| Course | PS 360 Psychopathology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Personality or substance disorder case |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 360 Unit 6
Pattern or Pharmacology? A Composite Teaching Case Where Long-Standing Relationship Conflict and Heavy Weekend Drinking Produce the Same Picture, and the Differential Has to Tell Them Apart
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 360: Psychopathology
Instructor Name
February 16, 2026
Pattern or Pharmacology? A Composite Teaching Case Where Long-Standing Relationship Conflict and Heavy Weekend Drinking Produce the Same Picture, and the Differential Has to Tell Them Apart
A Teaching Case: Dana
Dana, a teaching composite rather than anyone real, is twenty-nine and works in retail management. Over the past five years Dana has changed jobs four times, each time after conflict with a supervisor, and describes relationships with partners and friends that start intensely and end in arguments. Dana drinks heavily on most weekends, often starting on Friday evening and continuing through Saturday, and describes Mondays as irritable and low. Dana's sister says Dana "has always been like this" in relationships but that the drinking has become heavier in the past two years. The case contains no information about any risk of harm, and this paper does not discuss risk; that belongs to licensed clinicians and the course's own procedures.
Why This Case Is Hard
Two broad explanations fit the description. The first is a long-standing pattern in how Dana relates to others and manages emotion, the kind of enduring pattern the classification system groups under personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022). The second is that heavy drinking, through intoxication, its aftereffects and the conflicts it causes, produces much of the instability, which the system groups under substance-related disorders. A third possibility is that both are present and each makes the other worse. All three would produce a similar picture from the outside.
The difficulty is well documented. Trull et al. (2018) reviewed 70 studies published between 2000 and 2017 on the co-occurrence of borderline personality disorder and substance use disorders and compared them with an earlier review of 36 studies. They found that the two are still frequently diagnosed in the same person, and they discussed methodological reasons for the overlap, including features the two descriptions share, such as impulsive behavior, and the way substance effects can resemble personality features during assessment.
The Evidence That Would Separate Them
Timing of onset
A personality pattern, as the classification describes it, is enduring and can usually be traced to adolescence or early adulthood. If Dana's relationship difficulties began well before the drinking became heavy, that would point toward a long-standing pattern. Dana's sister's comment that Dana "has always been like this" suggests that it may have, but a single family member's account is not enough. A clinician would want a careful history of when each difficulty began, from more than one source.
Behavior during periods without drinking
The most informative evidence would come from periods when Dana is not drinking. If the irritability and conflict largely ease during a sustained period without alcohol, the substance explanation gains weight. If they continue unchanged, the pattern explanation does. The case does not report any such period, and the weekly cycle described, with low and irritable Mondays, is consistent with the aftereffects of weekend drinking. That cycle alone is a reason not to reach conclusions about personality while heavy drinking continues.
Consistency across settings
Enduring patterns appear across many settings. If Dana's conflicts appear at work, with family and with friends, including in situations unconnected with drinking, that points toward a pattern. If they cluster around drinking occasions or the days that follow, that points toward the substance.
The Dimensional View
Classification systems have begun to treat personality difficulties as matters of degree rather than as distinct types. Clark et al. (2017) compared approaches to classification and described how the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases moved toward rating personality disorder by severity, with trait descriptions added, rather than sorting people into named categories. For a case like Dana's, a dimensional view is useful because it allows a clinician to describe how much difficulty is present and in which areas without first having to decide on a category that the evidence cannot yet support.
When Both Explanations Hold
The third possibility deserves its own attention, because co-occurrence is common rather than exceptional in this area (Trull et al., 2018). If Dana has a long-standing difficulty managing strong emotion, alcohol may have become a way of dulling it, and the aftereffects of drinking may then make the next conflict more likely. In that account neither explanation is the whole story: each feeds the other in a cycle. Recognizing the cycle does not require deciding which came first, and it changes what a clinician would want to learn. The question becomes not only whether a pattern exists but how the drinking and the relationship difficulties connect from week to week, which a careful history over several conversations could trace.
What a Written Case Cannot Supply
A teaching case gives a snapshot from limited sources. Dana's own account and one sister's comment are all the case offers, and both are partial. A clinician would gather a fuller history, consider medical factors connected with heavy drinking, and see Dana more than once, since a single meeting during a difficult week can give a misleading picture of someone's usual functioning. This paper acknowledges those gaps rather than filling them.
Where the Paper Lands
Dana's case cannot be settled as written, and the differential shows why. That is a limit of the written record, not a judgment about Dana. The most important missing information is a history of when the relationship difficulties began and how Dana functions during a sustained period without alcohol. Until that is known, the responsible conclusion is that heavy drinking is present and is plausibly contributing to the picture, and that any question of an enduring personality pattern should wait. That order matters in practice: describing someone as having a personality disorder while substance effects are active risks mistaking the effects of alcohol for who the person is. The analysis stops at that point and leaves the clinical judgment to licensed clinicians.
A Note on Language
Personality disorder labels carry stigma, and research on co-occurrence can be misread as a statement about people. A careful paper writes about patterns, effects and evidence rather than about types of people, and it uses person-first language throughout.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Clark, L. A., Cuthbert, B., Lewis-Fernández, R., Narrow, W. E., & Reed, G. M. (2017). Three approaches to understanding and classifying mental disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(2), 72-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100617727266
Trull, T. J., Freeman, L. K., Vebares, T. J., Choate, A. M., Helle, A. C., & Wycoff, A. M. (2018). Borderline personality disorder and substance use disorders: An updated review. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 5, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-018-0093-9
PS 360 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 6 of PS 360 asks students to analyze a composite presentation in which personality patterns and substance use could each explain what is seen. Expect to set out the competing explanations, cite research on how often they occur together, and identify the evidence that would separate them, such as onset, behavior during abstinence and consistency across settings. Each piece of evidence should be stated in both directions. A dimensional view of personality is worth including where your course covers it. Risk of harm is deferred to licensed clinicians and the course's procedures. Language should be person-first and avoid labeling people as types. Real people, including acquaintances, should not be used as examples in the paper.
How this PS 360 Unit 6 example is built
The sample opens with the composite case and a statement that risk is not discussed. A section explains why the case is hard: a personality pattern, substance effects or both could produce it, with Trull and colleagues' review showing that the overlap is a known problem. The evidence section uses run-in headings for timing of onset, behavior during periods without drinking and consistency across settings, each stated both ways. A section on both explanations holding describes how they can feed each other. Sections cover what a written case cannot supply and the dimensional view from Clark and colleagues. The conclusion holds personality questions while drinking continues, and a note on language closes.
Where the points sit in the PS 360 Unit 6 rubric
The rubric for the personality or substance case generally rewards an accurate case summary, a full set of competing explanations, evidence that separates them, sourced research on co-occurrence, a bounded conclusion and APA writing. The explanations earn credit when co-occurrence is included as a possibility. The evidence section usually counts most, and strong papers explain what each finding would mean either way. Research scores when the review is described accurately, without invented figures. Conclusions are credited when they explain why some questions must wait. Writing earns points for person-first language and for avoiding labels that describe people as types, since stigma is a real concern with personality disorder terms.
Common PS 360 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Papers in this unit lose points when they label the person with a personality disorder in the opening lines. Another common weakness is ignoring substance effects, especially the aftereffects of heavy drinking, which can resemble personality features. Students often state evidence in one direction only. Some quote prevalence figures for co-occurrence without a source. Others treat a family member's comment as conclusive history. Discussing self-harm or other risk content moves the paper outside the assignment. Writing about people as types rather than about patterns and evidence weakens the analysis and adds stigma. Ignoring the dimensional approach, where the course covers it, misses a chance to handle uncertainty well.
Get a PS 360 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Begin by sending the Unit 6 instructions and the PS 360 rubric from your classroom, together with the vignette and the edition your section works from. We write a custom example that develops both explanations in parallel, fixes chronology first, gives support and counter-support for each and closes on the unresolved. First custom sample free, 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 360 papers and psychology samples
- PS 360 Unit 1: Defining abnormality paper
- PS 360 Unit 2: Classification and criteria overview
- PS 360 Unit 3: Anxiety disorders case
- PS 360 Unit 4: Mood disorders case
- PS 360 Unit 5: Psychotic disorders paper
- PS 360 Unit 7: Treatment evidence paper
- PS 360 Unit 8: Comprehensive case analysis
- PS 130 Unit 6: Graduate program comparison
- PS 210 Unit 6: Behavioral difficulty case
- PS 303 Unit 6: Prejudice and stereotyping paper
- PS 323 Unit 6: Gender and health paper
PS 360 Unit 6 questions, answered
How do I avoid moral language in this unit?
Describe conduct rather than character. A case reports what someone did and over what period; a judgment says what kind of person that makes them, and the second has no place in an academic analysis. Watch adjectives especially, since most of the trouble arrives there. Read your draft once looking only for words that evaluate rather than describe, and replace them.
Can the conclusion be that both explanations apply?
It can, and the literature supports that these often occur together, but say how the evidence divides rather than choosing both to avoid choosing. Show which features point where and which are shared. A conclusion that names both and then explains nothing is weaker than one that commits with its uncertainty stated. Follow your instructions on how much commitment they expect.
There is a history of this in my family. Is that usable background?
Not in the document. A relative's history is their health information and their story, and nothing in the assignment asks for it. Writing it up also invites a marker to read the analysis as personal rather than academic. Let it inform which studies you choose to read closely, then build the case from your reading and label it as constructed.
Where can I find a free PS 360 Unit 6 sample paper?
The full PS 360 Unit 6 personality or substance case is free here, with three explanations, the evidence that separates them and margin notes. Working a different composite? Forward the case and an analysis is prepared for you free.
Should PS 360 Unit 6 decide between personality and substance explanations?
Not if the case lacks the evidence. The sample shows why onset history and functioning during sustained abstinence are needed first and holds the personality question until then.