn DC, Miklowitz DJ, Green MF. Impulsivity and risk taking in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014;39(2):456–63. Schoemann AM, Boulton AJ, Short SD. Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017;8(4):379–86. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879‑91. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2015. Morey LC. The Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual. Odessa (FL): Psychological Assessment Resources; 1991. De Moor MHM, Distel MA, Trull TJ, Boomsma DI. Assessment of borderline personality features in population samples: Is the Personality Assessment Inventory–Borderline Features Scale measurement invariant across sex and age? Psychol Assess. 2009;21(1):125‑30. doi:10.1037/a0014502. Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K, Sapareto E, Ruggiero J. Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. Am J Psychiatry . 1994;151(8):1132–6. Spinhoven P, Penninx BWJH, Hickendorff M, van Hemert AM, Bernstein DP, Elzinga BM. Childhood trauma questionnaire: Factor structure, measurement invariance, and validity across emotional disorders. Psychol Assess. 2014;26(3):717‑29. Scher CD, Stein MB, Asmundson GJ, McCreary DR, Forde DR. The childhood trauma questionnaire in a community sample: psychometric properties and normative data. J Trauma Stress . 2001;14(4):843–57. Derogatis LR. The SCL‑90‑R, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and procedures manual. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems; 1993. Lazarus SA, Cheavens JS, Festa F, Rosenthal MZ. Interpersonal functioning in borderline personality disorder: A review of behavioral and biological correlates and a model for future research. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(3):193‑205. Fertuck EA, Preti E. Interpersonal trust and borderline personality disorder: insights from clinical practice and research. J Pers Disord . 2023;37(5):469–74. Li E, Campbell C, Midgley N, Luyten P. Epistemic trust: a comprehensive review of empirical insights and implications for developmental psychopathology. Res Psychother . 2023;26(3):704. Csibra G, Gergely G. Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci . 2011;366(1567):1149–57. Dang J, King KM, Inzlicht M. Why are self-report and behavioral measures weakly correlated? Trends Cogn Sci . 2020;24(4):267–9. Hedge C, Powell G, Bompas A, Sumner P. Self-reported impulsivity does not predict response caution. Pers Individ Dif . 2020;167:110257. Fonagy P, Luyten P. A developmental, mentalization-based approach to the understanding and treatment of borderline personality disorder. Dev Psychopathol . 2009;21(4):1355–81. Liotti M, Milesi A, Spitoni GF, Tanzilli A, Speranza AM, Parolin L, Giovanardi G. Unpacking trust: the Italian validation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ). PLoS One . 2023;18(1):e0280328. Riedl D, Kampling H, Kruse J, Nolte T, Labek K, Kirchhoff C, Lampe A. Epistemic trust is a critical success factor in psychosomatic rehabilitation: results from a naturalistic multi-center observational study. J Clin Med . 2023;13(1):177. Weiland AM, Taubner S, Zettl M, Bartmann LC, Frohn N, Luginsland M, Volkert J. Epistemic trust and associations with psychopathology: validation of the German version of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ). PLoS One . 2024;19(11):e0312995. Campbell C, Delamain H, Saunders R, Tanzer M, Milesi A, Nolte T, Fonagy P. Development and validation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire–Revised (ETMCQ-R). BJPsych Open . In press. Bo S, Sharp C, Beck E, Pedersen J, Gondan M, Simonsen E. First empirical evaluation of outcomes for mentalization-based group therapy for adolescents with BPD. Pers Disord . 2017;8(4):396–401. Li E, Midgley N, Campbell C, Luyten P. A theory-building case study of resolving epistemic mistrust and developing epistemic trust in psychotherapy with depressed adolescents. Psychother Res . 2025;1–19. Li E, Midgley N, Luyten P, Sprecher EA, Campbell C. Mapping the journey from epistemic mistrust in depressed adolescents receiving psychotherapy. J Couns Psychol . 2022;69(5):678–90. Lieb K, Zanarini MC, Schmahl C, Linehan MM, Bohus M. Borderline personality disorder. Lancet . 2004;364(9432):453–61. Tables Table 1 Participant Demographics and Mental Health Characteristics in Study 1 and Study 2 Characteristic Study 1 (N = 120) Study 2 (N = 153) Age 20.06 (1.96)¹ 19.99 (1.85)¹ Sex Female 93 (77%) 121 (79%) Male 26 (22%) 32 (21%) Non-Binary 1 (1%) — Ethnicity ² Asian 79 (65.8%) 80 (52%) Black 7 (5.8%) 8 (5.2%) White 28 (23.3%) 41 (27%) Mixed 3 (2.5%) 12 (7.8%) Other 3 (2.5%) 12 (7.8%) Emotional problems in the past 4 weeks Yes 44 (37%) 69 (45%) No 76 (63%) 75 (49%) Prefer not to say — 9 (5.9%) Rating of Mental Health Excellent 15 (13%) 10 (6.5%) Somewhat Good 51 (43%) 51 (33%) Average 42 (35%) 66 (43%) Somewhat Poor 9 (7.5%) 26 (17%) Poor 3 (2.5%) — Psychological treatment (current or past) Yes 30 (25%) 43 (28%) No 90 (75%) 103 (67%) Prefer not to say — 7 (4.6%) Current medication use for mental health conditions Yes 5 (4.2%) 7 (4.6%) No 107 (89%) 145 (95%) Prefer not to say 8 (6.7%) 1 (0.7%) Socio-economic background ³ Professional background — 103 (67%) Intermediate background — 18 (12%) Lower socio-economic background — 21 (14%) Prefer not to say — 11 (7.2%) ¹ Mean (SD) ² Ethnicity categories are grouped for reporting purposes. ³ Collected in Study 2 only. Socio-economic background assessed via occupation of main household earner at age 14. Table 2a. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Study 1 1 BART-ET 2 PAI-BOR 3 ETMCQ Trust 4 ETMCQ Mistrust 5 ETMCQ Credulity 1 BART-ET — 2 PAI-BOR 0.27** — 3 ETMCQ Trust -0.11 -0.06 — 4 ETMCQ Mistrust 0.33*** 0.43*** -0.20* — 5 ETMCQ Credulity 0.18 0.43*** 0.29** 0.17 — Mean (SD) 14.26 (8.02) 25.67 (11.99) 26.67 (4.54) 20.96 (4.89) 16.58 (5.90) Median (IQR) 13.00 (10.07) 23.5 (16.25) 27.00 (7.25) 21.00 (6.00) 16.5 (8.25) Range 1–36.9 5–67 13–35 9–33 5–34 Cronbach’s Alpha — 0.899 0.707 0.659 0.778 Note . BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire. p < .05 = *; p < .01 = **; p < .001 = ***. Table 2b. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Study 2 1 BART-ET 2 PAI-BOR 3 ETMCQ Trust 4 ETMCQ Mistrust 5 ETMCQ Credulity 6 CTQ Total 7 BSI-GSI 1 BART-ET — 2 PAI-BOR 0.44*** — 3 ETMCQ Trust 0.06 0.09 — 4 ETMCQ Mistrust 0.40*** 0.40*** -0.33*** — 5 ETMCQ Credulity 0.07 0.37*** 0.18* 0.1 — 6 CTQ Total 0.19* 0.46*** -0.13 0.28*** 0.23** — 7 BSI-GSI 0.29*** 0.67*** 0.06 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.44*** — Mean (SD) 14.86 (9.49) 27.63 (10.48) 26.53 (4.24) 21.5 (4.13) 16.67 (6.25) 42.45 (10.25) 60.50 (14.75) Median (IQR) 13.53 (11.35) 28.00 (12.00) 27.00 (5.00) 22.00 (5.00) 16.00 (8.00) 41.00 (14.00) 56.67 (17.52) Range 0–46.87 3–58 14–35 12–32 5–31 28–96 39.94–100.59 Cronbach’s Alpha — 0.856 0.752 0.550 0.792 0.910 0.961 Note . BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire; CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index. CTQ and BSI-GSI were administered in Study 2 only. p < .05 = *; p < .01 = **; p < .001 = ***. Table 3. Mean Scores and Wilcoxon Test Results Comparing Low vs. High Childhood Trauma Groups Across Outcomes CTQ Subscale Outcome Variable Mean (Low) Mean (High) W p Sig Emotional Abuse PAI-BOR 25.1 33.6 1241.0 < .001 *** BART-ET 13.9 17.0 1922.5 .032 * ETMCQ Trust 26.3 27.1 2211.5 .320 ETMCQ Mistrust 21.4 21.7 2312.0 .553 ETMCQ Credulity 15.4 19.7 1512.5 < .001 *** BSI-GSI 57.6 67.3 1535.0 < .001 *** Physical Abuse PAI-BOR 26.9 33.8 712.5 .010 * BART-ET 14.4 18.6 814.0 .047 * ETMCQ Trust 26.6 26.1 1224.0 .694 ETMCQ Mistrust 21.4 22.4 1003.5 .376 ETMCQ Credulity 16.8 15.3 1353.0 .253 BSI-GSI 60.1 63.6 996.0 .354 Sexual Abuse PAI-BOR 26.7 33.9 777.5 .003 ** BART-ET 14.8 15.3 1296.0 .856 ETMCQ Trust 26.5 26.6 1277.5 .778 ETMCQ Mistrust 21.4 22.2 1172.5 .394 ETMCQ Credulity 16.2 19.4 1005.5 .079 † BSI-GSI 58.6 73.0 668.5 < .001 *** Emotional Neglect PAI-BOR 26.0 34.8 877.5 < .001 *** BART-ET 14.4 17.0 1472.5 .191 ETMCQ Trust 26.6 26.2 1856.5 .616 ETMCQ Mistrust 21.2 22.9 1285.5 .028 * ETMCQ Credulity 16.5 17.3 1560.0 .370 BSI-GSI 58.7 68.6 1044.5 < .001 *** Physical Neglect PAI-BOR 25.3 32.3 1650.0 < .001 *** BART-ET 13.8 17.0 2036.5 .029 * ETMCQ Trust 26.4 26.7 2493.0 .676 ETMCQ Mistrust 21.0 22.4 2038.5 .029 * ETMCQ Credulity 15.5 19.0 1808.0 .002 ** BSI-GSI 57.3 66.9 1713.0 < .001 *** Note. Low indicates low trauma exposure. High includes both moderate and severe trauma exposure levels. W = Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic. Significance levels: p < .05 = *; p < .01 = **; p < .001 = ***; † indicates trend-level result ( p < .10). A Bonferroni-corrected threshold of α = .002 was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. Table 4a. Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of each path in the SEM testing BART–ET as a mediator between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, controlling for general psychological distress Path β 95% CI p-Value Path a: CTQ Total to BART-ET 0.08 -0.09 to 0.25 0.247 Path d1: BSI-GSI to BART-ET 0.26 0.12 to 0.41 0.406 Path b: BART-ET to PAI-BOR 0.28 0.16 to 0.40 0.398 Path c: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.21 0.06 to 0.36 0.362 Path d2: BSI-GSI to PAI-BOR 0.47 0.34 to 0.59 0.590 Indirect Path c’: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.02 -0.03 to 0.07 0.068 Note . CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale. p < .05 = *; p < .01 = **; p < .001 = ***. Table 4b. Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of each path in the SEM testing ETMCQ Mistrust as a mediator between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, controlling for general psychological distress Path β 95% CI p-Value Path a: CTQ Total to ETMCQ Mistrust 0.18 0.03 to 0.33 0.022 Path d1: BSI-GSI to ETMCQ Mistrust 0.23 0.07 to 0.40 0.006 Path b: ETMCQ Mistrust to PAI-BOR 0.17 0.05 to 0.29 0.007 Path c: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.21 0.06 to 0.35 0.007 Path d2: BSI-GSI to PAI-BOR 0.50 0.38 to 0.62 <.001 Indirect Path c’: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.03 -0.004 to 0.06 0.082 Note . CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale. p < .05 = *; p < .01 = **; p < .001 = ***. Table 4c. Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each path in the SEM testing BART-ET as a mediator between childhood trauma and both borderline personality features and general psychological distress Path β 95% CI p-Value Path a: CTQ Total to BART-ET 0.19 0.037 – 0.349 0.015 Path b1: BART-ET to PAI-BOR 0.38 0.257 – 0.503 <.001 Path b2: BART-ET to BSI-GSI 0.22 0.092 – 0.344 0.001 Path c1: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.40 0.268 – 0.530 <.001 Path c2: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI 0.40 0.263 – 0.540 <.001 Indirect Path c1’: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.07 0.011 – 0.135 0.020 Indirect Path c2’: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI 0.04 -0.002 – 0.087 0.063 Note . CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale. p < .05 = *; p < .01 = **; p < .001 = ***. Table 4d. Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each path in the SEM testing ETMCQ Mistrust as a mediator between childhood trauma and both borderline personality features and general psychological distress Path β 95% CI p-Value Path a: CTQ Total to ETMCQ Mistrust 0.28 0.153 – 0.406 <.001 Path b1: ETMCQ Mistrust to PAI-BOR 0.27 0.138 – 0.400 <.001 Path b2: ETMCQ Mistrust to BSI-GSI 0.20 0.053 – 0.356 0.008 Path c1: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.40 0.272 – 0.523 <.001 Path c2: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI 0.39 0.243 – 0.530 <.001 Indirect Path c1’: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR 0.08 0.408 – 0.124 0.003 Indirect Path c2’: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI 0.06 0.023 – 0.008 0.023 Note . CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale. p < .05 = *; p < .01 = **; p < .001 = ***. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 31 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 31 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 20 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 06 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 26 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 24 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 18 Jul, 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-7156789","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":498250005,"identity":"ece404a5-e646-4f7d-b482-1e96cc776482","order_by":0,"name":"Elizabeth Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College London","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elizabeth","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":498250006,"identity":"cd7aa546-48a7-4e62-ae05-751a885ac6cf","order_by":1,"name":"Chloe Campbell","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chloe","middleName":"","lastName":"Campbell","suffix":""},{"id":498250007,"identity":"877480d1-37c2-4e0d-a248-396583ed36df","order_by":2,"name":"Linda C. Mayes","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yale School of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Linda","middleName":"C.","lastName":"Mayes","suffix":""},{"id":498250008,"identity":"4a44bb22-19c7-46f4-8df4-d00fdbeeae98","order_by":3,"name":"Georgia McRedmond","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anna Freud Centre","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Georgia","middleName":"","lastName":"McRedmond","suffix":""},{"id":498250009,"identity":"339aea38-e659-444a-90d4-016945f66569","order_by":4,"name":"Patrick Luyten","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Patrick","middleName":"","lastName":"Luyten","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-18 10:38:32","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7156789/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7156789/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-025-00333-z","type":"published","date":"2025-12-26T15:56:59+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88893283,"identity":"f6612fc7-19ab-4448-9137-22641d825213","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 12:55:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33645,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1a.\u003c/strong\u003e BART-ET interface during Round 1 (no advice)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eThe interface displays the virtual balloon and pump controls. Participants complete the first round independently, with 70% of balloons programmed to explode, leading to repeated negative outcomes. This setup establishes a context of uncertainty and failure prior to the introduction of external input in Round 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1a.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/2a69e81a0ac6dbdd7d036f29.jpg"},{"id":88890856,"identity":"eb966fa0-4850-45d2-859b-ad51e04cc735","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 12:47:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36057,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1b.\u003c/strong\u003e BART-ET interface during Round 2 (with advised pump numbers)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eThe interface displays the experimenter’s suggested number of pumps alongside the virtual balloon and pump controls. Advised numbers appear on screen three seconds after each trial begins, simulating interpersonal guidance while preserving participant autonomy. To support this impression, the experimenter visibly enters the advised number on their own device, creating the appearance of playing the task alongside the participant. This setup models advice-taking behaviour, allowing participants to follow, ignore, or deviate from the given recommendation.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1b.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/ca379abab18a26fc3d46367c.jpg"},{"id":88890863,"identity":"8691bc3a-2bc4-4b0d-9e9e-df716c6977d4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 12:47:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":207937,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBar Chart Showing Dose–Response Relationships of Psychological Outcomes by Childhood Trauma Exposure (Low vs. High) Across CTQ Subscales in Study 2\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/8190dcc754bacaaf68e7eaa7.jpg"},{"id":88890858,"identity":"1f96fb31-7430-496b-bc00-2ea4da5a4f66","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 12:47:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39499,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2. \u003c/strong\u003eBar Chart Showing Dose–Response Relationships of Psychological Outcomes by Childhood Trauma Exposure (Low vs. High) Across CTQ Subscales in Study 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote.\u003c/strong\u003eCTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale; BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index. Trauma exposure levels were dichotomised using clinical cut-offs (Bernstein \u0026amp; Fink, 1998), with moderate and severe scores combined into a single “high exposure” group. Participants were grouped into low and high trauma exposure groups for each CTQ subscale. Bars represent mean scores for measure outcomes. Error bars represent standard deviations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3a.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/3c563d359e78da6cf8d72f5b.jpg"},{"id":88890860,"identity":"4abb9aa9-6d04-4984-91ad-0851c5ff75fd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 12:47:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45125,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3a.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eSEM testing BART–ET as a mediator between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, controlling for general psychological distress\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3b.