Borderline_NN1 personality_NN1 disorder_NN1 (_PUL BPD_NN0 )_PUR is_VBZ a_AT0 severe_AJ0 psychiatric_AJ0 disorder_NN1 characterized_VVN by_PRP a_AT0 pervasive_AJ0 pattern_NN1 of_PRF affective_AJ0 and_CJC behavioral_AJ0 instability_NN1 (_PUL American_AJ0 Psychiatric_AJ0 Association_NN1 ,_PUN 2013_CRD )_PUR ._SENT However_AV0 ,_PUN tracking_VVG this_DT0 instability_NN1 over_PRP time_NN1 has_VHZ proven_VVN difficult_AJ0 ._SENT Researchers_NN2 have_VHB found_VVN discrepancies_NN2 between_PRP retrospective_AJ0 self-reports_NN2 and_CJC real-time_AJ0 assessments_NN2 of_PRF mood_NN1 ,_PUN symptoms_NN2 ,_PUN traits_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC behaviors_NN2 (_PUL Fahrenberg_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2007_CRD ;_PUN Shiffman_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2008_CRD )_PUR ._SENT People_NN0 with_PRP BPD_NN0 more_AV0 accurately_AV0 recall_VVI their_DPS experiences_NN2 on_PRP days_NN2 without_PRP significant_AJ0 mood_NN1 shifts_NN2 and_CJC struggle_NN1 to_TO0 retrospectively_AV0 recreate_VVI days_NN2 with_PRP such_DT0 shifts_NN2 (_PUL Solhan_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2009_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Additionally_AV0 ,_PUN people_NN0 with_PRP BPD_NN0 tend_VVB to_TO0 overestimate_VVI the_AT0 intensity_NN1 of_PRF negative_AJ0 moods_NN2 and_CJC underestimate_VVB the_AT0 intensity_NN1 of_PRF positive_AJ0 moods_NN2 in_PRP the_AT0 context_NN1 of_PRF post-hoc_AJ0 self-reports_NN2 (_PUL Santangelo_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2014_CRD )_PUR ._SENT People_NN0 with_PRP untreated_AJ0 BPD_NN0 may_VM0 also_AV0 be_VBI less_AV0 accurate_AJ0 at_PRP identifying_VVG and_CJC naming_VVG their_DPS emotions_NN2 compared_VVN with_PRP healthy_AJ0 controls_NN2 and_CJC people_NN0 with_PRP BPD_NN0 being_VBG treated_VVN with_PRP Dialectical_AJ0 Behavior_NN1 Therapy_NN1 (_PUL EbnerPriemer_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2007_CRD ;_PUN Ebner-Priemer_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2008_CRD )_PUR ._SENT These_DT0 difficulties_NN2 may_VM0 be_VBI particularly_AV0 exacerbated_VVN during_PRP periods_NN2 of_PRF heightened_AJ0 psychological_AJ0 distress_NN1 ._SENT Taken_VVN together_AV0 ,_PUN these_DT0 findings_NN2 suggest_VVB that_CJT assessing_VVG mood_NN1 fluctuations_NN2 in_PRP people_NN0 with_PRP BPD_NN0 using_VVG retrospective_AJ0 self-report_NN1 may_VM0 provide_VVI different_AJ0 information_NN1 than_CJS ratings_NN2 captured_VVN in_PRP vivo_NN1 ._SENT 
One_CRD sampling_NN1 technique_NN1 researchers_NN2 have_VHB used_VVN to_TO0 address_VVI these_DT0 difficulties_NN2 is_VBZ ecological_AJ0 momentary_AJ0 assessment_NN1 (_PUL EMA_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT In_PRP EMA_NN1 designs_NN2 ,_PUN participants_NN2 use_VVB a_AT0 personal_AJ0 device_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN cell_NN1 phone_NN1 )_PUR to_TO0 report_VVI phenomena_NN2 of_PRF interest_NN1 as_CJS they_PNP occur_VVB in_PRP real_AJ0 time_NN1 ._SENT EMA_NN1 reduces_VVZ the_AT0 recall_NN1 bias_NN1 associated_VVN with_PRP retrospective_AJ0 self-report_NN1 ,_PUN strengthens_VVZ ecological_AJ0 validity_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC is_VBZ better_AV0 equipped_VVN to_TO0 capture_VVI affective_AJ0 variability_NN1 and_CJC instability_NN1 in_PRP those_DT0 with_PRP BPD_NN0 (_PUL Shiffman_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2008_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Ratings_NN2 of_PRF emotional_AJ0 intensity_NN1 in_PRP particular_AJ0 may_VM0 translate_VVI readily_AV0 to_PRP EMA_NN1 batteries_NN2 (_PUL Santangelo_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2014_CRD )_PUR ._SENT For_PRP example_NN1 ,_PUN existing_AJ0 validated_AJ0 questionnaires_NN2 of_PRF emotional_AJ0 experiences_NN2 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN positive_AJ0 and_CJC negative_AJ0 affective_AJ0 schedule_NN1 (_PUL PANAS_NP0 ;_PUN Watson_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 1988_CRD )_PUR have_VHB been_VBN abbreviated_VVN for_PRP frequent_AJ0 real-time_AJ0 administration_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN Jacobson_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT There_EX0 is_VBZ also_AV0 evidence_NN1 that_CJT using_VVG single_AJ0 items_NN2 representing_VVG discrete_AJ0 emotions_NN2 (_PUL i.e._AV0 ,_PUN indicating_VVG the_AT0 extent_NN1 to_PRP which_DTQ a_AT0 person_NN1 is_VBZ experiencing_VVG sadness_NN1 or_CJC anxiety_NN1 )_PUR is_VBZ a_AT0 valid_AJ0 approach_NN1 to_TO0 capture_VVI affective_AJ0 experiences_NN2 (_PUL Harmon-Jones_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2016_CRD ;_PUN Jacobson_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
Two_CRD studies_NN2 have_VHB assessed_VVN affective_AJ0 instability_NN1 characteristic_NN1 of_PRF BPD_NN0 using_VVG the_AT0 PANAS_NN2 in_PRP samples_NN2 of_PRF individuals_NN2 with_PRP BPD_NN0 (_PUL Hepp_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR and_CJC individuals_NN2 with_PRP a_AT0 range_NN1 of_PRF psychopathology_NN1 (_PUL Ringwald_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Importantly_AV0 ,_PUN these_DT0 studies_NN2 also_AV0 assessed_VVN behavioral_AJ0 responses_NN2 to_PRP emotions_NN2 and_CJC interpersonal_AJ0 stressors_NN2 at_PRP each_DT0 EMA_NN1 beep_NN1 and_CJC found_VVD that_CJT more_DT0 variability_NN1 in_PRP the_AT0 types_NN2 of_PRF behavioral_AJ0 responses_NN2 reflected_VVD maladaptive_AJ0 emotion_NN1 dysregulation_NN1 (_PUL Ringwald_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR and_CJC that_DT0 interpersonal_AJ0 stressors_NN2 were_VBD associated_VVN with_PRP greater_AJC negative_AJ0 affect_NN1 (_PUL Hepp_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Although_CJS these_DT0 studies_NN2 contribute_VVB to_PRP the_AT0 relatively_AV0 sparse_AJ0 literature_NN1 characterizing_VVG affective_AJ0 instability_NN1 using_VVG EMA_NN1 methods_NN2 ,_PUN neither_DT0 study_NN1 collected_VVD qualitative_AJ0 data_NN0 regarding_PRP how_AVQ participants_NN2 responded_VVD behaviorally_AV0 to_PRP interpersonal_AJ0 stressors_NN2 ._SENT Furthermore_AV0 ,_PUN the_AT0 studies_NN2 that_CJT have_VHB assessed_VVN behavioral_AJ0 responses_NN2 to_PRP stressful_AJ0 stimuli_NN2 using_VVG EMA_NN1 methods_NN2 among_PRP participants_NN2 with_PRP BPD_NN0 typically_AV0 only_AV0 assess_VVI engagement_NN1 in_PRP a_AT0 single_AJ0 maladaptive_AJ0 behavior_NN1 ,_PUN such_DT0 as_PRP rumination_NN1 or_CJC suppression_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN Chapman_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2009_CRD ;_PUN Yaroslavsky_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2019_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
