Borderline–Histrionic Traits in Extreme Environments: Neurobehavioral Risks in Combat and Space
Introduction
Borderline and histrionic personality traits represent Cluster B patterns characterized by dramatic, erratic behaviors, emotional intensity, and unstable interpersonal relationships. In ordinary settings these traits can lead to distress and dysfunction, but in extreme environments such as military combat units, remote expeditions, and space missions, their impact may be especially deleterious. These environments demand exceptional teamwork, stability, and emotional regulation; yet individuals with borderline or histrionic traits often struggle with interpersonal dysfunction, emotional dysregulation, and impulsivity. Moreover, tendencies toward hypersexuality or boundary violations can undermine group cohesion and mission focus. This article examines the neurobiological underpinnings of borderline and histrionic personality features (e.g. limbic hyperreactivity, prefrontal dysregulation, stress-axis instability) and analyzes how these traits manifest in high-stakes, confined team settings. Drawing on psychiatric and neuropsychological evidence, we explore how emotional volatility, impulsive risk-taking, and inappropriate sexual behaviors linked to these personality profiles pose risks to unit cohesion, leadership hierarchy, and operational effectiveness in combat deployments and space crews. A final section makes a clinical argument for stringent screening and exclusion criteria, using validated assessment tools, to mitigate these risks. Throughout, the tone remains scholarly and clinical, focusing on evidence-based findings without sensationalism.
Neurobiological Basis of Borderline and Histrionic Traits
Figure: Neurobiological abnormalities often observed in borderline personality disorder. Key findings include reduced prefrontal cortex (PFC) volume and activity (compromising top-down impulse control), hyperreactivity of limbic regions like the amygdala (fueling emotional hypersensitivity and threat vigilance), and hippocampal atrophy (linked to stress dysregulation and memory impairments) . These brain differences provide a biological basis for the emotional instability and impulsivity seen in borderline traits. Histrionic personality disorder is less studied neurobiologically, but as a fellow Cluster B condition, it likely shares some tendency toward limbic hyper-responsiveness and reduced frontal regulation of emotion, albeit to a lesser extent than in borderline pathology.
Limbic Hyperreactivity: A hallmark of borderline personality disorder (BPD) is an overactive amygdala and limbic system, which generates exaggerated emotional responses to perceived threats or social slights . Neuroimaging consistently shows amygdala hyperactivation in BPD, especially during exposure to emotional stimuli . This limbic hyperreactivity corresponds to the intense anger, fear of abandonment, and rapid mood swings observed clinically. Heightened amygdala reactivity, coupled with a tendency to misperceive neutral cues as threatening, contributes to the emotional hypersensitivity and interpersonal volatility in BPD . Histrionic personality traits, while involving high emotional expressiveness, are hypothesized to share some limbic over-reactivity as well – manifesting in dramatic, rapidly shifting emotions and an overwhelming need for attention . However, dedicated neurobiological research on histrionic disorder is sparse; most insights are extrapolated from its clinical features and cluster commonalities.
Prefrontal Dysregulation: Hand-in-hand with limbic overactivity is an insufficiency of the brain’s regulatory control via the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Functional MRI studies in BPD show hypoactivation of the PFC, especially in regions like the dorsolateral PFC and anterior cingulate cortex, which normally exert top-down control over impulses and emotions . Structurally, reduced gray matter volume in prefrontal regions has also been reported in BPD . This PFC under-engagement results in poor modulation of emotional impulses arising from the amygdala, yielding diminished impulse control and poor decision-making . In practical terms, individuals with borderline traits often act on emotional impulses without sufficient forethought, reflecting this neurobiological disinhibition. Impaired frontal regulation can also contribute to attention-seeking and disinhibited behavior in histrionic personalities – for example, difficulty suppressing the urge to seek approval or dramatize situations. Thus, limbic–prefrontal imbalance (an overactive emotional drive with weak inhibitory brakes) is a core neurobiological theme in these personality profiles .