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/9970ae459c9661113c5f6232.jpg"},{"id":88894709,"identity":"13bea49e-61d4-4700-9b7c-bbfd005d6b24","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 13:03:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42624,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3b.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eSEM testing ETMCQ Mistrust as a mediator between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, controlling for general psychological distress\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3c.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/5bfa8ef8a946a45994d6e788.jpg"},{"id":88890869,"identity":"b6eb84ba-7a87-4fbd-9d5d-c3867c1dd638","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 12:47:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46978,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3c.\u003c/strong\u003e SEM testing BART-ET as a mediator between childhood trauma and both borderline personality features and general psychological distress\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3d.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/7dacea712c2918b3b0716e8f.jpg"},{"id":99172214,"identity":"708c779c-bc81-48b2-b842-3a654b79a931","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-29 16:02:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3407167,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7156789/v1/1c1854e2-de1e-47c4-afb3-c49bdc96fcc9.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A Laboratory Task to Assess Epistemic Mistrust: Behavioral Evidence for Mediation Between Childhood Trauma and Borderline Personality Features in Young Adults","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a complex and impairing condition marked by chronic interpersonal instability, affective dysregulation, and identity disturbance [1]. Although BPD affects up to 2% of the general population, its prevalence is considerably higher in clinical settings (ranging from 10% to 50% among psychiatric patients and individuals seeking psychological support). One emerging theoretical account highlights the role of \u003cstrong\u003eepistemic mistrust\u003c/strong\u003e—an enduring tendency to distrust information conveyed by others—in the development and maintenance of BPD [2]. Epistemic trust, by contrast, is thought to develop within secure attachment relationships, where contingent, attuned caregiving fosters openness to social communication and learning. Epistemic trust allows individuals to internalise socially relevant knowledge and adapt to their environment through social learning [3]. In contrast, early interpersonal adversity—such as parental maltreatment—can disrupt attachment security and mentalizing abilities [4, 5], impairing the capacity to evaluate the trustworthiness of others’ communications. In such contexts, maladaptive epistemic strategies may emerge, including rigid skepticism toward others’ communications (i.e. \u003cstrong\u003eepistemic mistrust\u003c/strong\u003e) and overly passive acceptance of information (i.e. \u003cstrong\u003eepistemic credulity\u003c/strong\u003e). These strategies may initially serve as adaptive responses to inconsistent, abusive, or invalidating caregiving [6].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen generalized beyond the original context, however, entrenched mistrust or credulity can impede adaptive social learning. Heightened mistrust may lead individuals to reject even trustworthy or authoritative sources, instead favoring unverified alternatives that confirm pre-existing suspicions. Conversely, extreme credulity may manifest as an indiscriminate or overly trusting acceptance of interpersonal information, leaving one vulnerable to manipulation or misinformation due to insufficient scrutiny of the communicator’s intent. Over time, such disruptions in \u003cstrong\u003eepistemic stance\u003c/strong\u003e may undermine personality and social functioning—affecting identity integration, emotion regulation, and interpersonal boundaries—which are core impairments observed in borderline presentations [3, 7]. Indeed, BPD is often viewed as an exemplar of the clinical consequences of entrenched epistemic mistrust (and sometimes credulity), marked by volatile relationships and distorted social-cognitive processing [2].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExperimental evidence supports the association between BPD traits and social-cognitive disturbance. Individuals with BPD often show reduced trust in social interactions [8] and lower expectations of inclusion [9] and respond less cooperatively even when primed with positive social signals [10-12]. They are also more likely to interpret neutral or ambiguous social cues as threatening or untrustworthy [13-18].\u0026nbsp;A recent meta-analysis further supports this tendency, finding consistent evidence of heightened mistrust in individuals with BPD when assessed through laboratory-based tasks [19]. Interestingly, intranasal oxytocin— a neuropeptide usually known to enhance prosocial behaviour—failed to increase trust in individuals with BPD [20]. These patterns suggest a deep-seated disruption in their social information processing and capacity to engage in trusting interpersonal exchanges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo date, a few empirical studies have relied on self-report to examine the role of epistemic stance in the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features. Knapen et al. [21] found that epistemic trust mediated the link between childhood trauma and BPD features, although trust explained less variance than attachment or mentalizing. In a second study, Knapen et al. [22] showed that individuals with personality disorders, especially BPD, report lower epistemic trust than both healthy and clinical controls. More comprehensive models have been proposed by Kumpasoğlu et al. [23] and Schwarzer et al. [24], who modelled all three epistemic stance dimensions as mediators of the trauma–BPD link. Kumpasoğlu et al. [23] found that trauma predicted increased mistrust and credulity, but only these dimensions—not epistemic trust—significantly mediated the trauma–BPD link. Similarly, Schwarzer et al. [24] demonstrated that mistrust, but not trust, mediated the effects of trauma on personality functioning. These findings suggest that mistrust and credulity are more strongly linked to personality vulnerability than the mere absence of trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile disruptions in epistemic trust have been closely linked to borderline personality features, it remains unclear whether this association reflects a distinct interpersonal dysfunction characteristic of BPD or a broader, transdiagnostic marker of psychological distress. General distress has been associated with altered social-cognitive functioning [25], raising the possibility that elevated epistemic mistrust and credulity may emerge as non-specific responses to emotional dysregulation or general psychopathology [26]. Disentangling these possibilities is essential for clarifying the construct validity of epistemic stance and requires controlling for overall symptom severity. Additionally, dose–response evidence suggests that greater trauma exposure predicts more severe interpersonal dysfunction [27], highlighting the importance of examining whether epistemic mistrust and borderline pathology increase proportionally with trauma severity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHence, despite promising findings, little is still known about whether epistemic stance can be measured through behaviour—rather than self-perception—and whether such behavioural indicators align with self-reported epistemic stance and borderline personality traits. Existing research has relied exclusively on self-report measures, limiting the ecological validity of their conclusions and leaving open questions about how epistemic stance is enacted in real-time interpersonal contexts—how individuals respond to advice or social input under uncertainty. It also remains unclear whether epistemic mistrust reflects a social-cognitive construct specific to borderline personality vulnerability, or a broader transdiagnostic marker of psychological distress. Furthermore, no studies have tested whether epistemic stance patterns vary according to trauma severity, or whether epistemic mistrust uniquely mediates the impact of childhood trauma on borderline personality features when general psychological distress is controlled. Understanding these mechanisms is particularly important in young adults, a developmental period during which social learning continues to shape identity formation and interpersonal functioning [28, 29]. The present research was designed to address these gaps.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Present Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study introduces the Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust (BART-ET), a novel behavioural paradigm that assesses epistemic stance by measuring advice-taking behaviour under uncertainty. Adapted from the original BART [30], which has been validated as a behavioural measure of risk-taking and risk-avoidant strategies [31, 32], the BART-ET repurposes this task to quantify the discrepancy between advice received and behaviour enacted, indexing epistemic trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo cross-sectional studies were conducted. Study 1 (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 120) piloted the BART-ET and examined its associations with self-reported BPD traits and epistemic stance, using the Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR) and the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ). Study 2 (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 153) aimed to address some of the limitations of Study 1 by including the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-GSI), enabling the examination of the role of childhood trauma exposure, and general psychological distress, and epistemic stance in relation to BPD features. In addition, by including the BSI-GSI we investigated whether the above hypothesized associations between epistemic stance and BPD reflect a distinct interpersonal dysfunction characteristic of BPD or a broader, transdiagnostic marker of psychological distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on research reviewed above, we tested the following pre-registered hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1 (Study 1):\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigher levels of borderline personality features (PAI-BOR) will be associated with greater advice resistance on the BART-ET, indexed by larger discrepancies between the experimenter's suggestions and participants’ responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2 (Study 1):\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBorderline personality features (PAI-BOR) will correlate positively with self-reported epistemic mistrust and credulity, and negatively with epistemic trust (ETMCQ), reflecting difficulties in appropriately evaluating others' communications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3 (Study 1):\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBehavioural indicators of epistemic stance (BART-ET scores) will correspond to self-report measures: BART-ET scores were expected to correlate \u003cstrong\u003epositively with epistemic mistrust\u003c/strong\u003eand \u003cstrong\u003enegatively with epistemic trust\u003c/strong\u003e (ETMCQ subscales).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 4 (Study 2):\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreater exposure to childhood trauma (CTQ) will be associated with higher BPD features (PAI-BOR) and greater epistemic mistrust and credulity, and lower epistemic trust as captured by the three ETMCQ subscales. These associations were expected to follow a dose–response pattern, such that increasing severity of childhood trauma would correspond to progressively more maladaptive epistemic stance scores as assessed by the self-report measure (ETMCQ) and epistemic mistrust assessed with the BART-ET, and higher BPD-related traits.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 5 (Study 2):\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEpistemic mistrust will mediate the relationship between childhood trauma (CTQ) and borderline personality features (PAI-BOR), even when controlling for general psychological distress (BSI-GSI) as a covariate. Mistrust will be operationalised both via BART-ET scores and ETMCQ subscales (mistrust and credulity), allowing comparison across behavioural and self-report indices.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants in both Study 1 and Study 2 were recruited via the UCL Psychology Subject Pool and broader university platforms. In Study 1, 120 young adults (93 females, 26 males, 1 non-binary), aged 18 to 25 years (M = 20.06, SD = 1.96), participated between October 2022 and March 2023. The sample comprised 65.8% Asian, 23.3% White, 5.8% Black, 2.5% Mixed ethnic backgrounds, and 2.5% Other. Of the 120 participants, 37% reported experiencing emotional problems—such as feelings of depression, sadness, or anxiety—during the past four weeks; 10% rated their general mental health as poor or somewhat poor; 25% had previously received or were currently receiving counselling or psychological support; and 4% were currently taking medication for mental health conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Study 2, 153 young adults (121 females, 32 males), aged 18 to 25 years (M = 19.99, SD = 1.85), participated between March and April 2025. The sample comprised 52% Asian, 27% White, 5.2% Black, 7.8% Mixed, and 7.8% Other. Among these participants, 45% reported emotional problems in the past four weeks; 17% rated their general mental health as poor or somewhat poor; 28% had received or were receiving psychological support; and 5% were currently taking mental health medication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA detailed demographic breakdown is provided in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e. The combined sample of 273 participants (Study 1: \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 120; Study 2: \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 153) exceeds the minimum required sample sizes identified through a priori power analyses and Monte Carlo simulations [33, 34], providing ≥80% power at \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .05 to detect moderate effects (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .30, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.50) across dimensional analyses, categorical comparisons, structural equation modelling (SEM), and mediation models [21, 22, 27, 35]. Power estimates assumed a maximum of 10% missing data and were based on bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals for indirect effects. Both studies received ethical approval from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (18057.001 for Study 1; 0466 for Study 2), and all participants provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants first read an online information sheet and provided written informed consent before completing a battery of self-report questionnaires hosted on Qualtrics.In \u003cstrong\u003eStudy 1\u003c/strong\u003e, participants completed demographic questions, the Personality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR), and the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ), which took approximately 5 minutes. In \u003cstrong\u003eStudy 2\u003c/strong\u003e, an expanded battery was administered, including the same measures as Study 1 along with the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and took approximately 15 minutes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the online questionnaires, participants were scheduled for an in-person session via direct email. Upon arrival at the UCL Psychology Laboratories, they were welcomed by a trained experimenter and escorted to an individual cubicle for the laboratory task.The laboratory task was the Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust version (BART-ET), which lasted approximately 25 minutes. In the first round, participants completed 30 trials, during which balloon explosions were pre-programmed to occur in 21 trials, irrespective of their responses. This was followed by a scripted verbal intervention from the experimenter, introducing a co-play scenario and offering advice on how many pumps to enter in the second round of 30 trials. This manipulation was designed to simulate interpersonal advice and assess behavioural expressions of epistemic trust. Participants were told the task measured decision-making and risk-taking strategies.To encourage engagement, participants were informed that compensation included a performance-based incentive: in Study 1, a base payment of £3 and a bonus of up to £2 based on task performance (totalling £5); in Study 2, a base payment of £5 and a potential bonus of £3 (totalling £8). In practice, all participants received the full amount, regardless of performance. Participation lasted approximately 30 minutes in Study 1 and 40 minutes in Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure data quality in the self-report measures, two attention check items were embedded in the questionnaire battery. These instructed participants to select a specific response (e.g., “Please select ‘3 (Very true)’ to show that you are reading the questions carefully”). All participants passed the attention checks, and no invariant response patterns were detected.For the in-person task, the experimenter remained present throughout to monitor comprehension and engagement. Given the interactive format—which required responses on every trial—and the task’s relatively brief duration, the risk of inattentiveness was considered minimal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter completing the BART-ET, participants were asked to guess the true purpose of the task. Most believed the study concerned decision-making, risk-taking, or strategy optimisation; others mentioned social influence, bias, or conformity. No participants correctly identified epistemic trust as the study’s focus.Finally, participants were fully debriefed and provided with a written debriefing sheet explaining the use of deception and listing support services. No participants reported emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic and Mental Health Characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants reported age, gender, ethnicity, along with mental health-related information in both studies. These included whether they had experienced emotional problems affecting daily life in the past four weeks, their overall self-rated mental health, whether they had received or were currently receiving psychological treatment, and any current use of psychiatric medication. In Study 2, an additional item assessed socio-economic background based on parental occupation, with response options including professional, intermediate, and lower socio-economic backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersonality Assessment Inventory – Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PAI-BOR is a 24-item self-report measure of borderline personality features in nonclinical populations [36]. It comprises four subscales—affective instability, identity problems, negative relationships, and self-harm—each with six items. Responses are rated on a 4-point scale (0 = false to 3 = very true). A total score of 38 or higher suggests clinically significant borderline features. The scale has demonstrated excellent internal consistency (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; .80) and construct validity in diverse populations [37]. In the current study, internal consistency was \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .90 in Study 1 and \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .86 in Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEpistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ETMCQ is a 15-item self-report measure assessing individuals’ tendencies to accept, reject, or over-accept interpersonal information [6]. It comprises three 5-item subscales: epistemic trust (e.g., “I usually ask people for advice when I have a personal problem”), epistemic mistrust (e.g., “I often feel that people do not understand what I want and need”), and epistemic credulity (e.g., “I am often considered naïve because I believe almost anything that people tell me”). Items are rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The scale has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity in community samples [6]. In the current study, internal consistency in Study 1 was \u003cem\u003eα\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .71 (Trust), \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .66 (Mistrust), and \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .78 (Credulity); in Study 2, \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .75 (Trust), \u003cem\u003eα\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .55 (Mistrust), and \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .79 (Credulity).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChildhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CTQ is a 28-item retrospective self-report measure of childhood maltreatment across five domains: emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect [38]. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never true to 5 = very often true). Clinically validated cut-offs are available to classify levels of exposure [38]. For emotional abuse, scores of 13 or more indicate moderate exposure, and scores of 18 or more indicate severe exposure. For physical abuse, scores of 10 or more suggest moderate exposure, and 13 or more indicate severe exposure. For sexual abuse, moderate exposure is defined as a score of 8 or above, and severe exposure as 13 or above. For emotional neglect, scores of 15 or more represent moderate exposure, while scores of 18 or more indicate severe exposure. For physical neglect, scores of 10 or more suggest moderate exposure, and scores of 15 or more indicate severe exposure. The CTQ has demonstrated strong psychometric properties in both clinical and nonclinical samples, with internal consistency coefficients ranging from \u003cem\u003eα\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .63 to .95 across subscales and criterion-related validity correlations of \u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .50–.75 [39, 40]. In the current study (Study 2), internal consistency was \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .91.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrief Symptom Inventory – Global Severity Index (BSI-GSI)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe BSI is a 53-item self-report measure of psychological distress across nine symptom dimensions and three global indices [41]. In the current study, only the Global Severity Index (GSI) was used as an overall index of current distress. Participants rated how much each symptom distressed them over the past seven days on a 5-point scale (0 = not at all to 4 = extremely). The GSI has demonstrated excellent internal consistency (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; .80) and robust construct and convergent validity across clinical and nonclinical samples [41]. According to standard interpretive guidelines, \u003cstrong\u003eT scores below 55\u003c/strong\u003e are considered within the normal range; \u003cstrong\u003eT scores of 55–59\u003c/strong\u003e indicate mild psychological distress; \u003cstrong\u003eT scores of 60–64\u003c/strong\u003e reflect moderate or borderline clinical distress; and \u003cstrong\u003eT scores of 65 or above\u003c/strong\u003e suggest clinically significant levels of distress [41]. In the current study (Study 2), the BSI-GSI demonstrated excellent internal consistency (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .96).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBalloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust (BART-ET)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Balloon Analogue Risk Task – Epistemic Trust (BART-ET) is a computerised, laboratory-based task designed to assess epistemic trust and mistrust through behavioural responses to advice. The task yields a single behavioural score, with higher scores indicating greater epistemic mistrust and correspondingly lower epistemic trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe BART-ET is adapted from the original Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) [30], which was designed to measure risk-taking. In the original BART, each trial presents a balloon that participants inflate by clicking a “PUMP” button. With each pump, the balloon expands and accumulates points, but may explode at an unpredictable threshold. Participants may choose to stop pumping and bank the points at any time. If the balloon explodes, all points for that trial are lost, though previously banked points remain safe. The task requires participants to balance risk and reward to maximise their overall score.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe BART-ET repurposes this format to assess advice-taking behaviour under uncertainty, rather than risk-taking. Participants complete two rounds of 30 trials, spaced approximately 10 minutes apart. In the first round (see \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1a\u003c/strong\u003e), 21 of 30 balloons (70%) are programmed to explode regardless of the number of pumps entered, producing repeated negative outcomes.Following this, participants see the message: \u003cem\u003e“Be careful! So far, you had 21 balloons explode, and your earned points are lower than 73% of players in this game. Let’s try another round of 30 balloons.”\u003c/em\u003e This feedback is designed to elicit mild negative affect and increase receptivity to external guidance. Immediately afterward, the experimenter delivers a standardised verbal prompt: \u003cem\u003e“I’m sorry that you didn’t do very well in the first round. However, we have another round of 30 balloons. I have played this game several times myself before—how about we play together in the second round? I'll give you my advised pump number for each balloon, but there's no pressure to follow it. Let’s play together?”\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThis scripted intervention is designed to simulate a realistic interpersonal interaction, introducing advice from a seemingly experienced other while preserving the participant’s autonomy. It serves to test openness to interpersonally transmitted knowledge in a context of uncertainty and prior failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the second round (see \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1b\u003c/strong\u003e), advice accuracy is deliberately varied to model real-world social communication where guidance can be helpful but not infallible. The experimenter provides correct advice for the first three non-exploding trials, then deliberately gives inaccurate advice for three exploding trials, followed by five accurate non-exploding trials. The remaining 19 trials include 15 accurate and 4 inaccurate pieces of advice. In total, advice is correct for 23 out of 30 trials (76.7%) and incorrect for seven (23.3%). The BART-ET score is calculated as the mean absolute difference between the participant’s entered pump number and the experimenter’s advised number across all 30 trials in the second round, regardless of whether the participant pumped more or less. Higher BART-ET scores reflect greater resistance to advice, interpreted as higher epistemic mistrust and lower epistemic trust, while lower BART-ET scores reflect lower resistance and closer adherence to the guidance received, suggesting lower epistemic mistrust and higher epistemic trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo disguise the true aim of assessing epistemic trust, an additional task modification was included: balloon colour varied across trials. This encouraged participants to infer a (non-existent) relationship between balloon colour and explosion probability, leading them to focus on superficial features rather than the role of advice. This misdirection was intended to reduce demand characteristics and enhance the ecological validity of the advice-taking context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted in RStudio (v4.2.1). Descriptive statistics summarised sample characteristics. Assumption checks were conducted using Shapiro–Wilk tests, and non-parametric alternatives (e.g., Spearman’s ρ) were used where key variables showed significant non-normality and transformations were insufficient. The following sections outline the statistical models, variables, covariates, and adjustments applied for each hypothesis. Bonferroni corrections were used where multiple comparisons were made across conceptually distinct outcome variables, with specific alpha levels reported per hypothesis. Missing data were minimal due to the design of the questionnaires and behavioural task; all analyses were conducted on complete cases. Pearson correlations explored associations between general psychological distress (BSI-GSI) and epistemic mistrust (BART-ET and ETMCQ subscales). Where significant associations emerged, BSI-GSI was included as a covariate in follow-up analyses (e.g., partial correlations or SEM).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1 (Study 1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson correlations tested associations between borderline personality features (PAI-BOR total score) and epistemic mistrust as measured by the BART-ET discrepancy score. The BART-ET score reflects the mean absolute difference between the participant’s pump entries and the experimenter’s advice across trials, with larger discrepancies indicating greater advice resistance (i.e., lower epistemic trust). Normality was checked and transformations applied where appropriate; where assumptions were violated, non-parametric alternatives (Spearman’s rho) were used. Correlations were conducted separately by study. A positive association between PAI-BOR and BART-ET was hypothesised.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2 (Study 1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson correlations examined associations between PAI-BOR scores and self-reported epistemic stance (ETMCQ subscales). Borderline features were expected to correlate negatively with epistemic trust, and positively with epistemic mistrust and credulity. Separate analyses were run for each study. Bonferroni correction was applied across the three comparisons (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e ≈ .017). As an alternative, the false discovery rate (FDR) was considered. If general psychological distress (BSI-GSI) was associated with any epistemic stance subscale, it was included as a covariate in partial correlations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3 (Study 1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson correlations tested the association between the behavioural index (BART-ET) and self-reported epistemic stance (ETMCQ subscales). Specifically, BART-ET scores were expected to correlate negatively with epistemic trust and positively with epistemic mistrust. Bonferroni correction was applied (\u003cem\u003eα\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .025). Spearman’s rho was used where assumptions of normality were violated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 4 (Study 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePearson correlations tested associations\u003c/strong\u003e between childhood trauma (CTQ total score) and: (a) behavioural epistemic trust/mistrust (BART-ET), (b) self-reported epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity (ETMCQ subscales), and (c) borderline features (PAI-BOR). Trauma severity was hypothesised to correlate negatively with epistemic trust and positively with epistemic mistrust, credulity, BPD features, and BART-ET. Bonferroni correction was applied across the five comparisons (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .01). Where necessary, transformations or non-parametric alternatives were applied. Dose–response associations were also explored descriptively using CTQ severity categories and visualised using bar charts, with the expectation that higher trauma severity would relate to increased mistrust, credulity, and borderline traits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 5 (Study 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSEM was used to test whether epistemic mistrust mediated the relationship between childhood trauma (CTQ) and borderline features (PAI-BOR), controlling for general distress assessed with the BSI. Mistrust was operationalised both behaviourally (BART-ET) and via self-report (ETMCQ subscales), allowing comparison of mediation effects across methods. Models used maximum likelihood estimation with bootstrapped confidence intervals (5,000 resamples) to assess indirect effects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics for variables in Study 1 are presented in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 2a\u003c/strong\u003e, and for Study 2 in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 2b\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the BART-ET, mean discrepancy scores between the advice given and actual pump entries were comparable across studies. Participants in Study 1 (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 120) had a mean discrepancy of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 14.26 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 8.02; range = 1.00–36.90), and participants in Study 2 (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 153) had a mean of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 14.86 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 9.49; range = 0.00–46.87).