7:1 dissuasion Case Study #2  Mark, 29 years old, and Ellen, 27 years old, have been married for 2 years

 

7:1 dissuasion

Case Study #2

Mark, 29 years old, and Ellen, 27 years old, have been married for 2 years. When they first met, he treated her like a queen. He was kind and loving and “idolized” her. He would show glimpses of jealousy and controlling behavior, but she did not pay much attention to it. After they got married, his jealousy and controlling behavior grew worse. He treated her wonderfully when she was with him at home and engaging in behavior that made him feel loved and needed. However, he was controlling whenever she left the house to run errands or see her friends. When she returned home, he would question her in passive-aggressive ways and sometimes be outright accusatory. She would naturally become defensive and withdraw emotionally. That seemed to make things worse, and he would start to become verbally abusive about her not meeting his needs, not loving him, and not wanting to be with him. These verbal explosions were often accompanied by demeaning language. After these outbursts, Ellen felt like leaving him and even expressed this at times. Most of the time Mark would apologize profusely, then bring her flowers or gifts and rationalize his behavior in some way or promise he would change. Things would then get better for a while, and he would engage in “idolizing” behavior. However, the cycle of controlling behavior would just begin again.

Identify the case study you selected. Explain what features of borderline personality disorder the primary character exhibits. Explain how the concept of splitting is demonstrated, and describe the role that empathy plays in the splitting. Explain challenges a forensic psychology professional might have when working with individuals with borderline personality disorder.

Ackley, C., Mack, S., Beyer, K., & Erdberg, P. (2010). Investigative and forensic interviewing: A personality-focused approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

• Chapter 3, “The Antisocial Personality” (pp. 43–60)
• Chapter 4, “The Psychopathic Personality” (pp. 61–93)

Main Discussion Posting Content

Excellent – above expectations

Points Range:

21.6 (54%) – 24 (60%)

Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.

Points Range:

19.2 (48%) – 21.57 (53.92%)

Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.

Points Range:

16.8 (42%) – 19.17 (47.93%)

Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.

Points Range:

0 (0%) – 16.77 (41.93%)

Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.

Reply Post & Peer Interaction

Points Range:

7.2 (18%) – 8 (20%)

Student interacts frequently with peers. The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, use of scholarly, empirical resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.

Points Range:

6.4 (16%) – 7.16 (17.9%)

Student interacts moderately with peers. The feedback postings and responses to questions are good, but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, use of scholarly, empirical resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.

Points Range:

5.6 (14%) – 6.36 (15.9%)

Student interacts minimally with peers or the feedback postings, and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources.

Points Range:

0 (0%) – 5.56 (13.9%)

Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.

Writing

Points Range:

7.2 (18%) – 8 (20%)

Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing , proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level .