Stress Axis Instability: Another biological aspect is dysregulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, the body’s central stress response system. BPD patients frequently show heightened cortisol responses and HPA hyperactivation, indicating an elevated baseline of physiological stress reactivity . Early life trauma, common in BPD histories, can produce epigenetic changes that sensitize the HPA axis to stress . The result is a system that overreacts to stressors with surges of cortisol and adrenaline, which in turn fuel emotional lability and over-reactive coping. In extreme environments like combat or long-duration spaceflight – which are inherently stressful – such a predisposition means the individual may go into “fight-or-flight” mode more readily and have trouble returning to baseline after stress. Minor interpersonal frictions or mission setbacks could provoke disproportionate emotional crises. Histrionic traits have not been studied as extensively in this context, but given the tendency for dramatic responses, one might expect some HPA axis sensitivity as well (though perhaps driven more by psychosocial stressors like interpersonal feedback). Overall, the neurobiological profile of borderline-histrionic traits is one of a brain primed for intense emotional reactions (limbic hyperdrive and stress hyper-reactivity) with insufficient regulatory control (PFC underfunction), setting the stage for the behavioral patterns discussed below.
Emotional Dysregulation and Interpersonal Dysfunction
Emotional Volatility: Clinically, BPD is defined by pervasive mood instability – intense emotions that wax and wane rapidly – and this emotional dysregulation is the outward manifestation of the neurobiological factors above . Individuals may experience anger, anxiety, or despair that escalates quickly and is slow to subside. They often lack effective self-soothing strategies, so emotions spiral and drive impulsive actions. In a tight-knit team setting like a military unit or space crew, such volatility can be highly disruptive. Sudden angry outbursts or tearful breakdowns erode the steady composure needed under pressure. For example, a minor disagreement over procedure could trigger a disproportionate rage or panic in someone with borderline traits, potentially derailing team decision-making or diverting attention at critical moments. Research indicates that amygdala hyperreactivity coupled with deficient prefrontal inhibition underlies these intense mood swings, explaining why such individuals struggle to regulate affect even when they intellectually recognize the need . Histrionic personalities also display exaggerated emotional expression – dramatic outpourings that can seem theatrical or shallow. While histrionic moods may be more surface-level and rapidly shifting, they nonetheless contribute to an emotionally charged atmosphere. A histrionic team member might over-dramatize setbacks or become hysterical in a crisis, requiring others to expend energy calming them instead of addressing the problem. Emotional overreactions not only slow operational response but can spread stress to other team members, undermining group morale.
Unstable Interpersonal Relationships: Perhaps the most impairing aspect of borderline personality traits in a group context is the pattern of unstable, intense relationships. People with BPD tend to vacillate between idealizing and devaluing others – a phenomenon known as splitting. They may form very close attachments quickly, viewing someone as a savior or perfectly trustworthy, then abruptly shift to feeling betrayed or abandoned at the slightest perceived slight . The DSM-5 describes “a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation” (APA, 2013). In a small unit or crew, this can manifest as volatile alliances and feuds: Today, the individual may be intensely loyal to the commander or a buddy; tomorrow, they believe that person has become an enemy or doesn’t care about them. Such interpersonal instability erodes trust among team members. Colleagues may walk on eggshells, unsure where they stand, and the overall cohesion fractures into factions or chronic conflict. Histrionic individuals, on the other hand, crave being the center of attention and may engage in socially manipulative behaviors to keep others focused on them. They can be charming and friendly, but also shallow in attachment – relationships might be treated as performances to gain approval rather than genuine bonds. In a mission team, a histrionic member might appear highly sociable yet react poorly if not given special attention, leading to disruptive attempts to reclaim the spotlight (interrupting briefings with dramatic remarks, feigning crises or illnesses, etc.). Both borderline and histrionic patterns often involve poor boundaries and over-involvement in others’ affairs, which in tight quarters can quickly breed resentment.
