We present a data set containing 705 between-study heterogeneity estimates τ2 as reported in 61 articles published in Psychological Bulletin from 1990-2013. The data set also includes information about the number and type of effect sizes, the Q- and I2-statistics, and publication bias. The data set is stored in the Open Science Framework repository (https://osf.io/wyhve/) and can be used for several purposes:(1) to compare a specific heterogeneity estimate to the distribution of between-study heterogeneity estimates in psychology; (2) to construct an informed prior distribution for the between-study heterogeneity in psychology; (3) to obtain realistic population values for Monte Carlo simulations investigating the performance of meta-analytic methods

We examined the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adult Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a multilevel meta-analysis, including all trial types (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020111351). We tested several predictors, including trial- and outcome type (continuous or dichotomous), setting, BPD symptom domain and mean age. We included 87 studies (N = 5881) from searches between 2013 and 2019 in four databases. We controlled for differing treatment lengths and a logarithmic relationship between treatment duration and effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding outliers and by prioritizing total scale scores when both subscale and total scores were reported. Schema Therapy, Mentalization-Based Treatment and reduced Dialectical Behavior Therapy were associated with higher effect sizes than average, and treatment-as-usual with lower effect sizes. General severity and affective instability showed the strongest improvement, dissociation, anger, impulsivity and suicidality/self-injury the least. Treatment effectiveness decreased as the age of participants increased. Dichotomous outcomes were associated to larger effects, and analyses based on last observation carried forward to smaller effects. Compared to the average, the highest reductions were found for certain specialized psychotherapies. All BPD domains improved, though not equally. These findings have a high generalizability. However, causal conclusions cannot be drawn, although the design type did not influence the results.

Background: Dropout from psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a notorious problem. We investigated whether treatment, treatment format, treatment setting, substance use exclusion criteria, proportion males, mean age, country, and other variables influenced dropout.Methods: From Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Psycinfo and other sources, 111 studies (159 treatment arms, N = 9100) of psychotherapy for non-forensic adult patients with BPD were included. Dropout per quarter during one year of treatment was analyzed on participant level with multilevel survival analysis, to deal with multiple predictors, nonconstant dropout chance over time, and censored data. Multiple imputation was used to estimate quarter of drop-out if unreported. Sensitivity analyses were done by excluding DBT-arms with deviating push-out rules.Results: Dropout was highest in the first quarter of treatment. Schema therapy had the lowest dropout overall, and mentalization-based treatment in the first two quarters. Community treatment by experts had the highest dropout. Moreover, individual therapy had lowest dropout, group therapy highest, with combined formats in-between. Other variables such as age or substance-use exclusion criteria were not associated with dropout.Conclusion: The findings do not support claims that all treatments are equal, and indicate that efforts to reduce dropout should focus on early stages of treatment and on group treatment.

Background: Specialized evidence-based treatments have been developed and evaluated for borderline personality disorder (BPD), including Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Schema Therapy (ST). Individual differences in treatment response to both ST and DBT have been observed across studies, but the factors driving these differences are largely unknown. Understanding which treatment works best for whom and why remain central issues in psychotherapy research. The aim of the present study is to improve treatment response of DBT and ST for BPD patients by a) identifying patient characteristics that predict (differential) treatment response (i.e., treatment selection) and b) understanding how both treatments lead to change (i.e., mechanisms of change). Moreover, the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT and ST will be evaluated. Methods: The BOOTS trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in a routine clinical setting in several outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 200 participants, to be randomized to DBT or ST. Patients receive a combined program of individual and group sessions for a maximum duration of 25 months. Data are collected at baseline until three-year follow-up. Candidate predictors of (differential) treatment response have been selected based on the literature, a patient representative of the Borderline Foundation of the Netherlands, and semi-structured interviews among 18 expert clinicians. In addition, BPD-treatment-specific (ST: beliefs and schema modes; DBT: emotion regulation and skills use), BPD-treatment-generic (therapeutic environment characterized by genuineness, safety, and equality), and non-specific (attachment and therapeutic alliance) mechanisms of change are assessed. The primary outcome measure is change in BPD manifestations. Secondary outcome measures include functioning, additional self-reported symptoms, and well-being. Discussion: The current study contributes to the optimization of treatments for BPD patients by extending our knowledge on “Which treatment – DBT or ST – works the best for which BPD patient, and why?”, which is likely to yield important benefits for both BPD patients (e.g., prevention of overtreatment and potential harm of treatments) and society (e.g., increased economic productivity of patients and efficient use of treatments). Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7699, registered 25/04/2019 - retrospectively registered.