Thus_AV0 ,_PUN it_PNP is_VBZ unclear_AJ0 whether_CJS brief_AJ0 measures_NN2 can_VM0 accurately_AV0 capture_VVI the_AT0 full_AJ0 range_NN1 of_PRF coping_VVG behaviors_NN2 used_VVN by_PRP people_NN0 with_PRP BPD_NN0 ._SENT When_CJS measuring_VVG emotion_NN1 regulation_NN1 ,_PUN researchers_NN2 have_VHB typically_AV0 applied_VVN one_CRD of_PRF two_CRD approaches_NN2 :_PUN (_PUL 1_CRD )_PUR using_VVG multi-item_AJ0 scales_NN2 to_TO0 assess_VVI the_AT0 use_NN1 of_PRF relatively_AV0 fewer_DT0 regulation_NN1 strategies_NN2 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN Brockman_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2017_CRD ;_PUN Medland_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR or_CJC (_PUL 2_CRD )_PUR using_VVG single_AJ0 items_NN2 to_TO0 capture_VVI a_AT0 broader_AJC range_NN1 of_PRF regulatory_AJ0 behaviors_NN2 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN Heiy_NP0 &_NP0 Cheavens_NP0 ,_PUN 2014_CRD ;_PUN Southward_AV0 &_NP0 Cheavens_NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD ;_PUN Southward_AV0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2019_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Unfortunately_AV0 ,_PUN multi-item_AJ0 scales_NN2 cannot_NN1 account_NN1 for_PRP the_AT0 full_AJ0 nature_NN1 of_PRF a_AT0 person_NN1 's_POS emotion_NN1 regulation_NN1 repertoires_NN2 and_CJC single-item_AJ0 scales_NN2 often_AV0 demonstrate_VVB relatively_AV0 lower_AJC content_NN1 validity_NN1 and_CJC reliability_NN1 ._SENT In_PRP two_CRD systematic_AJ0 reviews_NN2 of_PRF studies_NN2 utilizing_VVG EMA_NN1 methods_NN2 ,_PUN many_DT0 researchers_NN2 approached_VVD measurement_NN1 development_NN1 by_PRP simply_AV0 selecting_VVG items_NN2 from_PRP cross-sectional_AJ0 measures_NN2 and_CJC adapting_VVG the_AT0 wording_NN1 to_TO0 fit_VVI the_AT0 study_NN1 's_POS timeframe_NN1 (_PUL Griffin_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD ;_PUN Trull_NP0 &_NP0 Ebner-Priemer_NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Furthermore_AV0 ,_PUN although_CJS certain_AJ0 EMA_NN1 measures_NN2 of_PRF emotion_NN1 regulation_NN1 behaviors_NN2 may_VM0 demonstrate_VVI internal_AJ0 validity_NN1 and_CJC reliability_NN1 ,_PUN one_CRD assumption_NN1 underlying_VVG all_DT0 these_DT0 measures_NN2 is_VBZ that_CJT participants_NN2 are_VBB interpreting_VVG the_AT0 EMA_NN1 response_NN1 choices_NN2 in_PRP line_NN1 with_PRP the_AT0 researchers_NN2 '_POS intentions_NN2 ._SENT However_AV0 ,_PUN without_PRP direct_AJ0 participant_NN1 feedback_NN1 describing_VVG their_DPS behaviors_NN2 ,_PUN it_PNP is_VBZ unclear_AJ0 whether_CJS the_AT0 behavioral_AJ0 response_NN1 participants_NN2 select_VVB from_PRP an_AT0 EMA_NN1 item_NN1 to_TO0 describe_VVI their_DPS regulatory_AJ0 behavior_NN1 aligns_VVZ with_PRP that_DT0 intended_VVN by_PRP the_AT0 researchers_NN2 ._SENT 
Current_AJ0 Study_NN1 
In_PRP a_AT0 recent_AJ0 trial_NN1 examining_VVG the_AT0 impact_NN1 of_PRF a_AT0 brief_AJ0 treatment_NN1 on_PRP the_AT0 frequency_NN1 of_PRF maladaptive_AJ0 behavioral_AJ0 coping_NN1 in_PRP people_NN0 with_PRP BPD_NN0 ,_PUN Sauer-Zavala_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 (_PUL 2020_CRD )_PUR asked_VVD participants_NN2 to_TO0 categorize_VVI their_DPS daily_AJ0 emotion_NN1 regulation_NN1 behaviors_NN2 using_VVG five_CRD relatively_AV0 broad_AJ0 categories_NN2 (_PUL i.e._AV0 ,_PUN emotional_AJ0 avoidance_NN1 ,_PUN emotional_AJ0 savoring_NN1 ,_PUN engage_VVB in_PRP impulsive_AJ0 behavior_NN1 ,_PUN problem_NN1 solving_NN1 ,_PUN acceptance_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT Participants_NN2 also_AV0 provided_CJS qualitative_AJ0 descriptions_NN2 of_PRF each_DT0 behavior_NN1 ._SENT In_PRP the_AT0 current_AJ0 study_NN1 ,_PUN we_PNP conducted_VVD a_AT0 secondary_AJ0 data_NN0 analysis_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 agreement_NN1 between_PRP participants_NN2 and_CJC researchers_NN2 regarding_PRP participants_NN2 '_POS reports_NN2 and_CJC descriptions_NN2 of_PRF their_DPS emotion_NN1 regulation_NN1 behaviors_NN2 from_PRP Sauer-Zavala_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 (_PUL 2020_CRD )_PUR ,_PUN Southward_AV0 et_NP0 al._NP0 (_PUL 2020_CRD )_PUR and_CJC Cardona_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 (_PUL 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Specifically_AV0 ,_PUN our_DPS research_NN1 team_NN1 independently_AV0 categorized_VVN participants_NN2 '_POS qualitative_AJ0 responses_NN2 as_PRP one_CRD of_PRF five_CRD behavioral_AJ0 response_NN1 options_NN2 presented_VVN to_PRP participants_NN2 during_PRP the_AT0 parent_NN1 study_NN1 and_CJC examined_VVD agreement_NN1 with_PRP participants_NN2 '_POS own_DT0 categorizations_NN2 of_PRF their_DPS behaviors_NN2 ._SENT We_PNP hypothesized_VVD that_CJT researchers_NN2 and_CJC participants_NN2 would_VM0 demonstrate_VVI acceptable_AJ0 agreement_NN1 regarding_PRP these_DT0 classifications_NN2 ._SENT We_PNP then_AV0 explored_VVD several_DT0 potential_AJ0 moderators_NN2 (_PUL i.e._AV0 ,_PUN type_NN1 of_PRF emotion_NN1 experienced_VVN ,_PUN emotion_NN1 intensity_NN1 ,_PUN researcher_NN1 confidence_NN1 ,_PUN severity_NN1 of_PRF BPD_NN0 symptoms_NN2 ,_PUN treatment_NN1 responder_NN1 status_NN1 )_PUR that_DT0 may_VM0 affect_VVI the_AT0 observed_AJ0 level_NN1 of_PRF agreement_NN1 ._SENT Given_VVN the_AT0 exploratory_AJ0 nature_NN1 of_PRF these_DT0 moderators_NN2 ,_PUN no_AT0 specific_AJ0 hypotheses_NN2 were_VBD made_VVN ._SENT 
Method_NN1 
Participants_NN2 
Participants_NN2 included_VVD eight_CRD individuals_NN2 with_PRP BPD_NN0 (_PUL Mage_VVB =_NN1 21.57_CRD ,_PUN SD_NP0 =_NP0 3.05_CRD )_PUR ._SENT The_AT0 majority_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 sample_NN1 was_VBD female_AJ0 (_PUL 63_CRD %_NN0 )_PUR ,_PUN Asian_AJ0 American_NN1 (_PUL 63_CRD %_NN0 )_PUR ,_PUN non-Hispanic_AJ0 (_PUL 88_CRD %_NN0 )_PUR ,_PUN and_CJC not_XX0 taking_VVG psychotropic_AJ0 medication_NN1 (_PUL 88_CRD %_NN0 )_PUR ._SENT Individuals_NN2 were_VBD included_VVN if_CJS they_PNP met_VVD the_AT0 following_AJ0 criteria_NN2 :_PUN (_PUL 1_CRD )_PUR Diagnostic_AJ0 and_CJC statistical_AJ0 manual_NN1 of_PRF mental_AJ0 disorders_NN2 –_PUN 5th_ORD edition_NN1 (_PUL DSM-5_CRD ;_PUN American_AJ0 Psychiatric_AJ0 Association_NN1 ,_PUN 2013_CRD )_PUR diagnosis_NN1 of_PRF BPD_NN0 ,_PUN (_PUL 2_CRD )_PUR willingness_NN1 to_TO0 maintain_VVI their_DPS current_AJ0 dose_NN1 of_PRF psychotropic_AJ0 medication_NN1 throughout_PRP the_AT0 duration_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 study_NN1 ,_PUN (_PUL 3_CRD )_PUR willingness_NN1 to_TO0 abstain_VVI from_PRP additional_AJ0 psychosocial_AJ0 treatment_NN1 for_PRP the_AT0 duration_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 study_NN1 ,_PUN (_PUL 4_CRD )_PUR fluency_NN1 in_PRP