Impact on Team Cohesion: The interpersonal dysfunction associated with these traits poses a serious threat to unit cohesion. Cohesion in military or expedition teams is built on mutual trust, respect, and a sense of reliability among members. A person with borderline tendencies may unintentionally undermine cohesion by creating chaos in relationships – e.g. pitting team members against each other (if they feel one person has “wronged” them and recruit others to their side), or repeatedly testing their comrades’ loyalty with dramatic ultimatums (“If you really care, you’d do X for me”). Indeed, one organizational case study noted that a leader with borderline personality disorder acted as a “systemic contaminant” on the organization’s climate, injecting instability and conflict that spread throughout the team . In subordinate roles as well, these individuals can draw disproportionate attention from leadership due to frequent interpersonal crises, thereby diverting commanders’ focus away from strategic matters to manage internal team conflicts. Histrionic behavior can similarly degrade cohesion by eroding professional boundaries. Excessive flirtation or playing favorites to get attention can foster jealousy and suspicion within the group. Others may perceive the histrionic individual as “fake” or not pulling their weight (since so much energy is spent on social posturing), which fractures the sense of unity. In summary, borderline and histrionic traits bring a high risk of interpersonal chaos that can splinter a high-performing team into dysfunctional subgroups.
Impulsivity, Risk-Taking, and Hypersexuality
A core feature of borderline pathology is impulsivity – acting on the spur of the moment without regard for consequences, often to alleviate emotional pain or emptiness. DSM criteria for BPD include “impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging,” such as excessive spending, reckless driving, substance abuse, binge eating, or unsafe sex (APA, 2013). Empirical studies confirm that people with BPD engage in significantly more impulsive and risky behaviors compared to others . For instance, they may drive at high speeds during an emotional outburst, leap into new ventures or relationships without caution, or ignore safety protocols when upset. In a combat zone or space mission, such loss of inhibition can be perilous. An impulsive soldier might disobey orders and charge forward at the wrong moment, jeopardizing the unit’s tactics. An impulsive astronaut or pilot could deviate from checklist procedures out of frustration or overconfidence, risking a critical error. The neurobiological driver here is twofold: the aforementioned reduced prefrontal restraint and a hypersensitive dopamine-based reward system that craves quick relief from distress . Essentially, the person’s capacity to consider future consequences is compromised, especially under stress – immediate emotional relief or stimulation takes precedence. Histrionic personalities also show elements of impulsivity, though often channeled into attention-seeking acts (e.g. dramatic revelations, spending sprees on flashy items). Both profiles may struggle with the discipline and risk-calculation that high-stakes operations demand.
Hypersexual and Boundary-Violating Behaviors: Among the most concerning impulsive behaviors in these personality styles are those related to sexual conduct and interpersonal boundaries. Clinical lore and some research suggest a subset of individuals with borderline personality disorder exhibit sexual impulsivity or promiscuity as a way to soothe loneliness, gain affirmation, or express self-destructive urges . In a large study (N=972), Sansone and Wiederman (2009) found that those with borderline symptomatology were over twice as likely to report casual sexual relationships with strangers and multiple sexual partners compared to those without borderline traits . In other words, a significant minority of people with BPD engage in high-risk sexual behaviors, including unprotected sex with unfamiliar partners and serial promiscuity, often without considering the repercussions. These behaviors may stem from impulsivity as well as a desperate seeking of attachment or validation. Histrionic personality disorder by definition involves inappropriately seductive or sexually provocative behavior (DSM-5-TR, 2022). Individuals with histrionic traits are frequently described as flirtatious, seductive, and attention-craving, sometimes dressing or acting in overtly sexual ways even in professional contexts . They may not always follow through with sexual acts, but the constant sexualized interactions can create confusion and misconduct.
In confined deployments or missions, hypersexual behavior is a serious liability. Romantic or sexual entanglements among team members can erode trust and morale if not carefully managed. The U.S. military considers certain relationships “fraternization” – especially those crossing rank lines – which are punishable because they compromise the chain of command, create favoritism, and undermine order and discipline . Even consensual peer relationships can become problematic in deployment: if two team members become romantically involved, it may distract them from duties, isolate them from the rest of the unit, and breed resentment in others who feel excluded . Should the relationship sour (a not-uncommon outcome, particularly if one partner has volatile emotions), the fallout can make it difficult for the pair to continue working together and force other teammates to take sides, further harming cohesion . When a person with borderline or histrionic tendencies is involved, the risks amplify – their relationships tend to be intense and short-lived, and conflicts can escalate dramatically. For example, a borderline individual might engage in a spur-of-the-moment sexual encounter with a comrade during a deployment, then later, due to fear of abandonment or jealousy, accuse that comrade of betrayal, potentially alleging misconduct. This not only destroys trust between those two but chills the entire unit’s cooperative spirit. Histrionic team members might flirt with multiple colleagues or superiors at once, intentionally or not, triggering competition or jealousy within the group. In one extreme real-world case, a space mission simulation (“Sphinx-99” in 1999) placed a female researcher among an otherwise all-male crew for 110 days of isolation. Tensions erupted when two men started fighting over the woman’s attention, and the (male) mission commander ultimately tried to force himself on her in a drunken New Year’s event . The situation resulted in physical injury, psychological trauma, and near collapse of the experiment’s goals, vividly illustrating how sexual competition and aggression in a confined team can jeopardize mission safety . While that incident was not explicitly due to a diagnosed personality disorder, it underscores the kind of outcome that uncontrolled sexual and interpersonal impulses can produce in extreme settings.
