Mental Boundaries Relationship with Self-Esteem and Social Support: New Findings for Mental Boundaries Research

Abstract

The current study examines Mental Boundaries and the relationship between self-esteem and social support. Thick and thin boundaries are a crucial part of Mental Boundary research. Currently, there is limited research on Mental Boundaries and their connection to counseling and other constructs. The current research study examines correlations between Mental Boundaries, self-esteem, social support, and understanding if Mental Boundaries and social support can predict self-esteem levels. By examining self-esteem and social support, the current study provides how Mental Boundaries can be adapted for counselors when working with clients. The current study found significant negative correlations between Mental Boundaries, self-esteem, and social support. However, linear regression found that Mental Boundaries and social support independently predicted self-esteem. Finally, the current discusses future research and the current study's limitations.

Keywords

mental boundaries self-esteem social support counseling college students

Introduction

Boundaries are everywhere in the world around us. Many of these boundaries can be seen, such as a fence that separates two houses or a river that keeps two towns apart. Some boundaries are more complex, such as your personal space or a relationship with a co-worker. Those types of boundaries can be clouded at times. Mental boundaries are a complex construct that has not been explored in all counseling areas, such as the use in a counseling session or from a developmental theory perspective. Understanding mental boundaries and adapting this concept in the clinical world can help the development of new interventions with clients, especially in the areas of self-esteem and social support, which have never been researched before.

Hartmann's research classified boundary thickness into two types: thick and thin. While most people are classified as having either thicker or thinner boundaries, the healthiest form of boundaries is a mixture of both (Hartmann, 1984, 1991, 1997; Hartmann, Rosen, & Rand, 1998; James, 1907). Hartmann (1991) found as James (1907) surmised, that there are positive and negative characteristics to both thick and thin boundaries.

Similar constructs to Hartmann's Mental Boundaries do exist. For example, compartmentalization of the self (Showers, 1992) has similar characteristics. According to Showers and Zeigler-Hill (2007), individuals construct contextualized selves that organize positive and negative beliefs about the self in a way that serves their goals in life. The compartmentalized structure, hypothetically, helps to activate positive self-beliefs and lessen negative self-beliefs (Showers & Zeigler-Hill, 2007). Like Hartmann's thick and thin boundaries, the organization of self-structure can fall into two types: evaluatively compartmentalized and evaluatively integrated (Zeigler-Hill & Showers, 2007).

While compartmentalization and boundaries appear similar, they are conceptually different. Compartmentalization appears more specifically to reflect aspects of the self-structure as related to itself, i.e., distinguishing roles and positive and negative self-definitions (Luo & Watkins, 2008), which would require more sophisticated thinking and verbal skills and perhaps would develop later. Hartmann's (1991) boundaries concept, on the other hand, appears to reflect not only categorizations within the self but also separation of inner and outer perceptual experiences and mental categories more broadly, i.e., differentiating the self from others, which could conceivably begin prior to development of object constancy (Hartmann, 1991). Boundaries and similar concepts might involve a similar mechanism that involves splitting aspects of the inner mind and distinguishing external “reality” from inner experiences with various degrees of integration between thick and thin (i.e., McWilliams, 2011; Kernberg, 1975).

An individual with very thick boundaries typically has a solid physical boundary or sense of space and a clear social connection to others in a group. Individuals with thick boundaries use black or white thinking and have difficulty seeing in-between (Hartmann, 1991, 1997; Hartmann et al., 1998). These individuals also clearly represent themselves and do not define themselves by their relationships. Individuals with thicker boundaries have a strong identity of who they are. These individuals have clear lines of who they are and their various intersectional identities (Hartmann, 1991). In turn, thicker bounded individuals have a stronger group identity with like-minded people (Hartmann, 1991). Thick bounded individuals have a clear focus and can separate feelings from thoughts, and typically their mental state is sound.

Individuals with very thin boundaries tend to be the opposite of individuals with thick boundaries (Hartmann, 1991). Individuals do not have a strong sense of physical space and feel they fit in many groups and lack a clear connection to others. Individuals with thinner boundaries have a difficult time identifying who they are. These individuals can be more fluid in their identity and tend to have many different group identities; however, the ties to the groups are not very strong (Hartmann, 1991). These individuals have a hard time separating their feelings from thoughts, lose their own identity in relationships, and have fewer psychological defenses (Hartmann, 1991).

Self-Esteem

James (1890) suggested that striving to feel good about oneself is an essential aspect of humans. Self-esteem refers to an individual's subjective evaluation of their worth as a person (Rosenberg, 1965). Rosenberg (1979) described an individual with high self-esteem as someone with self-respect, worthiness, fault recognition, and appreciation of dignity. Therefore, “low self-esteem” refers to people who lack self-respect, seeing themselves as untrustworthy and meager (Rosenberg, 1979). Other researchers have advanced this definition to include global feelings of self-worth, adequacy, self-acceptance, and self-respect (Crocker & Major, 1989; Rosenberg, 1965). Individuals need self-esteem and use various methods to raise self-esteem (Diener & Diener, 1995; Dunning et al., 1995; Epstein, 1973; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Taylor & Brown, 1988). The need for self-esteem helps individuals with their general competence, moral self-approval, power, and love worthiness (Epstein, 1973). In general, self-esteem can motivate individuals to feel good about themselves (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Self-Esteem and Mental Boundaries

There have been no known empirical studies on how thick and thin boundaries are related to self-esteem. However, there have been suppositions by Hartmann (1997) that leave room for further research to determine connections between boundaries and self-esteem. Specifically, Hartmann's ideas about how mental boundaries may play into therapists’ violation of boundaries in a counseling relationship may be connected to a potential relationship between self-esteem and boundaries.

Hartmann (1997) postulated that therapists prone to breaking ethical conduct were definitively classified as thick-boundaried or thin-boundaried; they tend not to fall in the middle of the continuum. According to Hartmann, boundary-violating therapists with thin boundaries, especially within an interpersonal sphere, struggle to define therapy limits, failing to separate their own needs from their clients. These therapists may fall in love with their clients, and some express guilt over this admission. Celenza (1991) noted that these therapists might have misconstrued countertransference, consistently avoiding clients’ negative feelings. Hartmann (1997) also explored client violation from thick-boundaried therapists, whom he felt demonstrated a lack of sensitivity or empathy and an unwillingness to acknowledge any harm done to a client.

Hartmann's (1997) notions are based solely on his observations and descriptions—he did examine the existence of the relationship between self-esteem and boundaries. However, he did make this link indirectly and compared his findings to Schoener and Gonsiorek's (1988) research on clinicians who had sexually exploited their clients. Hartmann (1997) believed that the two distinct groups he analyzed—thick-boundaried and thin-boundaried therapists—were compatible with Schoener's and Gonsiorek's (1988) classification of client-exploiting therapists. Shoener and Gonsiorek (1988) identified four groups of therapists that could be classified within Hartmann's (1997) descriptions of thick and thin-boundaried therapists. Those in the first group—who were psychologically healthy or only mildly neurotic—were generally aware of their unethical nature and felt remorseful, extremely anxious, and depressed; these client exploiting therapists had more characteristics of thin boundaries. Those in the second group, who were severely neurotic and socially isolated, had longstanding emotional problems, depression, feelings of inadequacy, and—most notably in the context of this investigation—low self-esteem, had more characteristics of thin boundaries (Schoener & Gonsiorek, 1988). Those in the third group who are impulsive—were generally impulsive, prone to insurance fraud, sexual harassment of employees, and lacked genuine remorse for the effects of their behavior on their victims; these client-exploiting therapists had more characteristics of thick boundaries. Finally, those in the fourth group, who were sociopathic or narcissistic—also have impulsive tendencies, but what is different is these therapists is they are more intentional and devious in their sexual exploitation of clients and use manipulation in order to avoid consequences; these client-exploiting therapists also had more characteristics of thick boundaries (Schoener & Gonsiorek, 1988).

Social Support

Shumaker and Brownell (1984) defined social support as an exchange of resources between two or more individuals perceived by the provider or the recipient to enhance the well-being of the recipient. Social support has also been described as knowing that one is esteemed and part of a group (Pearson, 1986). Recent social support investigations suggest that those with high levels of social support have better emotional and physical health than those without social support (Bum & Jeon, 2016; Empadpoor et al., 2016; Kong et al., 2015; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984). Furthermore, those with high levels of social support, on average, have more contact and friendships with others, higher self-esteem, better skills for coping with stress, fewer mental health problems, and lower mortality rates than those with poor social support (Bum & Jeon, 2016; Kong et al., 2015; Pearson, 1986). In addition, researchers have suggested that receiving social support from multiple sources helps form an individual's self-esteem (Goodwin & Plaza, 2000; Ikiz & Cakar, 2010).

Social Support and Mental Boundaries

The connection between mental boundaries and social support has never been explicitly studied before to our knowledge. The present review will draw theoretical connections in the absence of previous work investigating relationships between these two constructs. Hartmann (1997) proposed that individuals with thinner boundaries have lower self-esteem, so we can hypothesize they would benefit from having a strong social support system. This notion can be justified by acknowledging that individuals with thinner boundaries have lower self-esteem because they lack a sense of self. A better support system might enable these individuals to stay in touch with people who can make them feel good about themselves. For instance, Goodwin and Plaza (2000) found in their investigation of social support across individualist and collectivist cultures that the more collectivist culture emphasizes group dynamics had higher social support levels.

Further, Triandis et al. (1990), along with Goodwin and Plaza (2000), noted that individuals with strong group identification levels typically have higher levels of self-esteem. We can thus hypothesize two things about individuals with thicker boundaries: They have higher levels of social support. Additionally, their strong sense of self and group identity could reduce the need for social support. Identifying with a group of people helps students get comfort and confide in others (Goodwin & Plaza, 2000; Triandis et al., 1990).

Aim of Current Study

The current study aims to understand better the relationship mental boundaries have with self-esteem and social support. Regarding the relationship between mental boundaries and self-esteem, there has been no empirical research to predict if mental boundaries can predict self-esteem levels. The researchers hypothesize that thicker boundaries have higher self-esteem and higher social support for the current study. Based on previous literature, there is a significant relationship between thin boundaries and neuroticism (Sand & Levin, 1996). Further, self-esteem negatively correlates with neuroticism (Watson et al., 2002). There have been no direct studies on social support and mental boundaries. However, previous research found that thinner boundaries are associated with object relations difficulties (Zborowski et al., 2003).

The researchers also consider Hartmann's (1997) suppositions on thin boundaries and low self-esteem. Hartmann (1997) was able to hypothesize this claim through his breakdown of different types of counselors, according to Schoener and Gonsiorek (1988). Finally, a linear regression was run to investigate if mental boundaries and social support predict levels of self-esteem. This is a more exploratory question since these constructs have never been used together.

Methods

Participants

In order to determine an appropriate sample size likely to reveal statistically significant effects in the current study, a power analysis was conducted using G-Power (Faul et al., 2009). Effect sizes within the boundary literature range from r = .16 (Costa et al., 1991; Robins et al., 2001) to r = .19 (Kwan et al., 1997). Using these effect sizes as guidelines for an anticipated average effect size of r = .17 in the current study, along with a significance level of p < .05, the power analysis yields a necessary sample size of N = 266.

The sample consisted of 295 (98 males, 194 females, 3 “other”) students enrolled in undergraduate courses at a medium-sized university in the United States. The average age of the sample was 20.34 (SD = 3.18). The sample was predominately of White, non-Hispanic origin (n = 251, 85.1%). The remainder of the participants identified as Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 18, 6.1%), Black/African American (n = 14, 4.7%), Hispanic/Latino (n = 9, 3.1%), and Another Race/Ethnicity (n = 3, 1%).

Procedure

After IRB approval participants were recruited via email from a medium sized university in the United States and linked to Qualtrics to fill out a survey on Mental Boundaries. After providing informed consent, participants completed an anonymous online Qualtrics survey at their own pace. There was no time limit for questionnaire completion, and no exclusionary criteria were imposed. Data from all participants was used. SPSS 26 for Windows was used for all statistical analyses.

Measures

Hartmann's (1991) Boundary Questionnaire, the Boundary Questionnaire-18 (BQ18), is a self-report inventory to identify the thickness levels of students’ mental boundaries (Hartmann, 1991). This is the best-established survey scale measuring boundaries, and the BQ18 is preferred to the full-length version due to its brevity in a longer questionnaire. The BQ was highly positively correlated with the totals on the BQ18 (r = .87). The mean correlation and standard deviation for the 18 original BQ items selected for the BQ18 was r = .36 and SD = .09, respectively.