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScores on the PAI-BOR were slightly higher in Study 2 (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 27.63,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 10.48; range = 3.00–58.00) than in Study 1 (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 25.67,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 11.99; range = 5.00–67.00).Scores on the ETMCQ were consistent across studies. In Study 1, participants reported mean scores of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 26.67 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 4.54; range = 13.00–35.00) for epistemic trust,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 20.96 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 4.89; range = 9.00–33.00) for epistemic mistrust, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 16.57 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 5.90; range = 5.00–34.00) for credulity. In Study 2, corresponding means were\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 26.53 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 4.24; range = 14.00–35.00),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 21.50 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 4.13; range = 12.00–32.00), and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 16.67 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 6.25; range = 5.00–31.00), respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy 2 additionally assessed childhood trauma and general psychological distress. The CTQ total score had a mean of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 42.45 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 10.25; range = 28.00–96.00). Subscale means ranged from\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 6.13 for physical abuse (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 2.88; range = 5.00–21.00) to\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 12.05 for emotional abuse (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 3.59; range = 5.00–21.00), with other subscales reported in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 2b\u003c/strong\u003e.The BSI-GSI raw scores averaged\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 0.96 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 0.58; range = 0.00–2.55), with\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e scores averaging\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 60.50 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 14.75; range = 39.94–100.59). Given that the average\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e score in this sample falls within the 60–64 range, participants reported, on average, psychological distress at a borderline clinical level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAssumption Checks\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNormality of key continuous variables was assessed using Shapiro–Wilk tests in both studies. In Study 1, the distributions of BART-ET, PAI-BOR, and epistemic trust significantly deviated from normality (all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05), whereas epistemic mistrust and credulity did not (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; .05). In Study 2, BART-ET, epistemic trust, credulity, the CTQ total score, and raw BSI-GSI scores were non-normally distributed (all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), while PAI-BOR and epistemic mistrust met normality assumptions. Where appropriate, variables were log- or square-root-transformed to improve normality; however, in several cases (e.g., CTQ, BART-ET) transformations did not fully normalize the distributions. Therefore, for hypothesis tests involving these variables, we report Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) alongside or in place of Pearson’s r when assumptions were violated. Unless explicitly noted otherwise, the reported correlation results below used Pearson’s r (with two-tailed significance) for normally distributed measures and Spearman’s ρ for non-normal measures. In all cases, using non-parametric versus parametric tests did not meaningfully alter the conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1: Behavioural Epistemic Mistrust and BPD Features\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs hypothesised, increased presence of borderline personality features (\u003cem\u003ePAI–BOR\u003c/em\u003e) was associated with higher behavioural epistemic mistrust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), as indexed by \u003cem\u003eBART–ET\u003c/em\u003e discrepancy scores in Study 1. Study 2 replicated these findings, showing a slightly stronger association (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). These results support the prediction that individuals with more pronounced borderline traits exhibit increased behavioural epistemic mistrust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2: Self-Reported Epistemic Stance and BPD Features\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs predicted, \u003cem\u003ePAI–BOR\u003c/em\u003e was significantly positively correlated with self-reported epistemic mistrust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and epistemic credulity (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) in Study 1. Again, these findings were replicated in Study 2 (with epistemic mistrust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and credulity (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). However, contrary to expectations, \u003cem\u003ePAI–BOR\u003c/em\u003e was not significantly associated with epistemic trust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = –.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .76) in Study 1, a finding which was replicated in Study 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .24). Bonferroni corrections (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e ≈ .017) confirmed that the positive associations with mistrust and credulity remained statistically significant in both studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3: Concordance Between Behavioural and Self-Report Measures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Study 1, as expected, BART-ET scores were significantly positively correlated with self-reported epistemic mistrust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). The correlation with epistemic trust was negative but non-significant (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = –.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .18). In Study 2, BART-ET again correlated positively with self-reported epistemic mistrust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), but not with epistemic trust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .26). Although not specified in our preregistered hypotheses, we also examined the correlation between BART-ET scores and the self-reported epistemic credulity as an exploratory analysis. A modest association was observed in Study 1 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .01), but this did not replicate in Study 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .27). After applying a Bonferroni correction (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .025), only the positive associations between BART-ET and self-reported epistemic mistrust remained statistically significant across both studies. These results indicated that the behavioural task primarily reflects the \u003cstrong\u003emistrust\u003c/strong\u003e dimension of epistemic stance, and importantly, that high BART-ET scores are not simply equivalent to low Trust scores.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeneral Distress as a Covariate (Study 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore testing trauma-related hypotheses, we conducted an exploratory check of whether \u003cstrong\u003egeneral psychological distress\u003c/strong\u003e (BSI-GSI) might confound or broadly influence the associations of interest in Study 2. Spearman correlations (due to non-normal distributions) showed that BSI-GSI scores were \u003cstrong\u003epositively correlated\u003c/strong\u003e with the BART-ET behavioural mistrust measure (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = .29, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001). Similarly, higher distress was associated with higher self-reported \u003cstrong\u003eMistrust\u003c/strong\u003e (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = .28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and \u003cstrong\u003eCredulity\u003c/strong\u003e (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = .27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). The correlation between distress and self-reported \u003cstrong\u003eTrust\u003c/strong\u003e was small and nonsignificant (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = .06, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .40). These patterns suggest that individuals experiencing greater general distress also tend to be more epistemically mistrustful and credulous, and they show less openness to advice on the behavioural task. Given these findings, BSI-GSI was included as a covariate in subsequent analyses involving epistemic mistrust and BPD features (e.g., in the mediation models) to parse out variance attributable to general distress. We note that because this examination of distress was not a preregistered hypothesis (it was an exploratory addition to inform covariate use), we did not apply multiple comparison corrections for these particular correlations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 4: Childhood Trauma, Epistemic Stance, and BPD Features (Study 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn line with Hypothesis 4, primary analyses focused on the association between \u003cstrong\u003etotal childhood trauma exposure\u003c/strong\u003eand key psychological outcomes in Study 2. Due to significant non-normality in CTQ total scores (skew = 1.47, kurtosis = 7.09), \u003cstrong\u003eSpearman’s ρ\u003c/strong\u003e was used for all correlational analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 2b\u003c/strong\u003e, higher CTQ total scores, as expected, were \u003cstrong\u003esignificantly associated\u003c/strong\u003ewith higher \u003cstrong\u003eself-reported epistemic mistrust\u003c/strong\u003e (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = .28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05) and with higher \u003cstrong\u003eborderline features\u003c/strong\u003e (\u003cem\u003eρ\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). Associations with other variables—self-reported epistemic credulity (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = .23,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .06), epistemic trust (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = –.13,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .19), and behaviourally assessed epistemic mistrust (BART-ET) (\u003cem\u003eρ\u003c/em\u003e = .19,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .09)—however, were not statistically significant, although a trend-level association with self-reported epistemic credulity was observed. After applying Bonferroni correction (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e = .01), only the associations with epistemic mistrust and PAI-BOR remained statistically significant. These results partially supported that childhood trauma was linked to greater mistrust and elevated BPD features, but its expected associations with credulity, trust, and behavioural mistrust were weak or non-significant in this non-clinical sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe further explored potential dose–response relationships between subtypes of trauma and psychological outcomes using CTQ subscale scores. Although a tertile-based approach (low, moderate, severe; Bernstein \u0026amp; Fink, 1998) was initially considered, most subscales had too few participants in the severe trauma category (\u003cem\u003en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 3), limiting statistical power. Binary grouping was therefore adopted, with moderate and severe cases combined into a single “high exposure” category. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were conducted to compare levels of epistemic trust/mistrust (as measured behaviourally by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBART-ET\u003c/em\u003e), self-reported epistemic stance (\u003cem\u003eETMCQ\u003c/em\u003e subscales), borderline personality features (\u003cem\u003ePAI-BOR\u003c/em\u003e), and psychological distress (\u003cem\u003eBSI-GSI\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e between “low trauma” and “high trauma” groups.\u0026nbsp;Group differences were examined separately for behaviourally assessed epistemic mistrust (BART-ET) and self-reported epistemic stance (ETMCQ subscales), alongside borderline personality features (PAI-BOR) and general distress (BSI-GSI).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2\u003c/strong\u003e, BART-ET scores were significantly higher in the high trauma group for emotional abuse (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .032), physical abuse (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .047), and physical neglect (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .029), suggesting greater behavioural epistemic mistrust in participants with these trauma histories. While these findings align with the hypothesis that childhood trauma is associated with heightened epistemic mistrust, none of the BART-ET differences remained significant after Bonferroni correction (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e ≈ .002), indicating only partial support for this association.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-reported epistemic mistrust was also significantly higher in the high trauma group overall and then for emotional neglect (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .028) and physical neglect (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .029), while epistemic credulity was higher in relation to emotional abuse (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and physical neglect (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .002). Only the latter association with credulity remained significant after correction for multiple testing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMore robust and consistent effects were observed for PAI-BOR and BSI-GSI. Both were significantly higher in the high trauma group when total CTQ scores were used as the grouping variable (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), consistent with preregistered expectations. Exploratory subscale comparisons also revealed elevated PAI-BOR and BSI-GSI scores across all CTQ subscales (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), and all of these effects remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. These results indicated strong associations between childhood trauma and both borderline personality features and general psychological distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 5: Mediation of Childhood Trauma and BPD Features via Epistemic Mistrust (Study 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test whether epistemic mistrust mediates the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, we conducted a series of bootstrapped SEMs using 5,000 resamples. The models estimated indirect effects and reported standard model fit indices. In line with the preregistered analysis plan, epistemic mistrust was modelled using two separate manifest indicators: (1) behavioural epistemic mistrust, measured via BART–ET discrepancy scores; and (2) self-reported epistemic mistrust, measured using the ETMCQ Mistrust subscale. Each indicator was tested in an independent mediation model to assess whether it accounted for the indirect pathway from childhood trauma (CTQ total score) to borderline personality features (PAI–BOR).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 4a\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3a\u003c/strong\u003e, the mediation model using BART–ET as the mediator tested whether behaviourally assessed epistemic mistrust explained the relationship between childhood trauma and BPD features, controlling for general distress. Model fit indices could not be computed due to the model’s just-identified structure (i.e., zero degrees of freedom). Childhood trauma did \u003cstrong\u003enot\u003c/strong\u003e significantly predict the BART-ET mediator (path\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e: β = 0.08, 95% CI [–0.09, 0.25], \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .247). While higher trauma was associated with slightly higher BART-ET scores on average, this path was weak and nonsignificant. The path from BART-ET to BPD features (path\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e) was, however, significant: β = 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.40], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, indicating that independent of trauma, participants who showed more behavioural mistrust tended to have higher BPD trait scores. The \u003cstrong\u003eindirect effect\u003c/strong\u003e of trauma on BPD via BART-ET was β = 0.02 (95% CI [–0.03, 0.07]), which was not statistically significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .068). The \u003cstrong\u003edirect effect\u003c/strong\u003e of trauma on BPD (path\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ec’\u003c/em\u003e) remained significant (β = 0.21, 95% CI [0.06, 0.36], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). Additionally, the covariate general distress (BSI-GSI) had significant influences on both BART-ET (β = 0.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001) and BPD features (β = 0.47, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001), consistent with our earlier finding that distress correlates with both. In sum, this \u003cstrong\u003emodel provided no significant mediation\u003c/strong\u003e: although BART-ET was related to BPD features, childhood trauma did not reliably affect BART-ET in this model, so there was no significant indirect pathway.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 4b\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3b\u003c/strong\u003e, the model used the ETMCQ Mistrust subscale as the mediator. Model fit indices were again not applicable due to the model’s just-identified nature. In this case, childhood trauma significantly predicted the self-reported mistrust mediator (path \u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e: β = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.33], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .022). In turn, higher mistrust significantly predicted higher BPD features (path \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e: β = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05, 0.29], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .007). However, the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindirect effect\u003c/strong\u003e via self-reported mistrust was β = 0.03 (95% CI [–0.004, 0.06]), which did not reach statistical significance (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .082). The direct effect of trauma on BPD remained significant (β = 0.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .007), and general distress was again a significant covariate for both mistrust (β = 0.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .006) and BPD (β = 0.50, p \u0026lt; .001). Thus, this\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emodel also did not find a clear-cut significant mediation\u003c/strong\u003e; it suggested a small indirect effect (consistent with partial mediation) but one that fell short of conventional significance (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e ~ .08).