Beyond the interpersonal drama, operational readiness can be directly impacted by these behaviors. In military deployments, unplanned pregnancies have been a noted issue – active-duty women have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy, which necessitates immediate evacuation from the combat zone and can leave a unit shorthanded . If an emotionally unstable individual engages in unprotected sex during deployment, the resulting pregnancy or STD could remove critical personnel and strain the team’s capabilities. Even absent such outcomes, the mere “sexualization” of the work environment is cited as detrimental: when unit members begin seeing each other in sexual or romantic terms, it can be “difficult to stay mission-focused” . In essence, the group’s attention is split and its unity compromised. Thus, hypersexual and boundary-violating behaviors associated with borderline and histrionic traits can seriously degrade group cohesion, trust, and effectiveness, especially in the close quarters of barracks, submarines, Antarctic stations, or spacecraft.
Risks to Cohesion, Hierarchy, and Performance in Extreme Environments
Extreme operational environments such as combat deployments, polar research stations, and space missions impose unique psychological pressures. Teams in these settings are small, isolated, and interdependent, often for long durations. Cohesion and trust are not optional – they are life-sustaining requirements. Any dysfunction can have outsized consequences because members cannot easily escape or be replaced. Unfortunately, the very features of borderline-histrionic personalities that cause trouble in ordinary life become even more hazardous under these extreme conditions.
Heightened Threats to Group Cohesion: In a frontline military unit or space crew, cohesion equals resilience. Research in military psychology shows that strong unit cohesion correlates with better mental health and performance under stress, whereas fractured cohesion can lead to errors and even psychiatric casualties . The presence of a member with severe borderline or histrionic traits can act as a catalyst for chronic conflict and division. For example, consider a remote outpost where a dozen soldiers must rely on each other. If one soldier has borderline traits, their pattern of swinging between clinging dependence and fierce resentment toward teammates can break the unity into cliques. Small misunderstandings might balloon into feuds under that soldier’s hypersensitive eye (e.g. “Sergeant X didn’t invite me to that informal meeting; she hates me!” followed by confrontations or rumor-spreading). The entire team’s psychological safety erodes as everyone anticipates the next emotional blow-up. The stress of managing an unpredictable personality internally can be as damaging as the external mission stressors. A U.S. Army field manual explicitly allows for discharge of personnel due to personality disorders when those disorders are “so severe that [the] ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired” . This reflects the recognition that personality dysfunction can be incompatible with military service, not out of stigma, but because one individual’s pathology may endanger the whole unit’s functioning and morale.
Undermining of Leadership and Discipline: Borderline and histrionic behaviors can also undermine leadership hierarchy and discipline, which are crucial in high-stakes environments. Those with borderline tendencies often struggle with authority and may alternate between idealizing leaders and viewing them as persecutors. If a commanding officer provides praise or reassurance, the individual might become overly attached or dependent; but a minor criticism or a firm order might trigger feelings of betrayal and intense anger. This can lead to insubordination or efforts to sabotage the leader’s reputation (e.g. spreading that the leader is “unfair” or doesn’t care about the team). The result is an erosion of the leader’s legitimacy in the eyes of other team members, as the disordered individual might manipulate colleagues’ perceptions through emotional narratives. Histrionic individuals might ingratiate themselves with superiors through charm and flirtation, potentially gaining favoritism that short-circuits the merit-based hierarchy. In a mixed-gender chain of command, for instance, a histrionic subordinate who cultivates a personal, perhaps flirtatious rapport with a commander could provoke allegations of favoritism or sexual liaisons. Such perceptions destroy trust in the leadership’s impartiality. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits fraternization precisely because it “compromises the chain of command, results in favoritism, reduces impartiality, or undermines order and morale” . A leader influenced (consciously or not) by a dramatic subordinate’s attentions may make decisions that other subordinates view as compromised. Even absent actual fraternization, the constant need for attention of a histrionic team member can divert a leader’s time and focus away from broader mission issues to manage that individual’s personal problems or conflicts. Over time, this drains leadership effectiveness and can foster resentment among other team members who feel neglected or held to a different standard.
Performance Decrements and Mission Risk: The culmination of all these factors is an increased mission risk and impaired operational effectiveness. In environments like long-duration spaceflight, Antarctic winter-overs, or special forces deployments, performance is not just about individual skill – it is about how well the team functions as a unit under duress. If one member’s emotional or interpersonal problems dominate the social landscape, the team’s coordination and focus suffer. Cognitive workload is a limited resource; dealing with internal drama uses up bandwidth that should be devoted to mission tasks. For example, astronauts on the International Space Station must cooperate seamlessly in performing experiments and maintaining life support systems. If a crew member were in a hysterical emotional state or enmeshed in a romantic triangle with fellow astronauts, it could delay critical communications, skew judgment, or cause errors. Indeed, NASA psychologists have long recognized this, employing rigorous selection to weed out individuals with personality disorders or maladaptive traits that could impact crew safety . A NASA medical brief notes that psychiatric screening now utilizes standardized tests to identify “personality disorders, and traits, characteristics, or behaviors that could impact safety of the mission or crew” . This proactive stance is informed by both analog experiences (like the Sphinx-99 incident) and the knowledge that in space there is no escape from a dysfunctional group dynamic. As one space medicine expert put it, during interplanetary travel “mission crews will not have recourse to [outside help] when problems like [harassment or conflict] arise,” especially if the mission leader themselves is involved in the problematic behavior . Thus, any propensity for such disruption is seen as an intolerable risk.
Military missions likewise can ill afford internal fractures. In combat, split-second coordination can be the difference between life and death. A teammate prone to impulsive outbursts or personal vendettas could disobey a coordinated plan at a critical moment, or hesitate to cover someone they currently feel angry with, endangering lives. Unit cohesion is also tied to resilience against combat stress – studies indicate cohesive units have fewer cases of PTSD and depression post-deployment . A borderline individual’s pattern of crises and conflicts can degrade that protective cohesion, potentially leaving the whole group more vulnerable to psychological trauma. Furthermore, the presence of self-harm or suicidal behavior, common in more severe BPD cases, poses an acute operational risk. In the general BPD population, recurrent suicidal ideation and self-harm occur frequently . Translate that to an environment with firearms or spacecraft – if a crew member harms themselves or threatens to during a mission, it forces an immediate diversion from objectives to a rescue or containment effort. There have been instances in military history of sudden psychiatric breakdowns causing units to abort missions or allocate manpower to restrain or care for the affected soldier. In summary, extreme environments magnify the fallout of borderline-histrionic traits: what might be merely dysfunctional in civilian life can become dangerous and mission-fatal in a submarine, an isolated bunker, or a spacecraft millions of miles from Earth.
Screening and Prevention: A Case for Stringent Selection
Given the evidence above, a compelling clinical argument emerges that individuals with prominent borderline or histrionic pathology should be identified and carefully screened out of roles involving combat deployments, long-duration isolation, or critical team-dependent missions. This is not a punitive stance, but a preventative one: just as applicants with severe medical illnesses are excluded for their own and others’ safety, so too should severe personality dysfunctions be considered disqualifying in high-risk team settings. Many militaries already recognize this principle. For example, U.S. Army regulations allow administrative separation for a personality disorder that “interferes with […] duty performance” and is of such severity that the person cannot function effectively in the military environment . In practice, thousands of service members were administratively discharged for personality disorders in the 2000s when those conditions came to light . However, the goal should be to detect such traits before deployment rather than after harm occurs.
Validated Screening Instruments: Modern psychology offers reliable tools to screen for maladaptive personality traits. One common instrument is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), a 567-item test which includes validity scales and clinical scales for various disorders. The MMPI-2 has a long history in occupational screening and is indeed used in hiring for high-risk jobs including pilots and astronauts . Candidates who produce profiles suggestive of severe psychopathology or maladaptive traits can be further evaluated or removed from consideration. Another instrument, the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ) or its revisions, allows quick screening for DSM personality disorders; similarly, the McLean Screening Instrument for BPD (MSI-BPD) is a brief questionnaire specifically validated to flag borderline personality disorder features, including unstable relationships and impulsivity . In research settings, the MSI-BPD has shown good reliability and could be adapted for selection contexts . Structured clinical interviews (e.g. the Structured Interview for DSM Personality) conducted by military or aerospace psychiatrists are also invaluable – even if time-consuming, they can probe for history of intense unstable relationships, self-harm episodes, or exploitive attention-seeking behavior. NASA reportedly employs a structured psychiatric interview alongside psychometric tests to vet astronaut candidates for past or present psychopathology . The key is that screening be evidence-based and fair: not every person with a few traits should be excluded, but those meeting full diagnostic criteria or showing clear patterns of the risky behaviors discussed (emotional instability, aggression, boundary violations) should likely be deemed high-risk for extreme missions.
Exclusion vs. Mitigation: For roles like astronaut or special forces operator, where only the most stable personalities are acceptable, exclusion is the prudent course if serious borderline or histrionic patterns are identified. There may be cases, however, in broader military service or in less critical team roles, where individuals with milder traits can perform adequately with proper support. In such instances, enhanced screening can flag them and allow for interventions: for example, requiring a course of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (an evidence-based treatment for BPD) before deployment, or assigning them to roles with less interpersonal strain. Still, in truly critical confined missions (like a two-year Mars expedition), the margin for error is so low that one would err on the side of exclusion. The astronaut selection criteria already reflect this, essentially disqualifying personality disorders at the outset. A NASA medical standards document notes that certain conditions are screened with “no waivers considered” during selection, and significant psychopathology would fall in that category . Once selected, if an astronaut later develops issues, they can be grounded and treated, but the aim is to never place someone with a known serious personality dysfunction into an unrecoverable mission situation.
Ethical and Clinical Rationale: The suggestion of screening out people based on personality can raise ethical concerns – it must be stressed that this is not about moral judgment or unfair discrimination. It is an acknowledgment, backed by evidence, that untreated borderline or histrionic pathology can pose tangible risks to others in extreme settings. Just as an epileptic seizure mid-spacewalk could jeopardize a mission, a borderline rage episode or suicidal crisis in space could do the same. Moreover, individuals with these conditions would likely suffer immensely themselves in such environments; it is arguably unethical to place someone predisposed to emotional breakdown into an isolated combat outpost with little support. By using validated tools and thorough evaluations, organizations can make informed decisions that balance individual opportunity with collective safety. Any screening program should also be mindful of false positives/negatives – periodic re-evaluations and feedback from peers can help catch issues that initial screenings miss, or conversely, ensure someone isn’t mislabeled by a single test.
In sum, prevention is far better than reaction. The cost of a mishire in a corporate office might be low, but the cost of a dysfunctional team member on a submarine or lunar base could be catastrophic. Therefore, a rigorous psychological screening for extreme deployments, incorporating measures of personality disorder traits, is a sound practice. Where borderline or histrionic traits are detected, a clinical judgment must determine if they rise to a level warranting exclusion. In cases of doubt, the precautionary principle should lean toward not placing that individual in an extreme isolated team unless/until treatment or further observation suggests stability. This stance is supported by decades of military and aerospace psychiatric experience and aligns with a risk-management approach to team composition in safety-critical operations.
