The present study investigated the patterns of mutual associations between maladaptive daydreaming-related variables (MD, i.e., interference with life and somatosensory retreat), psychopathological symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety, somatization, obsessive–compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, psychoticism), emotion regulation strategies (i.e., cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression), and problematic social networking sites use (PSNSU). A total of 531 young adults completed self-report measures through an online survey shared on social network groups. Two network models were performed on 297 young adults with probable MD (MDers) (M_age = 23.2, SD = 2.7) vs. 234 non-MDers (M_age = 23.4, SD = 2.6). Results showed that, compared to non-MDers, MDers showed significantly higher scores in all the study variables, except for cognitive reappraisal. Moreover, in the MDers network, the following patterns were identified: (i) no connections between the cluster of psychopathological symptoms, and neither cognitive reappraisal nor expressive suppression; (ii) a connection, through obsessive–compulsive (OC) symptoms, between the cluster of psychopathological symptoms and MD-interference with life; and (iii) a connection between PSNSU and MD-interference with life. Accordingly, the Network Comparison Test evidenced that the network structures of MDers vs. non-MDers were significantly different (M = .24; p = .01). Overall, higher scores on psychopathological symptoms in MDers provide support to the assumption that MD is a clinical condition, in which OC symptoms may play a critical role. Additionally, the association of PSNSU and MD-interference with life suggests that MDers might rely on PSNSU as a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy. Under this scenario, MD may be regarded as a potential vulnerability factor for PSNSU.

The aim of this study was to provide data on the preliminary validation of a clinician-report multidimensional assessment measure of mentalization (Mentalization Imbalances Scale, MIS). A random national sample of psychotherapists (N=190) completed the MIS to identify mentalization imbalances, and the Personality Disorder Checklist to assess the personality disorders (PDs) of randomly selected patients currently in their care. Factor analysis confirmed the presence of six factors that represented different imbalances of mentalization: cognitive, affective, automatic, external, imbalance toward others, and imbalance toward self. We found several significant relationships between patients’ mentalization imbalances and personality pathology. Paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal PDs were predicted by an imbalance toward self, an imbalance the patients shared with histrionic, avoidant, and obsessive compulsive PDs, whereas dependent, borderline, and histrionic PDs were related to an imbalance toward others. Cognitive imbalance was related to schizoid, narcissistic, and obsessive compulsive PDs, whereas affective imbalance predicted antisocial, borderline, narcissistic and histrionic PDs. Automatic imbalance was related to schizotypal, antisocial, and borderline PDs. MIS represents a reliable and valid measure that can help clinicians at understanding patients’ specific difficulties of mentalization.

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between patients' mentalizing problematics and their personality; specifically, it aimed to identify clusters of individuals characterized by specific patterns of mentalizing imbalances and to analyze the relationship between these and diagnosis of personality disorder (PD), nonmentalizing modes, emotion dysregulation, and interpersonal reactivity.Methods: Four hundred therapeutic dyads were recruited. A part of these (n = 183) only completed clinician‐report measures, Mentalization Imbalances Scale, and Modes of Mentalization Scale, while others (n = 217) also completed patients' self‐report measures, which were Reflective Functioning Questionnaire, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, and Interpersonal Reactivity Index.Results: A latent profile analysis enlightened the presence of four clusters with problematics in the dimensions of mentalization, indicated by cluster names: (1) Affective‐self‐automatic profile (ASA‐P) (with higher percentage of PDs); (2) External profile (E‐P) (with lower percentage of PDs); (3) Others‐automatic‐affective profile (OAA‐P); (4) Cognitive‐self‐automatic profile (CSA‐P). Multivariate analysis of variances confirmed that the four clusters differed in relation to the quality of mentalization, emotional dysregulation and interpersonal reactivity, with higher levels of nonmentalization modes, uncertainty about mental states and emotion dysregulation in ASA‐P, higher levels of good mentalization in E‐P, lower impulsivity in CSA‐P, and greater empathic concern in OAA‐P.

Objective: The aim of this work was to investigate the relationship between therapists’ techniques (supportive/expressive intervention level – ESIL), therapists’ countertransference (CT) and patien...