English_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC (_PUL 5_CRD )_PUR access_NN1 to_PRP a_AT0 personal_AJ0 smartphone_NN1 ._SENT Participants_NN2 were_VBD excluded_VVN if_CJS they_PNP endorsed_VVD conditions_NN2 that_CJT necessitated_VVD prioritization_NN1 of_PRF alternative_AJ0 treatment_NN1 ._SENT Specifically_AV0 ,_PUN exclusion_NN1 criteria_NN2 consisted_VVD of_PRF the_AT0 following_AJ0 :_PUN (_PUL 1_CRD )_PUR current_AJ0 manic_AJ0 episode_NN1 ,_PUN schizophrenia_NN1 ,_PUN schizoaffective_AJ0 disorder_NN1 ,_PUN or_CJC other_AJ0 organic_AJ0 mental_AJ0 disorder_NN1 ,_PUN (_PUL 2_CRD )_PUR current_AJ0 acute_AJ0 suicidal_AJ0 risk_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC (_PUL 3_CRD )_PUR current_AJ0 or_CJC recent_AJ0 (_PUL within_PRP 3_CRD months_NN2 )_PUR history_NN1 of_PRF substance_NN1 dependence_NN1 ._SENT 
Participants_NN2 were_VBD recruited_VVN through_PRP local_AJ0 treatment_NN1 sites_NN2 ,_PUN online_AJ0 postings_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC direct_AJ0 contact_NN1 with_PRP individuals_NN2 with_PRP BPD_NN0 who_PNQ had_VHD previously_AV0 participated_VVN in_PRP a_AT0 nontreatment_AJ0 study_NN1 conducted_VVN by_PRP the_AT0 research_NN1 team_NN1 ._SENT Potential_AJ0 participants_NN2 completed_VVD a_AT0 phone_NN1 screen_NN1 and_CJC those_DT0 likely_AJ0 to_TO0 be_VBI eligible_AJ0 were_VBD invited_VVN to_PRP the_AT0 research_NN1 clinic_NN1 to_TO0 complete_VVI a_AT0 semistructured_AJ0 ,_PUN diagnostic_AJ0 assessment_NN1 to_TO0 confirm_VVI eligibility_NN1 ._SENT Of_PRF the_AT0 10_CRD individuals_NN2 that_CJT completed_VVD this_DT0 baseline_NN1 assessment_NN1 ,_PUN eight_CRD were_VBD eligible_AJ0 to_TO0 participate_VVI in_PRP this_DT0 study_NN1 ._SENT All_DT0 enrolled_AJ0 participants_NN2 (_PUL N_ZZ0 =_NN1 8_CRD )_PUR completed_VVD all_DT0 study_NN1 procedures_NN2 ._SENT Details_NN2 about_PRP study_NN1 flow_NN1 and_CJC full_AJ0 participant_NN1 demographics_NN2 can_VM0 be_VBI viewed_VVN in_PRP Sauer-Zavala_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 (_PUL 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
Study_NN1 Design_NN1 
The_AT0 primary_AJ0 study_NN1 from_PRP which_DTQ these_DT0 data_NN0 are_VBB derived_VVN (_PUL Sauer-Zavala_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR utilized_VVD a_AT0 single-case_AJ0 experimental_AJ0 design_NN1 (_PUL Barlow_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2009_CRD )_PUR ._SENT The_AT0 study_NN1 consisted_VVD of_PRF three_CRD phases_NN2 :_PUN baseline_NN1 ,_PUN intervention_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC follow-up_AJ0 ._SENT Specifically_AV0 ,_PUN participants_NN2 were_VBD randomly_AV0 assigned_VVN to_PRP a_AT0 baseline_NN1 period_NN1 of_PRF either_AV0 2_CRD or_CJC 4_CRD weeks_NN2 followed_VVN by_PRP an_AT0 intervention_NN1 phase_NN1 consisting_VVG of_PRF 4_CRD weekly_AJ0 sessions_NN2 of_PRF the_AT0 Countering_AJ0 Emotional_AJ0 Behaviors_NN2 module_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 Unified_AJ0 Protocol_NN1 (_PUL Barlow_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2018_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Finally_AV0 ,_PUN participants_NN2 completed_VVD a_AT0 4-week_AJ0 assessment-only_AJ0 follow-up_NN1 phase_NN1 ._SENT Participants_NN2 completed_VVD daily_AJ0 diary_NN1 entries_NN2 throughout_PRP all_DT0 study_NN1 phases_NN2 ,_PUN as_CJS well_AV0 as_CJS