Conclusion
Borderline and histrionic personality traits, marked by intense but unstable emotions, impulsive behaviors, attention-seeking, and chaotic relationships, present a uniquely potent threat to group functioning in the crucible of extreme environments. Neurobiologically, these traits are underpinned by limbic system hyperreactivity and deficient frontal regulation, leading to emotional storms and poor impulse control . Behaviorally, they can manifest as volatile moods, self-destructive risk-taking, and inappropriate sexual or social conduct that degrades trust and cohesion within a team . In contexts like combat units, special operations teams, polar expeditions, or space missions, where success and survival hinge on unity, reliability, and discipline, such patterns can increase mission risk to an unacceptable degree. Historical incidents and organizational analyses alike warn that one individual’s personality pathology can contaminate an entire group’s performance . This analysis, grounded in current psychiatric and neuroscience evidence, supports a proactive strategy: identify and screen out individuals with severe borderline or histrionic dysfunctions from high-stakes team deployments, or ensure they receive substantial intervention before placement. Using validated psychological assessments and structured interviews, selectors can detect red flags like chronic emotional instability or prior boundary violations . The goal is not to stigmatize, but to protect – to maintain the integrity, cohesion, and effectiveness of teams that operate where there is no margin for interpersonal failure. By acknowledging the profound interpersonal and emotional challenges posed by these personality traits, and addressing them through careful screening and mental health support, organizations can help avert scenarios where personal pathology might otherwise sabotage a critical mission.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: APA Publishing. (Criteria for borderline and histrionic personality disorders)
Giannoulis, E., Nousis, C., Sula, I.-J., Georgitsi, M.-E., & Malogiannis, I. (2025). Understanding the borderline brain: A review of neurobiological findings in BPD. Biomedicines, 13(8), Article 1783. [PMC12292566] (Neurobiology of BPD: limbic hyperreactivity, PFC hypoactivity, HPA axis)
Chapman, J., Jamil, R. T., Fleisher, C., & Torrico, T. J. (2024). Borderline Personality Disorder. In StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing. (Clinical overview of BPD: emotional instability, impulsivity, comorbidities)
Torrico, T. J., French, J. H., Aslam, S. P., & Shrestha, S. (2024). Histrionic Personality Disorder. In StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing. (Clinical overview of HPD: attention-seeking, shallow emotions, seductive behavior)
Sansone, R. A., & Wiederman, M. W. (2009). Borderline personality symptomatology, casual sexual relationships, and promiscuity. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6(3), 36–40. (Study showing elevated rates of sexual impulsivity and promiscuity in individuals with BPD traits)
Human Performance Resource Center (HPRC). (2022). Fraternization, dating, and sex in your unit: How close is too close? [HPRC Social Fitness Article]. (Military guidance on how romantic/sexual relationships can harm unit cohesion, morale, and readiness)
Oberhaus, D. (2015, April 2). Sexism in space. Vice/Motherboard. (Report on the 1999 Sphinx-99 space mission simulation incident, detailing sexual harassment and conflict in an isolated crew)
Department of the Army. (n.d.). Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13: Separation due to Personality Disorder. Washington, DC: U.S. Army. (Policy allowing discharge of service members whose personality disorder impairs their ability to function in the military)
NASA Office of the Chief Health & Medical Officer. (2023). Waivered Health Conditions (OCHMO-MTB-002) [Medical Technical Brief]. Washington, DC: NASA. (Details NASA’s astronaut medical selection and the use of psychological evaluations to screen out disqualifying psychiatric conditions or traits)
Goldman, A. (2006). High toxicity leadership: Borderline personality disorder and the dysfunctional organization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 733–746. (Case study describing how a leader with BPD traits created systemic organizational dysfunction, highlighting the toxic impact of such traits on group dynamics)
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) [Manual]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Psychological assessment widely used in high-risk occupational screening; research note that MMPI-2 is used for pilots and astronauts)
Castro, C. A., Kintzle, S., Schuyler, A. C., Lucas, C. L., & Warner, C. H. (2015). Sexual assault in the military. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17(7), 54. (Not directly quoted above, but referenced in HPRC article regarding impact of sexual misconduct on military units)
Additional References:
– Page, M. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement (systematic review guidelines) – used in Giannoulis et al. 2025 for literature search methodology.
– Ahronson, A., & Cameron, J. E. (2007). The nature and consequences of group cohesion in a military sample. Military Psychology, 19(1), 9–25. (Background research on cohesion benefits, cited in HPRC 2022).
– NASA (2018). Astronaut Job Analysis and Psychological Selection Criteria (internal report, summarized by K. Schubert in Spaceflight Psychology). (Describes the structured psychiatric interview and personality tests in astronaut selection)