Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Judging personality disorder : a systematic review of clinician attitudes and responses to Borderline Personality Disorder ; and, An examination of causal attributions, stigmatising stereotypes and jury decision making regarding the ICD-11 'Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern' criteria
Author: Baker, James
Awarding Body: University of East Anglia
Current Institution: University of East Anglia
Date of Award: 2020
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Aims: This portfolio aims to aid understanding of processes of mental health stigma relating to “Borderline Personality Disorder” (BPD), and how developments in the nosology of Personality Disorder may affect the perceptions of laypeople in legal settings. It contains a review of the evidence concerning clinician attitudes and reactions toward BPD, and an empirical investigation of the effect of International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) terminology upon jury decision-making and perceptions. Design: This portfolio consists of an general introduction to the topic, a systematic review of clinician attitudes and responses to BPD, an empirical paper outlining a quasi-experimental study of the effect of the “Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern” ICD-11 classification upon jury decision-making, an extended methodology, and an overall discussion and evaluation section. Findings: The systematic review confirms that negative attitudes toward BPD remain a problem in clinical groups and are likely to relate to both unhelpful stereotypes and challenging therapeutic interactions, implicating a need for well-evidenced training programmes. Various methodological limitations of this literature are discussed. The empirical paper identified significant differences relating to increased perceptions of dangerousness and the need for segregation and coercion when a defendant’s mental health problems were described as a “Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern”, although differences in jury-decision making were not observed. Value of work: This work indicates that BPD remains a particularly stigmatised diagnosis among clinicians, and this is likely to remain the case until well-evidenced training programmes are made a crucial component of ongoing professional development. This work makes a novel contribution to the study of jury perceptions and decision-making and is possibly the first to assess the effect of the new ICD-11 classification upon processes of stigma toward Personality Disorder. It has important implications for the way in which clinicians communicate clinical information in legal settings.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (D.Clin.Psy.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available