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these two primary models indicate that while both\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebehavioural and self-report mistrust\u003c/strong\u003ewere associated with BPD features,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eneither accounted for a statistically significant portion of the trauma–BPD link\u003c/strong\u003e when controlling for distress in this sample. Given the marginal nature of the mediation effects in the preregistered models, we ran exploratory SEM analyses to examine the specificity of the mediation pathway to BPD features, as opposed to general distress. In these follow-up models, we treated general distress (BSI-GSI) as a second outcome rather than a covariate. This approach allowed us to test whether epistemic mistrust mediates the impact of trauma on BPD specifically, beyond its impact on overall psychopathology. In other words, does mistrust play a more critical role for BPD traits than for general distress? We estimated two parallel mediation models with two outcomes (a bivariate outcome SEM). In one model, BART-ET was the mediator; in the other, ETMCQ Mistrust was the mediator. Both models were just-identified (with one mediator and two outcomes), so fit indices were again not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 4c\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3c\u003c/strong\u003e, a parallel mediation model was estimated using BART–ET as the mediator to evaluate whether behavioural epistemic mistrust explained the relationship between childhood trauma and both BPD features and general psychological distress. Childhood trauma significantly predicted BART-ET scores in this model (β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.037, 0.349], \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .015), indicating that when not partialling out distress, trauma had a modest positive association with behavioural mistrust. In turn, BART-ET significantly predicted both \u003cstrong\u003eBPD features\u003c/strong\u003e (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.257, 0.503], \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001) and \u003cstrong\u003egeneral distress\u003c/strong\u003e (β = 0.22, 95% CI [0.092, 0.344], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001) as outcomes. We observed a \u003cstrong\u003esignificant indirect effect\u003c/strong\u003e of trauma on BPD via BART-ET (β = 0.07, 95% CI [0.011, 0.135], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .020). However, the indirect effect of trauma on general distress via BART-ET was not significant (β = 0.04, 95% CI [–0.002, 0.087], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .063). In this model, the direct effect of trauma on BPD remained significant (β = 0.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), as did the direct effect on distress (β = 0.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001). Thus, \u003cstrong\u003ewhen considering both outcomes simultaneously, behavioural epistemic mistrust mediated a significant portion of the trauma effect on BPD features, but did not significantly mediate the effect on general distress\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 4d\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3d\u003c/strong\u003e, this model\u0026nbsp;used ETMCQ Mistrust as mediator. Childhood trauma again had a significant effect on self-reported mistrust (β = 0.28, 95% CI [0.153, 0.406], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), which in turn significantly predicted both outcomes—BPD features (β = 0.27, 95% CI [0.138, 0.400], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and general distress (β = 0.20, 95% CI [0.053, 0.356], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .008). Here, the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindirect effects\u003c/strong\u003e of trauma via self-reported mistrust were\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esignificant for both\u003c/strong\u003e outcomes: for BPD features, β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.041, 0.124], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .003; for general distress, β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.023, 0.108], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .023. The direct effects of trauma on BPD and on distress remained significant (β = 0.40 and β = 0.39, respectively, both p \u0026lt; .001). This indicates\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epartial mediation\u003c/strong\u003e: self-reported epistemic mistrust carried a small but significant portion of the effect of trauma on both borderline traits and overall symptom distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, when not partialling out shared variance with general distress, \u003cstrong\u003eboth behavioural and self-reported mistrust showed evidence of mediating the trauma–BPD link\u003c/strong\u003e, consistent with our theoretical expectation. However, the behavioural measure’s mediation effect was weaker and specific to BPD (not significant for general distress), whereas the self-report mistrust measure mediated the impact of trauma on both BPD features and general distress. These findings suggested that while both behavioural and self-report indices capture epistemic processes relevant to borderline features, self-reported mistrust may more sensitively reflect internal distress linked to trauma.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAge and Gender as Covariates\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge and gender were examined as potential covariates across both studies. Age was not significantly associated with any primary variables of interest, including epistemic stance measures (BART-ET, ETMCQ subscales), borderline personality features (PAI-BOR), childhood trauma (CTQ), or psychological distress (BSI-GSI). Accordingly, age was not included in any further analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGender showed a significant association with self-reported epistemic trust (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = –.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01), with males reporting lower trust levels than females. However, as epistemic trust was not significantly associated with other primary outcomes (e.g., PAI-BOR, CTQ, or BART-ET), gender was not retained as a covariate in subsequent models. These findings indicate that demographic variables did not meaningfully confound the key associations under investigation and were therefore excluded from the final analytic models.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated how epistemic mistrust\u0026mdash;operationalised through both a novel behavioural paradigm and established self-report measures\u0026mdash;relates to borderline personality features, childhood trauma, and psychological distress in young adults. Drawing on data from two independent samples (Study 1: N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120; Study 2: N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;153), we tested five preregistered hypotheses and evaluated the construct validity of the newly developed BART-ET. Consistent with hypotheses, higher borderline traits were reliably associated with greater epistemic mistrust across both behavioural and self-report indices. Childhood trauma was also positively related to borderline features and epistemic mistrust, and our mediation analyses suggested that epistemic mistrust partially mediated this relationship. By contrast, epistemic trust itself was not significantly associated with trauma, BPD traits, or psychological distress in our non-clinical sample. These findings reinforce the centrality of epistemic mistrust\u0026mdash;not simply the absence of trust\u0026mdash;as a mechanism of personality vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, consistent with emerging theoretical models, our findings extend prior work by demonstrating that the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features is partially explained by epistemic mistrust. This adds empirical support to proposals that epistemic stance\u0026mdash;particularly mistrust\u0026mdash;may function as a developmental mechanism linking early relational adversity to later personality vulnerability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. In line with recent findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], we observed that trauma was associated with higher BPD traits, but crucially, we show that this association is partially mediated by mistrust, using both self-report and a novel behavioural measure. The BART-ET task offers a new means of capturing epistemic stance in real-time decision-making, and our findings provide the first evidence that these interpersonal cognitive processes can be observed behaviourally\u0026mdash;advancing beyond previous reliance on self-report. In doing so, the study contributes novel evidence for epistemic mistrust as a measurable and potentially dynamic mechanism of psychological vulnerability. While moderately correlated with the ETMCQ Mistrust subscale, the BART-ET appears to capture unique variance. It may reflect behavioural tendencies such as cautious decision-making, sensitivity to uncertainty, or resistance to social influence\u0026mdash;dimensions not fully accessible through introspective self-report.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsistent with prior observations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], our findings highlight a potential asymmetry in epistemic stance: the maladaptive forms of stance\u0026mdash;epistemic mistrust and, to a lesser extent, epistemic credulity\u0026mdash;were more predictive of borderline vulnerability than the mere absence of trust \u003cem\u003eper se\u003c/em\u003e. This pattern supported theoretical accounts suggesting that disruptions to epistemic calibration emerge in response to early relational adversity, fostering patterns of pervasive doubt or over-acceptance that may persist even when no longer adaptive. In particular, individuals reporting higher borderline personality features demonstrated greater epistemic mistrust on both the BART-ET and the ETMCQ, with moderate effect sizes replicated across two independent samples. These findings align with prior work suggesting that BPD traits are marked by persistent interpersonal vigilance and difficulties integrating social information\u0026mdash;even in benign or affiliative contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. In our paradigm, the experimenter was framed as friendly and experienced, and the advice provided was mostly accurate\u0026mdash;conditions known to foster epistemic trust in typical development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]\u0026mdash;yet participants with elevated BPD features remained resistant to guidance. This supported the idea that epistemic mistrust in BPD reflects a generalised or inflexible stance rather than a context-sensitive adaptation. While such mistrust may have emerged as a protective response to past interpersonal unreliability, it may persist in ways that hinder social learning and reinforce maladaptive expectations, even in the absence of threat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn both studies, borderline personality features were associated not only with heightened epistemic mistrust but also with elevated credulity. Although this dual pattern may seem paradoxical, it aligns with theoretical accounts suggesting that early adversity can lead to heightened interpersonal sensitivity, manifesting as oscillations between defensive scepticism and uncritical acceptance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. This dynamic mirrors the interpersonal instability central to borderline pathology, wherein individuals may swing between distrust and excessive trust in response to relational cues and emotional states. The lack of a significant association for epistemic trust in our studies aligns with prior work indicating that the ETMCQ\u0026rsquo;s trust subscale may be less sensitive to clinical variation, perhaps because it taps general affiliative tendencies rather than specific vulnerabilities in social information processing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. From a developmental standpoint, epistemic trust may represent a default baseline stance established in safe relational contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e], whereas mistrust and credulity reflect adaptations to past relational unpredictability. Taken together, these findings suggest that disruptions in epistemic calibration\u0026mdash;whether through excessive vigilance or uncritical acceptance\u0026mdash;are more characteristic of borderline personality features than a simple absence of trust. This highlights the need for interventions that support the development of more stable and calibrated epistemic orientations, rather than merely aiming to increase trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults from both studies also supported the construct validity of the BART-ET as a behavioural measure of epistemic mistrust. The task showed consistent, moderate correlations with self-reported epistemic mistrust (ETMCQ) and with borderline personality features, supporting convergent validity. Crucially, BART-ET scores were not significantly associated with self-reported epistemic trust, highlighting discriminant validity and reinforcing the conceptual distinction between mistrust and the mere absence of trust. Latent models combining BART-ET and self-reported epistemic mistrust were tested but yielded weak psychometric indicators, supporting our decision to model behavioural and self-report indices separately. Nonetheless, the inclusion of both types of measures underscores the value of multi-method approaches for capturing interpersonal cognitive styles that may not be fully accessible through self-report alone [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall, our findings suggested that the BART-ET captures unique variance in epistemic stance that complements, rather than duplicates, self-report measures, strengthening its potential utility for assessing social-cognitive vulnerabilities in both research and applied settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, consistent with theories linking early adversity to enduring interpersonal vulnerabilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], we found that childhood trauma was significantly associated with both epistemic mistrust and borderline personality features in Study 2. Among trauma subtypes, emotional neglect and emotional abuse showed the strongest associations with these outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. However, trauma did not show significant associations with epistemic trust, credulity, or the behavioural BART-ET measure. This pattern suggests that early relational adversity may heighten enduring suspicion (i.e., epistemic mistrust) more than it directly diminishes affiliative openness or increases credulity. Alternatively, these null findings could reflect limitations of retrospective trauma reporting or of the BART-ET\u0026rsquo;s sensitivity to subtle trust-related changes. Still, the clear convergence between trauma exposure and self-reported mistrust aligns with the view that early relational disruptions sensitize individuals to potential epistemic threat, especially in contexts requiring trust in others\u0026rsquo; intentions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analyses indicated that epistemic mistrust partly mediated the relationship between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, as observed with both self-report and behavioural indicators. However, the indirect effect did not reach statistical significance in the preregistered models that controlled for psychological distress; significant mediation paths emerged only in exploratory models. These findings supported developmental theories proposing that early relational adversity\u0026mdash;particularly in the form of emotional neglect or abuse\u0026mdash;can shape how individuals interpret and respond to social communication, fostering enduring difficulties in openness to interpersonal input [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Importantly, direct effects of trauma on BPD features remained significant in all models, indicating partial (rather than full) mediation. This underscores the importance of epistemic mistrust as a developmental mechanism, while also suggesting that other processes\u0026mdash;such as attachment insecurity or emotional dysregulation\u0026mdash;likely contribute to this pathway. Notably, our results provide the first behavioural evidence of this indirect association\u0026mdash;previously observed only with self-report measures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u0026mdash;underscoring the need for longitudinal research to clarify how epistemic stance develops over time and under what conditions it becomes maladaptive.