hourly_AJ0 entries_NN2 on_PRP two_CRD randomly_AV0 chosen_AJ0 days_NN2 (_PUL one_CRD during_PRP the_AT0 baseline_NN1 phase_NN1 and_CJC one_PNI during_PRP the_AT0 last_ORD week_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 intervention_NN1 phase_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT Notifications_NN2 were_VBD sent_VVN via_PRP text_NN1 message_NN1 or_CJC email_NN1 (_PUL based_VVN on_PRP participant_NN1 preference_NN1 )_PUR to_PRP participants_NN2 '_POS smartphones_NN2 to_TO0 gather_VVI information_NN1 regarding_PRP their_DPS current_AJ0 emotional_AJ0 experiences_NN2 ,_PUN the_AT0 triggers_NN2 that_CJT prompted_VVD these_DT0 emotions_NN2 ,_PUN and_CJC their_DPS behavioral_AJ0 responses_NN2 to_PRP them_PNP ._SENT All_DT0 study_NN1 procedures_NN2 were_VBD approved_VVN by_PRP the_AT0 local_AJ0 university_NN1 institutional_AJ0 review_NN1 board_NN1 and_CJC participants_NN2 provided_VVD their_DPS informed_AJ0 consent_NN1 prior_AJ0 to_PRP engaging_VVG in_PRP study-related_AJ0 activities_NN2 ._SENT 
Measures_NN2 
Diagnostic_AJ0 Assessment_NN1 ._SENT The_AT0 Structured_AJ0 Clinical_AJ0 Interview_NN1 for_PRP DSM-IV_AJ0 Axis_NN1 II_CRD Disorders_NN2 –_PUN Borderline_NN1 Personality_NN1 Disorder_NN1 Module_NN1 (_PUL First_ORD et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 1997_CRD )_PUR was_VBD used_VVN to_TO0 identify_VVI the_AT0 presence_NN1 /_PUN absence_NN1 of_PRF BPD_NN0 according_VVG to_PRP DSM-IV-TR_NN1 criteria_NN2 ,_PUN which_DTQ is_VBZ identical_AJ0 to_PRP DSM-5_CRD criteria_NN2 ,_PUN in_PRP the_AT0 current_AJ0 study_NN1 ._SENT The_AT0 Structured_AJ0 Clinical_AJ0 Interview_NN1 for_PRP DSM-IV_AJ0 Axis_NN1 II_CRD Disorders_NN2 –_PUN Borderline_NN1 Personality_NN1 Disorder_NN1 Module_NN1 has_VHZ demonstrated_VVN good_AJ0 psychometric_AJ0 properties_NN2 (_PUL Ryder_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2007_CRD )_PUR and_CJC strong_AJ0 interrater_NN1 reliability_NN1 in_PRP prior_AJ0 research_NN1 (_PUL κ_NP0 =_NP0 .91_CRD ;_PUN Lobbestael_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2011_CRD )_PUR ._SENT Additionally_AV0 ,_PUN specific_AJ0 modules_NN2 from_PRP the_AT0 Anxiety_NN1 Disorders_NN2 Interview_NN1 Schedule_NN1 for_PRP DSM-5_CRD (_PUL Brown_NP0 &_NP0 Barlow_NP0 ,_PUN 2014_CRD )_PUR were_VBD used_VVN to_TO0 assess_VVI study_NN1 exclusion_NN1 criteria_NN2 ._SENT Advanced_AJ0 doctoral_AJ0 students_NN2 administered_VVN these_DT0 instruments_NN2 to_PRP participants_NN2 at_PRP their_DPS initial_AJ0 study_NN1 visit_NN1 and_CJC demonstrated_VVD excellent_AJ0 agreement_NN1 regarding_PRP study_NN1 eligibility_NN1 (_PUL κ_NP0 =_NP0 1.00_CRD ;_PUN Sauer-Zavala_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
BPD_NN0 Symptom_NN1 Severity_NN1 ._SENT Participants_NN2 completed_VVD the_AT0 self-report_AJ0 version_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 Zanarini_NP0 Rating_NN1 Scale_NN1 for_PRP Borderline_NN1 Personality_NN1 Disorder_NN1 (_PUL ZAN-BPD_NP0 ;_PUN Zanarini_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2015_CRD )_PUR weekly_AJ0 throughout_PRP all_DT0 study_NN1 phases_NN2 ._SENT The_AT0 ZAN-BPD_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT0 nine-item_AJ0 measure_NN1 designed_VVN to_TO0 assess_VVI the_AT0 severity_NN1 of_PRF each_DT0 of_PRF the_AT0 DSM-IV-TR_NN1 (_PUL American_AJ0 Psychiatric_AJ0 Association_NN1 ,_PUN 2000_CRD )_PUR criteria_NN2 