The BQ18's scoring for clinical purposes is more transparent than the full BQ (Aumann et al., 2012). Therefore, there are no absolute cutoff points for the BQ18. However, Kunzendorf et al. (1997) suggested that thick boundaries score less than or equal to 29, and medium boundaries (a combination of thick and thin boundary characteristics) score between 30 and 42. Thin boundaries score greater than 42 (on a total scale of 0 to 72). The BQ18 uses a four-point Likert scale (0 indicates “not at all true of me”; 4 indicates very true of me”). An example of a question is “my feelings blend into one another.”

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a self-report inventory that identifies the student's level of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Using the RSES is based on the strong Cronbach coefficients, usually above .80 across self-esteem studies (Heatherton & Wyland, 2003). The RSES is also a simple measure to administer, and the brevity of the scale leads to participant focus. The RSES uses a four-point Likert scale (1 indicates “strongly disagree”; 4 “strongly agree”). An example of a question is “I feel that I have a number of good qualities.”

The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) is a self-report inventory to identify students’ levels of social support (Zimet et al., 1988). This study chose this instrument due to its brief and concise scale design. The MSPSS uses a seven-point Liker scale (1 “very strongly disagree”; 7 “very strongly agree”). An example of a question is “there is a special person who is around when I am in need.”

Statistical Analysis

Coefficient alpha was used to determine the reliability of all multi-item scales. Pearson correlations were used to determine the relationship between social support and self-esteem, mental boundaries and self-esteem, and mental boundaries and social support. Finally, a linear regression was run to understand the interaction effects of variables on each other.

All assumptions for correlations and linear regressions have were met. There were no extreme outliers in the data set. Q-Q-Plots were examined and were found to be normal. Multicollinearity was examined by variance inflation factors (VIF) which were all less than 5. Scatter plots were examined and were found to be homoscedastic.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Pearson correlations were run to understand if there is any relation between age, mental boundaries, self-esteem, and social support. Age and social support yielded a significant negative weak correlation (r = -.121, p < .05). Mental boundaries and self-esteem had non-significant correlations with age. The researchers also examined if there are any gender differences in mental boundaries, self-esteem, and social support. Mental boundaries and self-esteem yielded non-significant findings. Social support did have a significant difference (Male M = 5.22, SD = 1.11; Female M = 5.52, SD = 1.15), t (290) = -2.20, p < .05, with gender.

Scale Reliabilities

Reliability analysis was run for each scale that was used in the study. The full BQ18 scale had an alpha level of .69. The RSES had an alpha level of .91, and the MSPSS had an alpha level of .92. The range of alpha levels (.69–.92) for each of the scales in this study roughly met the conventional cutoffs for acceptable reliability. However, the reliability of the BQ18 was at the low end of this range (see Tabachnick et al., 2019).

Correlations

A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated between participants’ mental boundaries (as measured by the BQ18) and self-esteem. The results showed a statistically significant correlation between mental boundaries and self-esteem. Specifically, a significant, moderated-sized, negative correlation was found (r = -.38, p < .001) whereby thicker boundaries were related to higher self-esteem.

A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated between participants’ mental boundaries (as measured by the BQ18) and social support. The results showed a statistically significant correlation between mental boundaries and social support. Specifically, a significant, weak, negative correlation was found (r = -.24, p < .001) whereby thicker boundaries were related to more social support.

Linear regression was calculated with social support, mental boundaries, and the interaction between mental boundaries and social support to predict self-esteem. The model account for a significant 29% (Adj $R^{2}$ ) of the variance in self-esteem, (F (3,291) = 40.70, p < .001). Examination of the within group predictors, mental boundaries ( $β$ = -.28, t = 5.58, p < .001) and social support ( $β$ = .40, t = 7.86, p < .001) independently predicted self-esteem. The interaction between mental boundaries and social support had a non-significant finding ( $β$ = -.39, t = -.783, p = .434)

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to understand and examine the relationship mental boundaries, self-esteem, and social support have with each other. Further, the current study investigated how mental boundaries and social support may predict levels of self-esteem.

