Mentalized affectivity in a nutshell: Validation of the Italian version of the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale (B-MAS).

Marianna Liotti,Guido Giovanardi,Elliot Jurist,Antonella Marchetti,Vittorio Lingiardi,Annalisa Valle,Anna Maria Speranza,Grazia Fernanda Spitoni,Marianna Mazza

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260678

Abstract

The term “mentalized affectivity” describes the ability to reflect on, process, modulate and express emotions through the prism of autobiographical memory. It represents a bridge concept that integrates previous contributions on emotion regulation and mentalization, offering a quite unique perspective on affective and reflective functioning. The overall aim of this study was to validate the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale (B-MAS), a 12-items self-report instrument, on the Italian population. We tested both the factorial validity of the instrument and its reliability and convergent validity with other similar constructs. We also obtained normative data for the Italian population, broken down by gender. Participants (n = 389) were recruited through snowball sampling. Data was collected through an online survey. Besides the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale, the survey included an ad hoc schedule with questions investigating socio-demographic characteristics, and self-report measures of empathy and reflective functioning. Statistical analysis has shown a three-component (Identifying, Processing, and Expressing emotions) hierarchical structure underlying mentalized affectivity, mirroring the model already proposed in the original validation of the instrument. Moreover, the B-MAS showed good psychometric properties for what regards both reliability and convergent validity. The results of our study highlight the good operationalization and robust empirical foundation of the construct, revealing that the B-MAS is a promising instrument to assess mentalized affectivity. Its brevity makes it particularly valuable both in clinical and research contexts, and the normative data provided in this study will allow an easy comparison with the scores obtained by other samples (clinical and non-clinical).

Highlights

MentalizationThe concept of mentalization, developed by Fonagy and colleagues [1,2,3], has been one of the most fruitful over recent years, both in research and clinical practice
Concerning the correlations between mentalized affectivity and reflective functioning, we found a positive correlation between all three components of the Brief-Mentalized Affectivity Scale (B-Mentalized Affectivity Scale (MAS)) and the Certainty scale of the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ) (RFQ_C), which measures the individual’s overall mentalizing stance and abilities
We found a negative correlation between the Processing component of the B-MAS and the Uncertainty scale of the RFQ (RFQ_U), which instead measures how much the self’s and other’s mental states tend to remain unknown, ambiguous, and/or unpredictable (i.e., ‘Sometimes I do things without really knowing why’)

Summary

Introduction

MentalizationThe concept of mentalization, developed by Fonagy and colleagues [1,2,3], has been one of the most fruitful over recent years, both in research and clinical practice. P. xxi] define it as “The mental process by which an individual implicitly and explicitly interprets the actions of oneself and others as meaningful on the basis of intentional mental states such as personal desires, needs, feelings, beliefs, and reasons” This concept brings together many past theoretical formulations: from ego psychology to object relations theory and, most notably, attachment theory [5]. Different aspects of mentalization have emerged: implicit or explicit, automatic or voluntary, regarding self or others, cognitive or affective [9,10,11] Such expansion, even though valuable for clinical understandings, has brought to light how the many facets of mentalization overlaps with other concepts [12, 13]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion