Content uploaded by John R. Mathe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John R. Mathe on Feb 23, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mental Boundaries
Relationship with
Self-Esteem and Social
Support: New Findings
for Mental Boundaries
Research
John R. Mathe
1
and William E. Kelly
2
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
1
Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania, USA
2
Neumann University, Aston, Pennsylvania, USA
Corresponding Author:
John Mathe, Department of Counseling and Development; Slippery Rock University; Slippery Rock,
PA 16057, USA.
Email: john.mathe@sru.edu
Original Research Article
Imagination, Cognition and
Personality: Consciousness in
Theory, Research, and Clinical
Practice
1–13
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02762366231158274
journals.sagepub.com/home/ica
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 devel-
opment 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, com-
partmentalization 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
2Imagination, Cognition and Personality 0(0)
(Hartmann, 1991, 1997; Hartmann et al., 1998). These individuals also clearly repre-
sent 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 phys-
ical 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 compe-
tence, 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 con-
nected to a potential relationship between self-esteem and boundaries.
Mathe and Kelly 3
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 countertransfer-
ence, 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 emo-
tional 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
4Imagination, Cognition and Personality 0(0)
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 indi-
vidual’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 explic-
itly studied before to our knowledge. The present review will draw theoretical connec-
tions 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 bound-
aries and self-esteem, there has been no empirical research to predict if mental bound-
aries 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
Mathe and Kelly 5
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 bound-
aries and social support predict levels of self-esteem. This is a more exploratory ques-
tion 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 univer-
sity 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
6Imagination, Cognition and Personality 0(0)
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 char-
acteristics) 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 var-
iables 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
Mathe and Kelly 7
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 bound-
aries (as measured by the BQ18) and self-esteem. The results showed a statistically sig-
nificant 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 stat-
istically 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 R2) of the variance in self-esteem, (F
(3,291) =40.70, p< .001). Examination of the within group predictors, mental bound-
aries (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.
8Imagination, Cognition and Personality 0(0)
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 sup-
ports 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 typ-
ically 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 asso-
ciated with object relations difficulties, and the current study shows that thinner bound-
aries have lower social support. Sand and Levin (1996) found a relationship between
thin boundaries and neuroticism, and self-esteem is negatively correlated with neurot-
icism (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 find-
ings suggest that independently mental boundaries and social support influence
self-esteem. With these findings, it can be suggested that an individual’smental
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 sig-
nificance 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
Mathe and Kelly 9
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 boundar-
ies 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 pro-
fession, 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, under-
standing 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 mecha-
nisms between psychological boundaries and similar constructs such as
compartmentalization.
10 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 0(0)
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 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1441-7491
References
Aumann, C., Lahl, O., & Pietrowsky, R. (2012). Relationship between dream structure, boun-
dary 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, A. (1991). The misuse of countertransference love in sexual intimacies between ther-
apists 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 conscien-
tiousness: 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, J., & Major, B. (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, E., & Diener, M. (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, D., Leuenberger, A., & 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, L., Lavasani, M. G., & Shahcheraghi, S. M. (2016). Relationship between perceived
social support and psychological well-being among students based on mediating role of aca-
demic motivation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,14(3), 284–290.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9608-4
Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist,
28(5), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034679
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & 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
Mathe and Kelly 11
Goodwin, R., & 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
Hartmann, E. (1984). The nightmare. Basic Books.
Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality. Basic Books.
Hartmann, E. (1997). The concept of boundaries in counselling and psychotherapy. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling,25(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/030698897
08253798
Hartmann, E., Rosen, R., & Rand, W. (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
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
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
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, Vol. 2. Henry Holt and Company.
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Washington Square
Press.
Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Jason Aronson, Inc.
Kong, F., Ding, K., & Zhao, J. (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
Kunzendorf, R. G., Hartmann, E., Cohen, R., & Cutler, J. (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
Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satis-
faction: 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
Luo, W., & Watkins, D. (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
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (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
McWilliams, N. (2011). Psychoanalytic diagnosis: Understanding personality structure in the
clinical process (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
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
Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & 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
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books.
12 Imagination, Cognition and Personality 0(0)
Sand, S., & Levin, R. (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
Schoener, G. R., & Gonsiorek, J. (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
Showers, C. (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
Showers, C. J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (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
Shumaker, S. A., & Brownell, A. (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
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
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
Triandis, H. C., Mccusker, C., & 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
Watson, D., Suls, J., & Haig, J. (2002). Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of per-
sonality and affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 185–197.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.185
Zborowski, M. J., Hartmann, E., Newsom, M. A., & Banar, M. (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
Zeigler-Hill, V., & 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
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
Mathe and Kelly 13