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, exploratory analyses revealed that general psychological distress was significantly associated with epistemic mistrust, credulity, and the behavioural BART-ET score, but not with epistemic trust. These findings indicate that individuals experiencing higher levels of distress may adopt a more cautious or conflicted stance toward social information\u0026mdash;manifesting as heightened suspicion or uncritical acceptance\u0026mdash;rather than simply exhibiting reduced trust. This suggests that general distress may amplify maladaptive social-cognitive processing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], particularly in contexts where epistemic vigilance becomes exaggerated or poorly calibrated. Previous studies using the ETMCQ have consistently found that while mistrust and credulity show strong relationships with both childhood adversity and psychopathology, epistemic trust tends to have only weak or non-significant negative associations with these outcomes [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR50\" citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. This has been attributed to potential limitations of the ETMCQ\u0026rsquo;s trust subscale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the emergence of a similar pattern when assessing trust via our behavioural task tentatively supported the view that mistrust and trust are not merely opposite ends of a continuum [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]; instead, epistemic mistrust may represent a distinct psychological process with particular relevance for understanding vulnerability to psychopathology. Notably, reductions in epistemic mistrust over the course of treatment have been shown to predict symptom improvement [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR54\" citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e], further highlighting its clinical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExploratory analyses also revealed that males in our sample reported significantly lower levels of epistemic trust compared to females. This finding partially aligns with prior research indicating that men tend to score lower on epistemic trust and higher on epistemic mistrust and credulity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], suggesting potential gender-based differences in epistemic stance. Given that borderline personality traits also show gender-linked variation\u0026mdash;with higher reported prevalence among females but possible underdiagnosis in males [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]\u0026mdash;these findings underscore the need to examine gender more systematically in future work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, some relate to the characteristics of the study sample, including its clinical status, ethnicity and gender composition, and developmental range. Although participants were drawn from a non-clinical population, a meaningful subset scored above the clinical threshold for borderline personality features on the PAI-BOR and reported borderline clinical levels of psychological distress on the BSI-GSI. Future research should examine whether similar patterns emerge in clinical samples, where epistemic difficulties may be more pervasive or entrenched. Our sample was predominantly Asian and female and drawn from a university population, which may limit the generalisability of the results. Future research should explore whether individuals from different ethnic, gender, cultural, socio-economic, or educational backgrounds experience or develop epistemic mistrust in distinct ways, shaped by their unique social and cultural environments. Additionally, given that epistemic stance likely develops across the lifespan, it would be valuable to replicate this paradigm across different age groups to examine how epistemic mistrust may shift across development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the BART-ET was developed by adapting the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) but departs from its original focus on risk-taking behaviours, such as reward sensitivity or risk aversion. In the present design, the task was reframed entirely to assess discrepancy from social input as an index of epistemic stance, rather than decision-making under risk. Round 1 served to generate an emotional context by setting a fixed high explosion rate to induce a sense of unpredictability or failure, while Round 2 assessed openness to advice under this induced stress through pump discrepancies. As such, the BART-ET does not capture the original task\u0026rsquo;s constructs related to risk-taking under uncertainty\u0026mdash;such as risk-taking propensity, impulsivity, reward sensitivity, or risk aversion\u0026mdash;which were typically measured through metrics like mean pumps on non-exploded balloons, total earnings, or number of explosions. Future research could incorporate parallel measures of risk propensity or reintegrate components of the original BART to examine whether and how epistemic mistrust intersects with risk sensitivity, reward expectancy, and impulsivity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, the BART-ET scoring method calculates only the absolute discrepancy from the advised pump number, treating over- and under-responses as equivalent. This approach may obscure whether participants are actively rejecting advice (e.g., overshooting: \u0026ldquo;I mistrust the advice and I\u0026rsquo;ll go beyond it to test or reject it\u0026rdquo;) or playing cautiously due to mistrust or uncertainty (e.g., undershooting: \u0026ldquo;I don\u0026rsquo;t believe the advice and I\u0026rsquo;ll play it safe\u0026rdquo;). These behaviours may reflect distinct epistemic mistrust strategies\u0026mdash;such as active opposition versus cautious withdrawal\u0026mdash;that are not captured when directionality is ignored. Future versions of the task could disaggregate these response types to better differentiate the cognitive-affective processes underlying epistemic mistrust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, the current version of the BART-ET does not distinguish between epistemic trust and credulity. Participants who follow the experimenter's advice closely\u0026mdash;showing low discrepancy scores\u0026mdash;may be doing so out of openness to new information (i.e. epistemic trust) or out of indiscriminate acceptance of information (i.e., epistemic credulity). Without a mechanism to assess whether advice-taking reflects appropriate calibration or blind acceptance, the task cannot reliably differentiate adaptive trust from maladaptive credulity. This limitation complicates the interpretation of convergence between the behavioural task and the ETMCQ trust subscale, and may partially explain the lack of significant associations. Future iterations of the BART-ET could integrate conditions with misleading or clearly unreliable advice to test whether participants are sensitive to context cues, which would help distinguish epistemic trust from credulity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the social environment simulated by the task in Round 2 (i.e., 75% accurate, 25% misleading advice) may reflect a relatively benign interpersonal world. Future research should vary the reliability of advice in Round 2 to simulate a broader range of social environments\u0026mdash;including those that more closely mirror adverse or unpredictable interpersonal contexts. This would allow researchers to test whether individuals adjust their epistemic stance in response to social cues about reliability (indicating context sensitivity), or whether they continue to distrust advice regardless of accuracy (suggesting more rigid, trait-like mistrust linked to personality vulnerability).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study introduces a novel behavioural paradigm for assessing epistemic stance and provides evidence that elevated epistemic mistrust plays a key role in linking childhood trauma to borderline personality vulnerability. By combining behavioural and self-report methods, we demonstrate that epistemic stance can be captured both through reflective self-report measures and in-the-moment interpersonal behaviour. The BART-ET showed unique predictive value, underscoring the benefit of a multi-method assessment approach. Although the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, the pattern of associations supported conceptualising epistemic mistrust as a socially calibrated adaptation to early adversity. Future refinements of the BART-ET (for example, incorporating conditions to clearly distinguish trust from credulity) could further enhance its value for both research and clinical applications. Overall, these findings supported growing calls to consider epistemic stance as a transdiagnostic marker of social-cognitive vulnerability, particularly in the context of personality development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBART\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBalloon Analogue Risk Task\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBART‑ET\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBalloon Analogue Risk Task \u0026ndash; Epistemic Trust version\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBPD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBorderline Personality Disorder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePAI‑BOR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonality Assessment Inventory \u0026ndash; Borderline Features Scale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eETMCQ\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEpistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCTQ\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChildhood Trauma Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBSI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrief Symptom Inventory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBSI‑GSI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrief Symptom Inventory \u0026ndash; Global Severity Index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSEM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructural Equation Modelling\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 432px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample size (number of participants)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research comprises two studies, each of which was preregistered separately on the Open Science Framework (OSF): Study 1 https://osf.io/h95jb, and Study 2 https://osf.io/yh7ja. Both studies received ethical approval from the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Study 1: 18057.001; Study 2: 0466). All participants read an information sheet and provided written informed consent before taking part.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data from this study are not publicly available, as consent for data sharing was not included in the participant consent form. However, the laboratory task (BART-ET) can be made available upon request by contacting the authors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research study was conceptualised, carried out, and written up as part of Elizabeth Li\u0026rsquo;s doctoral thesis for her PhD in Developmental Psychopathology and Psychotherapy at UCL Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology. The project was closely supervised by Patrick Luyten and Chloe Campbell, who made substantial intellectual contributions from its inception through to its completion.\u0026nbsp;The behavioural task introduced in this study was developed by Patrick Luyten and Linda Mayes. Georgia McRedmond contributed to the data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo external funding was received specifically for this study. The conduct of the study received departmental and funding support from the UCL Psychoanalysis Unit and the UCL Psychology and Language Sciences Division.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Scientific Summary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research introduces a new behavioural task\u0026mdash;the BART-ET\u0026mdash;to measure how open people are to trusting advice from others. Across two studies with young adults, we found that individuals with more borderline personality traits were less likely to follow interpersonal advice, especially if they had experienced childhood trauma. This reluctance was linked to a general mistrust of others\u0026rsquo; knowledge rather than low trust alone. Our findings suggested that epistemic mistrust may play an important role in personality difficulties and that behavioural tasks like the BART-ET can offer new ways to study social thinking in clinical contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBohus M, Stoffers-Winterling J, Sharp C, Schmahl C, Lieb K. Borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eLancet.\u003c/em\u003e 2021;398(10310):1528\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFonagy P, Luyten P, Allison E, Campbell C. What we have changed our minds about: Part 1. Borderline personality disorder as a limitation of resilience. \u003cem\u003eBorderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul.\u003c/em\u003e 2017;4:9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFonagy P, Luyten P, Allison E. Epistemic petrification and the restoration of epistemic trust: a new conceptualization of borderline personality disorder and its treatment. \u003cem\u003eJ Pers Disord.\u003c/em\u003e 2015;29(5):575\u0026ndash;609.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBateman A, R\u0026uuml;fenacht E, Perroud N, Debban\u0026eacute; M, Nolte T, Shaverin L, Fonagy P.\u003c/strong\u003e Childhood maltreatment, dissociation and borderline personality disorder: preliminary data on the mediational role of mentalizing in complex post‐traumatic stress disorder. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and Psychotherapy\u003c/em\u003e. 2024;97(Suppl 1):58\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Dijke A, Hopman JAB, Ford JD. Affect dysregulation, psychoform dissociation, and adult relational fears mediate the relationship between childhood trauma and complex posttraumatic stress disorder independent of the symptoms of borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eEur J Psychotraumatol.\u003c/em\u003e 2018;9(1):1400878.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCampbell C, Tanzer M, Saunders R, Booker T, Allison E, Li E, O\u0026rsquo;Dowda C, Luyten P, Fonagy P.\u003c/strong\u003e Development and validation of a self‑report measure of epistemic trust. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One.\u003c/em\u003e 2021 Apr 16;16(4):e0250264. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250264.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharp C, Fonagy P. Practitioner review: Borderline personality disorder in adolescence\u0026mdash;recent conceptualization, intervention, and implications for clinical practice. \u003cem\u003eJ Child Psychol Psychiatry.\u003c/em\u003e 2015;56(12):1266\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKing‑Casas B, Sharp C, Lomax‑Bream L, Lohrenz T, Fonagy P, Montague PR. The rupture and repair of cooperation in borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eScience.\u003c/em\u003e 2008;321(5890):806\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiebke L, Koppe G, Bungert M, Thome J, Hauschild S, Defiebre N, et al. Difficulties with being socially accepted: an experimental study in borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eJ Abnorm Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 2018;127(7):670\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Panfilis C, Riva P, Preti E, Cabrino C, Marchesi C. When social inclusion is not enough: implicit expectations of relational damage in borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003ePers Disord Theory Res Treat.\u003c/em\u003e 2015;6(3):230\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranzen N, Hagenhoff M, Baer N, Schmidt A, Mier D, Sammer G, et al. Superior \u0026lsquo;theory of mind\u0026rsquo; in borderline personality disorder: an analysis of interaction behavior in a virtual trust game. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry Res.\u003c/em\u003e 2011;187(1\u0026ndash;2):224\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnoka Z, Seres I, Asp\u0026aacute;n N, B\u0026oacute;di N, K\u0026eacute;ri S. Trust game reveals restricted interpersonal transactions in patients with borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eJ Pers Disord.\u003c/em\u003e 2009;23(4):399\u0026ndash;409.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFertuck EA, Grinband J, Stanley B. Facial trust appraisal negatively biased in borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry Res.\u003c/em\u003e 2013;207(3):195\u0026ndash;202.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKleindienst N, Hauschild S, Liebke L, Thome J, Bertsch K, Hensel S, et al. A negative bias in decoding positive social cues characterizes emotion processing in patients with symptom‑remitted borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eBorderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul.\u003c/em\u003e 2019;6:1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiano A, Fertuck EA, Arntz A, Stanley B. Rejection sensitivity is a mediator between borderline personality disorder features and facial trust appraisal. \u003cem\u003eJ Pers Disord.\u003c/em\u003e 2013;27(4):442\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrei\u0026szlig;ler S, Dziobek I, Ritter K, Heekeren HR, Roepke S. Social cognition in borderline personality disorder: evidence for disturbed recognition of the emotions, thoughts, and intentions of others. \u003cem\u003eFront Behav Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e 2010;4:182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharp C. The social‑cognitive basis of borderline personality disorder: a theory of hypermentalizing. In: Sharp C, Tackett JL, editors. \u003cem\u003eThe handbook of borderline personality disorder in children and adolescents.\u003c/em\u003e New York: Springer; 2014. p. 211\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaskinn A, Antonsen BT, Fretland RA, Dziobek I, Sundet K, Wilberg T. Theory of mind in women with borderline personality disorder or schizophrenia: differences in overall ability and error patterns. \u003cem\u003eFront Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 2015;6:1239.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKurt Y, Walker M, Luyten P, Fonagy P. Laboratory‑assessed mistrust in borderline personality disorder: a meta‑analytic review. \u003cem\u003ePers Disord Theory Res Treat.\u003c/em\u003e In press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBartz JA, Simeon D, Hamilton H, Kim S, Crystal S, Braun A, et al. Oxytocin can hinder trust and cooperation in borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eSoc Cogn Affect Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e 2011;6(5):556\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnapen SRY, Mensink W, Hoogendoorn AW, Swildens WE, Duits P, Hutsebaut J, Beekman ATF. Associations between childhood trauma and epistemic trust, attachment, mentalizing, and symptoms of borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003ePsychopathology.\u003c/em\u003e 2025;58(3):187\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnapen SRY, Mensink W, Swildens WE, Hoogendoorn AW, Duits P, Hutsebaut J, Beekman ATF. Associations between epistemic trust and the severity of personality disorder: results from a study comparing patients with personality disorder, anxiety disorder, and controls. \u003cem\u003eJ Nerv Ment Dis.\u003c/em\u003e 2025;213(3):65\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumpasoğlu GB, Saunders R, Campbell C, Nolte T, Montague R, Pilling S, Fonagy P. Mentalizing, epistemic trust and interpersonal problems in emotion regulation: a sequential path analysis across common mental health disorders and community control samples. \u003cem\u003eJ Affect Disord.\u003c/em\u003e 2025;372:502\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwarzer NH, Behringer N, Dees P, Gingelmaier S, Henter M, Kirsch H, Nolte T. Epistemic mistrust mediates the association between childhood maltreatment and impairments in mentalizing in a sample of university students. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse Negl.\u003c/em\u003e 2025;163:107436.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCotter J, Granger K, Backx R, Hobbs M, Looi CY, Barnett JH. Social cognitive dysfunction as a clinical marker: a systematic review of meta‑analyses across 30 clinical conditions. \u003cem\u003eNeurosci Biobehav Rev.\u003c/em\u003e 2018;84:92\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGluschkoff K, Jokela M, Rosenstr\u0026ouml;m T.\u003c/strong\u003e General psychopathology factor and borderline personality disorder: evidence for substantial overlap from two nationally representative surveys of US adults. \u003cem\u003ePers Disord\u003c/em\u003e. 2021;12(1):86\u0026ndash;92.\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. \u003cem\u003eActa Psychiatr Scand.\u003c/em\u003e 2020;141(1):6\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWood D, Crapnell T, Lau L, Bennett A, Lotstein D, Ferris M, Kuo A. Emerging adulthood as a critical stage in the life course. In: Halfon N, Forrest CB, Lerner RM, Faustman EM, editors. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of life course health development.\u003c/em\u003e Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 123\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright AG, Pincus AL, Lenzenweger MF. Interpersonal development, stability, and change in early adulthood. \u003cem\u003eJ Pers.\u003c/em\u003e 2012;80(5):1339\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). \u003cem\u003eJ Exp Psychol Appl.\u003c/em\u003e 2002;8(2):75\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhite TL, Lejuez CW, de Wit H. Test\u0026ndash;retest characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). \u003cem\u003eExp Clin Psychopharmacol.\u003c/em\u003e 2008;16(6):565\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReddy LF, Lee J, Davis MC, Altshuler L, Glahn DC, Miklowitz DJ, Green MF. Impulsivity and risk taking in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychopharmacology.\u003c/em\u003e 2014;39(2):456\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchoemann AM, Boulton AJ, Short SD. Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. \u003cem\u003eSoc Psychol Personal Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 2017;8(4):379\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. \u003cem\u003eBehav Res Methods.\u003c/em\u003e 2008;40(3):879‑91.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKline RB. \u003cem\u003ePrinciples and practice of structural equation modeling.\u003c/em\u003e 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorey LC. \u003cem\u003eThe Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual.\u003c/em\u003e Odessa (FL): Psychological Assessment Resources; 1991.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Moor MHM, Distel MA, Trull TJ, Boomsma DI. Assessment of borderline personality features in population samples: Is the Personality Assessment Inventory\u0026ndash;Borderline Features Scale measurement invariant across sex and age? \u003cem\u003ePsychol Assess. \u003c/em\u003e2009;21(1):125‑30. doi:10.1037/a0014502.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K, Sapareto E, Ruggiero J.\u003c/strong\u003e Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. \u003cem\u003eAm J Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e. 1994;151(8):1132\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpinhoven P, Penninx BWJH, Hickendorff M, van Hemert AM, Bernstein DP, Elzinga BM. Childhood trauma questionnaire: Factor structure, measurement invariance, and validity across emotional disorders. \u003cem\u003ePsychol Assess.\u003c/em\u003e 2014;26(3):717‑29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScher CD, Stein MB, Asmundson GJ, McCreary DR, Forde DR.\u003c/strong\u003e The childhood trauma questionnaire in a community sample: psychometric properties and normative data. \u003cem\u003eJ Trauma Stress\u003c/em\u003e. 2001;14(4):843\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDerogatis LR. The SCL‑90‑R, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and procedures manual. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems; 1993.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLazarus SA, Cheavens JS, Festa F, Rosenthal MZ. Interpersonal functioning in borderline personality disorder: A review of behavioral and biological correlates and a model for future research. \u003cem\u003eClin Psychol Rev.\u003c/em\u003e 2014;34(3):193‑205.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFertuck EA, Preti E.\u003c/strong\u003e Interpersonal trust and borderline personality disorder: insights from clinical practice and research. \u003cem\u003eJ Pers Disord\u003c/em\u003e. 2023;37(5):469\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLi E, Campbell C, Midgley N, Luyten P.\u003c/strong\u003e Epistemic trust: a comprehensive review of empirical insights and implications for developmental psychopathology. \u003cem\u003eRes Psychother\u003c/em\u003e. 2023;26(3):704.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCsibra G, Gergely G.\u003c/strong\u003e Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. \u003cem\u003ePhilos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci\u003c/em\u003e. 2011;366(1567):1149\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDang J, King KM, Inzlicht M.\u003c/strong\u003e Why are self-report and behavioral measures weakly correlated? \u003cem\u003eTrends Cogn Sci\u003c/em\u003e. 2020;24(4):267\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHedge C, Powell G, Bompas A, Sumner P.\u003c/strong\u003e Self-reported impulsivity does not predict response caution. \u003cem\u003ePers Individ Dif\u003c/em\u003e. 2020;167:110257.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFonagy P, Luyten P.\u003c/strong\u003e A developmental, mentalization-based approach to the understanding and treatment of borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eDev Psychopathol\u003c/em\u003e. 2009;21(4):1355\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLiotti M, Milesi A, Spitoni GF, Tanzilli A, Speranza AM, Parolin L, Giovanardi G.\u003c/strong\u003e Unpacking trust: the Italian validation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ). \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e. 2023;18(1):e0280328.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRiedl D, Kampling H, Kruse J, Nolte T, Labek K, Kirchhoff C, Lampe A.\u003c/strong\u003e Epistemic trust is a critical success factor in psychosomatic rehabilitation: results from a naturalistic multi-center observational study. \u003cem\u003eJ Clin Med\u003c/em\u003e. 2023;13(1):177.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWeiland AM, Taubner S, Zettl M, Bartmann LC, Frohn N, Luginsland M, Volkert J.\u003c/strong\u003eEpistemic trust and associations with psychopathology: validation of the German version of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ). \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e. 2024;19(11):e0312995.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCampbell C, Delamain H, Saunders R, Tanzer M, Milesi A, Nolte T, Fonagy P.\u003c/strong\u003e Development and validation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire\u0026ndash;Revised (ETMCQ-R). \u003cem\u003eBJPsych Open\u003c/em\u003e. In press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBo S, Sharp C, Beck E, Pedersen J, Gondan M, Simonsen E.\u003c/strong\u003e First empirical evaluation of outcomes for mentalization-based group therapy for adolescents with BPD. \u003cem\u003ePers Disord\u003c/em\u003e. 2017;8(4):396\u0026ndash;401.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLi E, Midgley N, Campbell C, Luyten P.\u003c/strong\u003e A theory-building case study of resolving epistemic mistrust and developing epistemic trust in psychotherapy with depressed adolescents. \u003cem\u003ePsychother Res\u003c/em\u003e. 2025;1\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLi E, Midgley N, Luyten P, Sprecher EA, Campbell C.\u003c/strong\u003e Mapping the journey from epistemic mistrust in depressed adolescents receiving psychotherapy. \u003cem\u003eJ Couns Psychol\u003c/em\u003e. 2022;69(5):678\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLieb K, Zanarini MC, Schmahl C, Linehan MM, Bohus M.\u003c/strong\u003e Borderline personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eLancet\u003c/em\u003e. 2004;364(9432):453\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eParticipant Demographics and Mental Health Characteristics in Study 1 and Study 2\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"608\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy 1 (N = 120)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy 2 (N = 153)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.06 (1.96)\u0026sup1;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.99 (1.85)\u0026sup1;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 340px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93 (77%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e121 (79%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 340px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26 (22%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32 (21%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 340px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Binary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthnicity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79 (65.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80 (52%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlack\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (5.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (5.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 (23.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41 (27%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMixed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (2.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (7.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (2.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (7.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmotional problems in the past 4 weeks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44 (37%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69 (45%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76 (63%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (5.9%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRating of Mental Health\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExcellent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15 (13%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (6.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSomewhat Good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51 (43%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51 (33%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66 (43%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSomewhat Poor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (7.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26 (17%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePoor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (2.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychological treatment (current or past)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30 (25%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43 (28%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90 (75%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103 (67%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (4.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurrent medication use for mental health conditions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (4.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (4.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107 (89%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e145 (95%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (6.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocio-economic background\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026sup3;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfessional background\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103 (67%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntermediate background\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 (12%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower socio-economic background\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (14%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 338px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrefer not to say\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 130px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (7.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 3px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 340px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026sup1; Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026sup2; Ethnicity categories are grouped for reporting purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026sup3; Collected in Study 2 only. Socio-economic background assessed via occupation of main household earner at age 14.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2a.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Study 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"888\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 BART-ET\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2 PAI-BOR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3 ETMCQ Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4 ETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5 ETMCQ Credulity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 BART-ET\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2 PAI-BOR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.27**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3 ETMCQ Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4 ETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.20*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5 ETMCQ Credulity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.26 (8.02)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.67 (11.99)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.67 (4.54)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.96 (4.89)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.58 (5.90)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedian (IQR)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.00 (10.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.5 (16.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.00 (7.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.00 (6.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.5 (8.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRange\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;36.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u0026ndash;35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u0026ndash;33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.899\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.707\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.659\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.778\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory \u0026ndash; Borderline Features Scale; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 = *; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01 = **; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 = ***.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2b.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations for Variables in Study 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"1011\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 BART-ET\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2 PAI-BOR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3 ETMCQ Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4 ETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5 ETMCQ Credulity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6 CTQ Total\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7 BSI-GSI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 BART-ET\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2 PAI-BOR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3 ETMCQ Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4 ETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.33***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5 ETMCQ Credulity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6 CTQ Total\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7 BSI-GSI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.67***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.27***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.86 (9.49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.63 (10.48)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.53 (4.24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.5 (4.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.67 (6.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.45 (10.