Freezing to impending threat is a core defensive response. It has been studied primarily using fear conditioning in non‐human animals, thwarting advances in translational human anxiety research that has used other indices, such as skin conductance responses. Here we examine postural freezing as a human conditioning index for translational anxiety research. We employed a mixed cued/contextual fear‐conditioning paradigm where one context signals the occurrence of the US upon the presentation of the CS, and another context signals that the CS is not followed by the US. Critically, during the following generalization phase, the CS is presented in a third and novel context. We show that human freezing is highly sensitive to fear conditioning, generalizes to ambiguous contexts, and amplifies with threat imminence. Intriguingly, stronger parasympathetically driven freezing under threat, but not sympathetically mediated skin conductance, predicts subsequent startle magnitude. These results demonstrate that humans show fear‐conditioned animal‐like freezing responses, known to aid in active preparation for unexpected attack, and that freezing captures real‐life anxiety expression. Conditioned freezing offers a promising new, non‐invasive, and continuous, readout for human fear conditioning, paving the way for future translational studies into human fear and anxiety.

Background: Automatically activated cognitive motivational processes such as the tendency to attend to or approach smoking-related stimuli (ie, attentional and approach bias) have been related to smoking behaviors. Therefore, these cognitive biases are thought to play a role in maintaining smoking behaviors. Cognitive biases can be modified with cognitive bias modification (CBM), which holds promise as an easy-access and low-cost online intervention. However, little is known about the effectiveness of online interventions combining two varieties of CBM. Targeting multiple cognitive biases may improve treatment outcomes because these biases have been shown to be relatively independent. Objective: This study aimed to test the individual and combined effects of two web-based CBM varieties—attentional bias modification (AtBM) and approach bias modification (ApBM)—in a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 2 (AtBM: active versus sham) × 2 (ApBM: active versus sham) factorial design. Methods: A total of 504 adult smokers seeking online help to quit smoking were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental conditions to receive 11 fully automated CBM training sessions. To increase participants’ intrinsic motivation to change their smoking behaviors, all participants first received brief, automated, tailored feedback. The primary outcome was point prevalence abstinence during the study period. Secondary outcomes included daily cigarette use and attentional and approach bias. All outcomes were repeatedly self-assessed online from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. For the examination of training effects on outcome changes, an intention-to-treat analysis with a multilevel modeling (MLM) approach was adopted. Results: Only 10.7% (54/504) of the participants completed all 11 training sessions, and 8.3% (42/504) of the participants reached the 3-month follow-up assessment. MLM showed that over time, neither AtBM or ApBM nor a combination of both differed from their respective sham training in point prevalence abstinence rates (P=.17, P=.56, and P=.14, respectively), and in changes in daily cigarette use (P=.26, P=.08, and P=.13, respectively), attentional bias (P=.07, P=.81, and P=.15, respectively), and approach bias (P=.57, P=.22, and P=.40, respectively), while daily cigarette use decreased over time across conditions for all participants (P<.001). Conclusions: This RCT provides no support for the effectiveness of combining AtBM and ApBM in a self-help web-based smoking cessation intervention. However, this study had a very high dropout rate and a very low frequency of training usage, indicating an overall low acceptability of the intervention, which precludes any definite conclusion on its efficacy. We discuss how this study can inform future designs and settings of online CBM interventions. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4678; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4678