Resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled personality types based upon DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits

Which emotion regulation strategy is efficient for whom? Reappraisal and suppression efficiency for adaptive and maladaptive personality profiles

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the efficiency of different emotion regulation strategies, specifically reappraisal and suppression, in relation to adaptive and maladaptive personality profiles.

BACKGROUND

Personality conditions emotions and influences emotion regulation. Of the available regulation strategies, reappraisal (reinterpreting the situation) is described as an efficient strategy, whereas suppression (not displaying the experienced emotion) carries higher physiological and cognitive costs. Little is known, however, about the influence of personality on these efficiencies.

METHOD

We tested the personality structure of 102 participants (Meanage = 20.75, SDage = 2.15), based on the Five-Factor Model and the Maladaptive Personality Trait Model. Experience, expressivity, and physiological arousal were recorded during the viewing of emotionally charged positive and negative images while participants reappraised, suppressed, or viewed the images without regulating their emotions.

RESULTS

We identified two clusters for adaptive personality ("Adaptive Resilient" and "Anti-resilient") and two for maladaptive personality ("Maladaptive Resilient" and "Under-controlled"). The major finding was for emotional experience in maladaptive personalities, where reappraisal was efficient in the Maladaptive Resilient profile, while none of the strategies brought relief in the Under-controlled profile.

CONCLUSION

This study, which systematically contrasts personality and efficiency of emotion regulation strategies, is one of the first attempts to refine the understanding of how personality influences the emotional regulation process.

Resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled personality types in Hong Kong youths and the association with mental health outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between RUO types and mental health in a youth sample in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND

Previous research has found that Resilient, Undercontrolled, and Overcontrolled (RUO) personality types derived from Big Five personality traits are associated with mental health outcomes. Most studies, however, have predominantly been conducted in Western societies.

METHOD

Clinical diagnostic interviews and self-rated measures of psychological constructs, covering resilience, rumination, self-esteem and more, were administered to 860 youths aged 15 to 24 recruited from an ongoing epidemiological youth mental health study in Hong Kong.

RESULTS

Three personality clusters were identified. The first (mean age = 19.6, 63.3% female) and second (mean age = 19.5, 60.7% female) cluster both have characteristics of the under- and overcontrolled personalities. The third personality type resembled the resilient profile in RUO typology (mean age = 19.6, 50.5% female) and showed the lowest prevalence of poor mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the replicability of the RUO profiles was only partial in a Hong Kong sample predominantly Chinese. The resilient profile was replicated but not the undercontrolled and overcontrolled profiles proposed by previous studies. The findings of the current study implicated that culturally contextual considerations are necessary when relating mental health to personality.

A person-centered perspective on the combined DSM-5 AMPD/ICD-11 personality model: Utility, relationship with the categorical personality disorder model, and capacity to differentiate between levels of identity functioning

BACKGROUND

Both the ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (DSM-5 AMPD) conceptualize personality pathology in a dimensional way, but differ in the way they carve up their respective pathological personality domains. Recently, a combination of ICD-11 and DSM-5 AMPD descriptive pathological personality traits, the Modified Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form Plus (PID5BF + M), was developed.

THE CURRENT STUDY

We investigated the utility of the additional ANANKASTIA domain (not represented in the DSM-5 AMPD) as well as of the additional PSYCHOTICISM domain (not represented in the ICD-11 model) in the identification of meaningful pathological personality domain clusters based on the PID5BF + M. Next to the classical 2- and 3-cluster solutions, we examined whether the presence of the additional ANANKASTIA domain would also gave rise to a meaningful 4-cluster solution. We then validated these clusters by investigating differences between them in mean DSM-5 Section II cluster A, B, and C personality disorder scores. Finally, we investigated whether cluster membership was able to differentiate between levels of identity functioning, a key feature of personality disorder severity in both the ICD-11 model and the DSM-5 AMPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a Flemish community sample of 242 participants, and applied k-means cluster analyses in a two-step manner on PID5BF + M domains to investigate 2-, 3-, and 4-cluster solutions. We used MANOVAs to examine differences between clusters in PID5BF + M domains, DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II Assessment of Personality disorders (ADP-IV) cluster A, B, and C scores, and Self-Concept and Identity Measure (SCIM) scores.

RESULTS

Cluster analyses on PID5BF + M pathological personality domains (1) revealed meaningful 2-, 3-, and 4-cluster solutions, with the 4-cluster solution explaining the most variance in the clustering variables, (2) allowed to identify a classical Overcontrolled cluster which DSM-5 AMPD PID-5 does not, and (3) demonstrated the utility of representing ANANKASTIA and DISINHIBITON as separate pathological personality domains. PID5BF + M clusters (5) were informative of DSM-5 Section II cluster A, B, and C personality disorder scores and (6) showed different levels of clinical-developmental Identity functioning.

CONCLUSION

Current results demonstrate the utility of a combined ICD-11/DSM-5 AMPD view from a person-centered perspective.