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.50 (14.75)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedian (IQR)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.53 (11.35)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.00 (12.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.00 (5.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.00 (5.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.00 (8.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.00 (14.00)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.67 (17.52)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRange\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;46.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u0026ndash;35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u0026ndash;32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u0026ndash;96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.94\u0026ndash;100.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.856\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.752\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.550\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.792\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.910\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.961\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory \u0026ndash; Borderline Features Scale; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory \u0026ndash; Global Severity Index. CTQ and BSI-GSI were administered in Study 2 only.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 = *; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01 = **; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 = ***.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3.\u003c/strong\u003e Mean Scores and Wilcoxon Test Results Comparing Low vs. High Childhood Trauma Groups Across Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"633\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCTQ Subscale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOutcome Variable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean (Low)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean (High)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eW\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSig\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmotional Abuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1241.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1922.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2211.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.320\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2312.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.553\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Credulity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1512.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1535.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical Abuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e712.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e814.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1224.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.694\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1003.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.376\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Credulity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1353.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.253\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e996.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.354\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSexual Abuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e777.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1296.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.856\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1277.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.778\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1172.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.394\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Credulity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1005.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.079\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026dagger;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e668.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmotional Neglect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e877.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1472.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.191\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1856.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.616\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1285.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Credulity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1560.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.370\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1044.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical Neglect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1650.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2036.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2493.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.676\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2038.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eETMCQ Credulity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1808.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1713.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 55px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLow\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;indicates low trauma exposure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHigh\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;includes both moderate and severe trauma exposure levels.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;= Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic. Significance levels:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .05 = *;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .01 = **;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .001 = ***; \u0026dagger; indicates trend-level result (\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .10). A Bonferroni-corrected threshold of \u0026alpha; = .002 was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4a.\u003c/strong\u003e Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of each path in the SEM testing BART\u0026ndash;ET as a mediator between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, controlling for general psychological distress\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath a: CTQ Total to BART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.09 to 0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.247\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath d1: BSI-GSI to BART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12 to 0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.406\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath b: BART-ET to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16 to 0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.398\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath c: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06 to 0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.362\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath d2: BSI-GSI to PAI-BOR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.34 to 0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.590\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Path c\u0026rsquo;: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03 to 0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory \u0026ndash; Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory \u0026ndash; Borderline Features Scale.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 = *; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01 = **; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 = ***.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4b.\u003c/strong\u003e Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of each path in the SEM testing ETMCQ Mistrust as a mediator between childhood trauma and borderline personality features, controlling for general psychological distress\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath a: CTQ Total to ETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03 to 0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath d1: BSI-GSI to ETMCQ Mistrust\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07 to 0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath b: ETMCQ Mistrust to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05 to 0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath c: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06 to 0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath d2: BSI-GSI to PAI-BOR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38 to 0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Path c\u0026rsquo;: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.004 to 0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory \u0026ndash; Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory \u0026ndash; Borderline Features Scale.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 = *; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01 = **; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 = ***.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4c.\u003c/strong\u003e Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each path in the SEM testing BART-ET as a mediator between childhood trauma and both borderline personality features and general psychological distress\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath a: CTQ Total to BART-ET\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.037 \u0026ndash; 0.349\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath b1: BART-ET to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.257 \u0026ndash; 0.503\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath b2: BART-ET to BSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092 \u0026ndash; 0.344\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath c1: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.268 \u0026ndash; 0.530\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath c2: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.263 \u0026ndash; 0.540\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Path c1\u0026rsquo;: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.011 \u0026ndash; 0.135\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Path c2\u0026rsquo;: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.002 \u0026ndash; 0.087\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; BART-ET = Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory \u0026ndash; Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory \u0026ndash; Borderline Features Scale.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 = *; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01 = **; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 = ***.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4d.\u003c/strong\u003e Standardised estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each path in the SEM testing ETMCQ Mistrust as a mediator between childhood trauma and both borderline personality features and general psychological distress\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath a: CTQ Total to ETMCQ Mistrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.153 \u0026ndash; 0.406\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath b1: ETMCQ Mistrust to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.138 \u0026ndash; 0.400\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath b2: ETMCQ Mistrust to BSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.053 \u0026ndash; 0.356\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath c1: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.272 \u0026ndash; 0.523\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath c2: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.243 \u0026ndash; 0.530\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Path c1\u0026rsquo;: CTQ Total to PAI-BOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.408 \u0026ndash; 0.124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 302px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect Path c2\u0026rsquo;: CTQ Total to BSI-GSI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023 \u0026ndash; 0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; ETMCQ = Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire; BSI-GSI = Brief Symptom Inventory \u0026ndash; Global Severity Index. PAI-BOR = Personality Assessment Inventory \u0026ndash; Borderline Features Scale.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 = *;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01 = **;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001 = ***.\u003c/p\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":"epistemic mistrust, borderline personality features, childhood trauma, behavioural assessment, BART-ET, social-cognitive vulnerability","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7156789/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7156789/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackground\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisruptions in epistemic trust have been recognised as key sequelae of trauma and as markers of vulnerability to borderline personality pathology. However, prior research has largely relied on self-reports and lacks behavioural measures of epistemic stance. The present studies introduce a novel behavioural task\u0026mdash;the Balloon Analogue Risk Task for Epistemic Trust (BART-ET)\u0026mdash;and examine its associations with borderline personality features, trauma history, and psychological distress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo cross-sectional studies were conducted with a combined sample of 273 young adults aged 18\u0026ndash;25 (Study 1: \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120; Study 2: \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;153). Participants completed self-report measures of borderline personality features (PAI-BOR) and epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity (ETMCQ). Study 2 additionally included the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-GSI). All participants completed the BART-ET in a laboratory setting, which operationalised epistemic stance as the degree of deviation from a confederate experimenter\u0026rsquo;s advice during a risk-taking task. Analyses involved correlational tests and structural equation modelling (SEM) to evaluate the hypothesised associations and mediation effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross both samples, higher levels of borderline personality traits were associated with greater epistemic mistrust\u0026mdash;both behaviourally (on the BART-ET) and via self-report (ETMCQ)\u0026mdash;and with greater epistemic credulity, but not with epistemic trust. Behavioural and self-report measures of mistrust were significantly correlated, supporting the BART-ET\u0026rsquo;s convergent validity as an index of epistemic stance. In Study 2, childhood trauma exposure was positively associated with borderline features and with epistemic mistrust (but not significantly with epistemic trust or credulity). SEM analyses indicated that epistemic mistrust partially mediated the association between childhood trauma and borderline personality features.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research provides the first behavioural evidence linking epistemic mistrust with borderline personality features and childhood trauma in young adults. The findings highlight that high epistemic mistrust\u0026mdash;rather than a simple absence of trust\u0026mdash;is a social-cognitive process potentially underlying personality vulnerability. The results also support the utility of the BART-ET as a novel behavioural tool for studying epistemic stance in clinical contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A Laboratory Task to Assess Epistemic Mistrust: Behavioral Evidence for Mediation Between Childhood Trauma and Borderline Personality Features in Young Adults","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-12 12:47:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7156789/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-08-31T20:38:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-31T19:56:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-20T18:04:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"339994073880443871378827377676824668480","date":"2025-08-14T08:16:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"102080337733767442437626065736322639947","date":"2025-08-07T18:54:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-06T15:51:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-26T08:18:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-25T02:26:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","date":"2025-07-18T10:36:28+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":"ff1696ce-682f-4cf2-ae92-fb05b801aa01","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-29T15:58:56+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7156789","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-025-00333-z","journal":{"identity":"borderline-personality-disorder-and-emotion-dysregulation","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-26 15:56:59","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 26th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-12 12:47:24","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40479-025-00333-z","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-025-00333-z","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7156789","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7156789","identity":"rs-7156789","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}