Splitting (psychology)
Splitting (also called binary thinking, black-and-white thinking, all-or-nothing thinking, or thinking in extremes) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both perceived positive and negative qualities of something into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism[1] wherein the individual tends to think in extremes (e.g., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground). This kind of dichotomous interpretation is contrasted by an acknowledgement of certain nuances known as "shades of gray".[2]
Splitting was first described by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory;[3] it begins as the inability of the infant to combine the fulfilling aspects of the parents (the good object) and their unresponsive aspects (the unsatisfying object) into the same individuals, instead seeing the good and bad as separate. In psychoanalytic theory this functions as a defense mechanism.[4]
Mechanism[edit]
The subject will perceive something that contradicts with their image of themselves or a person close to them which is often a something understood to be a slight (i.e. a partner not texting back quickly enough), a perceived attempt to isolate or abandon them (i.e. a group of friends making plans to meet without them), or even a feeling of unwanted attraction (i.e. finding oneself attracted to a brother in law).
Subjects with Borderline Personality Disorder have even been shown to interpret social acceptance as subterfuge or deception.[5] They have also been shown to be less sensitive to verbal irony (i.e understanding the opposite meaning to the one being communicated) due to a negative bias in interpreting ambiguous information.[6]
The subject will feel challenged by this discomfort as it relates to their self perception (i.e. my partner doesn't respond to me because I'm unlovable / my friends are excluding me on purpose because they hate me / if I'm attracted to my sister's husband I must be a bad person).
The subject will form a narrative to explain and externalise the perceived discomfort, making it wholly the fault of another (i.e my partner doesn't love me because he loves someone else / the friend who made the plan is turning everyone else against me / I'm attracted to my brother in law because my brother in law is in love with me).
Proneness to rejection hypersensitivity; problems in establishing and maintaining consistent and appropriate levels of trust in interpersonal relationships; frequent misinterpretation of social signals contribute greatly to a subject with Borderline Personality Disorder's ability to find supporting "evidence" for their devaluation process (i.e my partner has a new female colleague so he must be having an affair / my friend didn't laugh at my joke so that means they secretly hate me / my brother in law sat next to me at dinner instead of my sister because he is trying to sleep with me).[7] This can be exacerbated in times of professional or personal stress as stress induced paranoia is a recognised diagnostic feature of Borderline Personality Disorder.[8]
The subject will then devalue the person that they once idealised. (i.e. my partner is unfaithful and manipulating me / my friend is conniving and a back stabbing / my brother in law betrayed my sister).
Often then the splitting process becomes behavioural and the subject will often abruptly lash out or cut contact with the person that they devalued causing a great deal of inner group conflict and distress.
In order to prevent perceived judgement from others, the subject will often engage in a stage of justification of their actions by convincing those around them of the validity of their claims that the devalued party is entirely bad and that they are purely a victim.[9]
With people with Cluster-B personality disorders, this often involves the embellishment or invention of grievances that garner an emotional response from those around them that they feel matches their own distress at the situation.[10] The more valuable the social bond they are trying to preserve or the higher their general need for social acceptance, the higher the probability that they engage in psychologically abusive behaviour. [11] This can cause intense psychological distress in the person they are devaluing and can be met by legal challenges of abuse or slander.
For the loved ones of those with Borderline Personality Disorder there are several seemingly contradictory factors to balance:
The New England Personality Disorder Association recommends always involving the wider group in the discussion of issues, not responding to or ignoring threats or accusations (even if untrue) in the moment then discussing the episode in an open and realistic manner when the subject has calmed, and never protecting the subject from social or legal consequences of their actions.[12]
Certain difficulties arise from validating emotions and not endorsing the behaviour of splitting as the loved one of the person with Borderline Personality Disorder risks becoming both complicit in problematic behaviours and reinforcing them.
Examples provided by Gundarson and Berkowitz[12] are:
Relationships[edit]
Splitting creates instability in relationships because one person can be viewed as either personified virtue or personified vice at different times, depending on whether they gratify the subject's needs or frustrate them. This, along with similar oscillations in the experience and appraisal of the self, leads to chaotic and unstable relationship patterns, identity diffusion, and mood swings.[13] The therapeutic process can be greatly impeded by these oscillations because the therapist too can come to be seen as all good or all bad. To attempt to overcome the negative effects on treatment outcomes, constant interpretations by the therapist are needed.[14]
Splitting contributes to unstable relationships and intense emotional experiences. Splitting is common during adolescence, but is regarded as transient. Splitting has been noted especially with persons diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.[15][16] Treatment strategies have been developed for individuals and groups based on dialectical behavior therapy, and for couples.[17] There are also self-help books on related topics such as mindfulness and emotional regulation that claim to be helpful for individuals who struggle with the consequences of splitting.[18][19] The fear of incurring the social consequences of splitting has been theorised to lead people with Borderline Personality Disorder to avoid social or romantic relationships with those they perceive to be critical and/or prone to assertive or aggressive behaviour and conversely seek out individuals they perceive to be passive.[20]
In depression, exaggerated all-or-nothing thinking can form a self-reinforcing cycle: these thoughts might be called emotional amplifiers because, as they go around and around, they become more intense. Typical all-or-nothing thoughts:
Janet, Bleuler and Freud[edit]
Splitting of consciousness ("normal self" vs. "secondary self") was first described by Pierre Janet in De l'automatisme psychologique (1889).[27][28] His ideas were extended by Eugen Bleuler (who in 1908 coined the word schizophrenia[29] from the Ancient Greek skhízō [σχῐ́ζω, "to split"] and phrḗn [φρήν, "mind"]) and Sigmund Freud[30] to explain the splitting (German: Spaltung)[31] of consciousness—not (with Janet) as the product of innate weakness, but as the result of inner conflict.[32] With the development of the idea of repression, splitting moved to the background of Freud's thought for some years, being largely reserved for cases of double personality.[33] However, his late work saw a renewed interest in how it was "possible for the ego to avoid a rupture... by effecting a cleavage or division of itself",[34] a theme which was extended in his Outline of Psycho-Analysis (1940a [1938]) beyond fetishism to the neurotic in general.[35]
His daughter Anna Freud explored how, in healthy childhood development, a splitting of loving and aggressive instincts could be avoided.[36]
Horizontal and vertical[edit]
Heinz Kohut has emphasized in his self psychology the distinction between horizontal and vertical forms of splitting.[56] Traditional psychoanalysis saw repression as forming a horizontal barrier between different levels of the mind – so that for example an unpleasant truth might be accepted superficially but denied in a deeper part of the psyche.[57] Kohut contrasted with this vertical fractures of the mind into two parts with incompatible attitudes separated by mutual disavowal.[58]