Results were consistent with expected results. In addition, correlations were found to be significant. The correlation between mental boundaries and self-esteem yielded a significant negative correlation, and more specifically, thinner boundaries have lower self-esteem, and thicker boundaries have higher self-esteem. This current finding can support Hartmann's (1997) suppositions that individuals with thinner boundaries have lower self-esteem. The current finding also aligns with Hartmann's (1991) description of individuals with thinner boundaries, such as having trouble finding a group of individuals to connect with.

The correlation between mental boundaries and social support yielded a significant negative correlation, and more specifically, thinner boundaries have lower social supports and thicker boundaries have higher social supports. This finding supports the first correlation between mental boundaries and social support. In addition, it has been found that individuals with more substantial levels of social support typically have higher self-esteem (Goodwin & Plaza, 2000; Triandis et al., 1990). The current research has answered a question that has never been asked before; however, Hartmann (1991) suggested that individuals with thicker boundaries have a strong sense of group identity.

Based on the current study, there can be more evidence that thicker boundaries typically have higher self-esteem and social support. These findings align with Hartmann's (1991) descriptions of thin and thick boundaries and Hartmann's (1997) suppositions about self-esteem and thin boundaries. The current study also can add to previous literature. Zborowski et al. (2003) found that thinner boundaries are associated with object relations difficulties, and the current study shows that thinner boundaries have lower social support. Sand and Levin (1996) found a relationship between thin boundaries and neuroticism, and self-esteem is negatively correlated with neuroticism (Watson et al., 2002).

Further investigating these constructs, the linear regression shows new data on how mental boundaries and social support may predict self-esteem. The new findings suggest that independently mental boundaries and social support influence self-esteem. With these findings, it can be suggested that an individual's mental boundaries or social support can predict an individual's self-esteem. However, the interaction between mental boundaries and social support did not influence the prediction of self-esteem. They may be due to the lower correlation between social support and mental boundaries and not having the strength to have any significance together.

Limitations

Limitations were considered in the current study. First, the population for the current study was primarily white women. Having a more diverse population may enrich the results. Another limitation considered was the limited previous research on mental boundaries, self-esteem, and social support. This is new territory in mental boundary literature and self-esteem and social support; however, there is only a limited selection of literature to build off.

Because there is no available research on mental boundaries, self-esteem, and social support correlations were used to begin operationalizing mental boundaries more. Correlations, however, does not mean causality. The current study has significant findings, but more research in that area will be done. With the lack of research on mental boundaries, it can be hard to understand what they are and are not. In addition, there have been limited studies on mental boundaries and how they relate to other personality measures and constructs. The current research, in many ways, is a start to provide empirical data on mental boundaries and other constructs. However, the authors recognize that there is still more to be discovered.

Future Research

Future research considerations for the current research include more investigations on the relationships between mental boundaries, self-esteem, and social support—the current study started by providing significant results that have never been empirically found. By having concrete evidence there can be more studies done on what makes these relationships significant and how mental boundaries can be used in a helping profession, especially counseling.

The authors will be conducting more research on mental boundaries and other personality measures to provide more evidence of mental boundaries. By doing so there can be more evidence of mental boundaries as a personality measure. Furthermore, mental boundaries can be incorporated into the counseling field. There may also be other constructs that fit well with mental boundaries, giving a more precise and more measurable working personality inventory. Integrating empirically sound research with mental boundaries will make it a more vital and valuable tool when working with or characterizing individuals. In many ways, the authors will work on making mental boundaries a helpful tool for researchers and clinicians.

The current research study also sheds light on other constructs related to thick or thin boundaries. The researchers believe that the current findings can help find “Boundary Equilibrium.” “Boundary Equilibrium” is a new term created by the authors to find a balance between thick and thin boundaries. For example, understanding that relationships between self-esteem and social support show ways to move an individual to have thicker boundaries and vice versa. Finding the balance between thick and thin boundaries can help in counseling and helping individuals have healthier lives. Further, additional research is needed to empirically examine the separateness and potentially shared mechanisms between psychological boundaries and similar constructs such as compartmentalization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

ORCID iD

John R. Mathe

Author Biographies

John R. Mathe is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Development at Slippery Rock University.

William E. Kelly is an associate professor in the Department of Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Neumann University.

References

Aumann

Lahl

Pietrowsky

(2012). Relationship between dream structure, boundary structure and the big five personality dimensions. Dreaming, 22(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028977

Bum

C.-H.

Jeon

I.-K.

(2016). Structural relationships between students’ social support and self-esteem, depression, and happiness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(11), 1761–1774. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.11.1761

Celenza

(1991). The misuse of countertransference love in sexual intimacies between therapists and patients. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 8(4), 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079302

Costa

P. T.

Mccrae

R. R.

Dye

D. A.

(1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D

Crocker

Major

(1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608

Diener

(1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653

Dunning

Leuenberger

Sherman

D. A.

(1995). A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.58

Emadpoor

Lavasani

M. G.

Shahcheraghi

S. M.

(2016). Relationship between perceived social support and psychological well-being among students based on mediating role of academic motivation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 14(3), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9608-4

Epstein

(1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28(5), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034679

10.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

11.

Goodwin

Plaza

S. H.

(2000). Perceived and received social support in two cultures: Collectivism and support among British and spanish students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500172007

12.

Hartmann

(1984). The nightmare. Basic Books.

13.

Hartmann

(1991). Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality. Basic Books.

14.

Hartmann

(1997). The concept of boundaries in counselling and psychotherapy. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 25(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069889708253798

15.

Hartmann

Rosen

Rand

(1998). Personality and dreaming: Boundary structure and dream content. Dreaming, 8(1), 31–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:DREM.0000005913.21794.1f

16.

Heatherton, T. F., & Wyland, C. L. (2003). Assessing self–esteem. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 219–233). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612–014

17.

Ikiz

F. E.

Cakar

F. S.

(2010). Perceived social support and self-esteem in adolescence. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5(1), 2338–2342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.460

18.

James

(1890). The principles of psychology, Vol. 2. Henry Holt and Company.

19.

James

(1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Washington Square Press.

20.

Kernberg

(1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Jason Aronson, Inc.

21.

Kong

Ding

Zhao

(2015). The relationships among gratitude, self-esteem, social support and life satisfaction among undergraduate students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(2), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9519-2

22.

Kunzendorf

R. G.

Hartmann

Cohen

Cutler

(1997). Bizarreness of the dreams and daydreams reported by individuals with thin and thick boundaries. Dreaming, 7(4), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094482

23.

Kwan

V. S. Y.

Bond

M. H.

Singelis

T. M.

(1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1038

24.

Luo

Watkins

(2008). Clarifying the measurement of a self-structural process variable: The case of self-complexity. International Journal of Testing, 8(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305050802001219

25.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

26.

McWilliams

(2011). Psychoanalytic diagnosis: Understanding personality structure in the clinical process (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

27.

Pearson

J. E.

(1986). The definition and measurement of social support. Journal of Counseling & Development, 64(6), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01144.x

28.

Robins

R. W.

Tracy

J. L.

Trzesniewski

Potter

Gosling

S. D.

(2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324

29.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

30.

Rosenberg

(1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books.

31.

Sand

Levin

(1996). Concordance between hartmann's boundary questionnaire and the eysenck personality inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(1), 192–194. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.82.1.192

32.

Schoener

G. R.

Gonsiorek

(1988). Assessment and development of rehabilitation plans for counselors who have sexually exploited their clients. Journal of Counseling & Development, 67(4), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1988.tb02588.x

33.

Showers

(1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-knowledge: Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6),1036–1049. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1036

34.

Showers

C. J.

Zeigler-Hill

(2007). Compartmentalization and integration: The evaluative organization of contextualized selves. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1181–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00472.x

35.

Shumaker

S. A.

Brownell

(1984). Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01105.x

36.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

Ullman

J. B.

(2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

37.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

(1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193

38.

Triandis

H. C.

Mccusker

Hui

C. H.

(1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1006–1020. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1006

39.

Watson

Suls

Haig

(2002). Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of personality and affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.185

40.

Zborowski

M. J.

Hartmann

Newsom

M. A.

Banar

(2003). The hartmann boundary questionnaire: Two studies examining personality correlates and interpersonal behavior. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 23(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.2190/TPMB-PE1A-L6UU-1JUL

41.

Zeigler-Hill

Showers

C. J.

(2007). Self-structure and self-esteem stability: The hidden vulnerability of compartmentalization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294872

42.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2