for_PRP BPD_NN0 ._SENT Participants_NN2 rate_VVB the_AT0 degree_NN1 to_PRP which_DTQ they_PNP have_VHB experienced_VVN each_DT0 symptom_NN1 in_PRP the_AT0 prior_AJ0 week_NN1 using_VVG a_AT0 0_CRD to_PRP 4_CRD scale_NN1 with_PRP unique_AJ0 anchors_NN2 for_PRP each_DT0 item_NN1 ._SENT ZAN-BPD_AJ0 items_NN2 have_VHB demonstrated_VVN good_AJ0 internal_AJ0 consistency_NN1 (_PUL Cronbach_NP0 's_POS α_NN1 =_NN1 .84_CRD )_PUR and_CJC 7-_AJ0 to_PRP 10-day_AJ0 test_NN1 –_PUN retest_NN1 reliability_NN1 (_PUL r_ZZ0 =_NN1 .66_CRD )_PUR in_PRP previous_AJ0 research_NN1 (_PUL Zanarini_NP0 et_NP0 al._NP0 ,_PUN 2015_CRD )_PUR ._SENT In_PRP the_AT0 current_AJ0 study_NN1 ,_PUN ZAN-BPD_NP0 items_NN2 demonstrated_VVD acceptable_AJ0 average_AJ0 internal_AJ0 consistency_NN1 across_PRP all_DT0 weeks_NN2 (_PUL Cronbach_NP0 's_POS α_NP0 =_NP0 .78_CRD ;_PUN range_NN1 :_PUN .56-.91_CRD )_PUR 1_CRD and_CJC good_AJ0 1-week_AJ0 test_NN1 –_PUN retest_NN1 reliability_NN1 (_PUL r_ZZ0 =_NN1 .67_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
Daily_AJ0 Diary_NN1 and_CJC EMA_NN1 Assessments_NN2 of_PRF Emotional_AJ0 Experiences_NN2 Daily_AJ0 diary_NN1 ._SENT Each_DT0 day_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 study_NN1 ,_PUN participants_NN2 were_VBD prompted_VVN to_TO0 report_VVI on_PRP the_AT0 characteristics_NN2 of_PRF their_DPS emotional_AJ0 experiences_NN2 ._SENT Participants_NN2 were_VBD first_ORD asked_VVN to_TO0 identify_VVI which_DTQ emotion_NN1 (_PUL s_ZZ0 )_PUR ,_PUN if_CJS any_DT0 ,_PUN they_PNP had_VHD experienced_VVN since_PRP their_DPS last_ORD diary_NN1 report_NN1 from_PRP a_AT0 list_NN1 of_PRF anger_NN1 ,_PUN anxiety_NN1 ,_PUN guilt_NN1 /_PUN shame_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC sadness_NN1 ._SENT For_PRP each_DT0 emotion_NN1 identified_VVN ,_PUN participants_NN2 rated_VVD its_DPS intensity_NN1 from_PRP 1_CRD (_PUL no_AT0 intensity_NN1 at_PRP all_DT0 )_PUR to_PRP 5_CRD (_PUL greatest_AJS possible_AJ0 intensity_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT Finally_AV0 ,_PUN they_PNP were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO0 select_VVI which_DTQ of_PRF five_CRD behavioral_AJ0 responses_NN2 they_PNP used_VVD in_PRP response_NN1 to_PRP each_DT0 emotion_NN1 ._SENT The_AT0 response_NN1 options_NN2 presented_VVN were_VBD chosen_VVN to_TO0 broadly_AV0 capture_VVI the_AT0 range_NN1 of_PRF behavioral_AJ0 responses_NN2 individuals_NN2 with_PRP BPD_NN0 may_VM0 engage_VVI in_AVP to_TO0 regulate_VVI their_DPS emotions_NN2 ._SENT Although_CJS each_DT0 behavioral_AJ0 response_NN1 was_VBD presented_VVN in_PRP lay_AJ0 English_NN1 to_PRP participants_NN2 in_PRP a_AT0 way_NN1 tailored_VVN to_PRP the_AT0 emotion_NN1 after_PRP which_DTQ it_PNP was_VBD presented_VVN ,_PUN responses_NN2 represented_VVD five_CRD general_AJ0 domains_NN2 :_PUN problem_NN1 solving_NN1 ,_PUN acceptance_NN1 ,_PUN impulsive_AJ0 responding_VVG ,_PUN emotional_AJ0 avoidance_NN1 ,_PUN and_CJC emotional_AJ0 savoring_NN1 ._SENT For_PRP example_NN1 ,_PUN if_CJS a_AT0 participant_NN1 reported_VVD feeling_VVG anxious_AJ0 ,_PUN emotional_AJ0 savoring_NN1 was_VBD described_VVN as_CJS "_PUQ dug_VVN in_AVP to_PRP the_AT0 feeling_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN repeated_VVD checking_VVG ,_PUN extra_AJ0 preparation_NN1 for_PRP an_AT0 event_NN1 ,_PUN cleaned_VVD ,_PUN sought_VVD reassurance_NN1 )_PUR ,_PUN "_PUQ whereas_CJS if_CJS they_PNP reported_VVD feeling_VVG sad_AJ0 ,_PUN emotional_AJ0 savoring_NN1 was_VBD described_VVN as_CJS "_PUQ dug_VVN in_AVP to_PRP the_AT0 feeling_NN1 (_PUL e.g._AV0 ,_PUN isolated_VVD myself_PNX ,_PUN cried_VVD ,_PUN listened_VVN to_PRP sad_AJ0 music_NN1 ,_PUN watched_VVD a_AT0 sad_AJ0 movie_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT "_PUQ Full_AJ0 texts_NN2 of_PRF these_DT0 response_NN1 options_NN2 are_VBB available_AJ0 in_PRP Southward_AV0 et_NP0 al._NP0 (_PUL 2020_CRD )_PUR ._SENT 
Between_PRP each_DT0 rating_NN1 ,_PUN participants_NN2 were_VBD prompted_VVN to_PRP pro-vide_AJ0 qualitative_AJ0 descriptions_NN2 of_PRF their_DPS emotional_AJ0 experiences_NN2 and_CJC responses_NN2 ._SENT After_PRP identifying_VVG an_AT0 emotion_NN1 experienced_VVN ,_PUN participants_NN2 were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO0 describe_VVI in_PRP their_DPS own_DT0 words_NN2 what_DTQ triggered_VVD that_DT0 emotion_NN1 ._SENT Similarly_AV0 ,_PUN after_PRP rating_VVG the_AT0 intensity_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 emotion_NN1 ,_PUN but_CJC before_PRP identifying_VVG a_AT0 behavioral_AJ0 response_NN1 ,_PUN participants_NN2 were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO0 describe_VVI what_DTQ they_PNP did_VDD in_PRP response_NN1 to_PRP the_AT0 emotion_NN1 ._SENT Participants_NN2 were_VBD not_XX0 limited_AJ0 in_PRP how_AVQ much_DT0 ,_PUN or_CJC how_AVQ little_AJ0 ,_PUN they_PNP could_VM0 write_VVI in_PRP response_NN1 to_PRP each_DT0 prompt_NN1 ._SENT 
EMA_NN1 ._SENT On_PRP two_CRD randomly_AV0 selected_AJ0 days_NN2 ,_PUN one_PNI during_PRP the_AT0 baseline_NN1 phase_NN1 and_CJC one_PNI during_PRP the_AT0 last_ORD week_NN1 of_PRF the_AT0 intervention_NN1 phase_NN1 ,_PUN participants_NN2 completed_VVD nearly_AV0 identical_AJ0 reports_NN2 of_PRF their_DPS emotional_AJ0 experiences_NN2 every_AT0 hour_NN1 for_PRP 12_CRD consecutive_AJ0 hours_NN2 ._SENT Participants_NN2 were_VBD first_ORD asked_VVN to_TO0 rate_VVI the_AT0 intensity_NN1 of_PRF their_DPS current_AJ0 emotional_AJ0 experience_NN1 from_PRP 0_CRD (_PUL no_AT0 intensity_NN1 at_PRP all_DT0 )_PUR to_PRP 100_CRD (_PUL greatest_AJS intensity_NN1 )_PUR ._SENT If_CJS participants_NN2 selected_VVD 0_CRD ,_PUN the_AT0 survey_NN1 ended_VVD ._SENT If_CJS participants_NN2 indicated_VVD an_AT0 intensity_NN1 of_PRF 1_CRD or_CJC higher_AJC ,_PUN they_PNP were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO0 select_VVI which_DTQ of_PRF five_CRD emotions_NN2 best_AV0 described_VVN their_DPS current_AJ0 experience_NN1 :_PUN anger_NN1 ,_PUN sadness_NN1 ,_PUN anxiety_NN1 ,_PUN guilt_NN1 /_PUN shame_NN1 ,_PUN or_CJC joy_NN1 /_PUN happiness_NN1 ._SENT They_PNP were_VBD then_AV0 asked_VVN to_TO0 provide_VVI qualitative_AJ0 free_AJ0 response_NN1 descriptions_NN2 of_PRF what_DTQ triggered_VVD this_DT0 emotion_NN1 and_CJC what_DTQ they_PNP were_VBD doing_VDG in_PRP response_NN1 to_PRP the_AT0 emotion_NN1 ._SENT Finally_AV0 ,_PUN participants_NN2 were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO0 select_VVI which_DTQ of_PRF five_CRD behavioral_AJ0 categories_NN2 best_AV0 characterized_VVN their_DPS free_AJ0 response_NN1 description_NN1 of_PRF their_DPS behavior_NN1 ,_PUN using_VVG the_AT0 same_DT0 categories_NN2 tailored_VVN to_PRP the_AT0 emotion_NN1 experienced_VVD provided_VVN in_PRP the_AT0 daily_AJ0 diaries_NN2 ._SENT 
