Evaluating the criterion validity of hierarchical psychopathology dimensions across models: Familial aggregation and associations with research domain criteria (sub)constructs

Examining the Construct Validity of Borderline Personality Traits Using Familial Aggregation and Other External Validators

Numerous studies have questioned the reliability and validity of borderline personality disorder's (BPD) categorical conceptualization. DSM-5 Section III's alternative trait-based model of BPD may better capture borderline pathology, but aspects of its validity should be further established. Thus, the authors examined whether a latent BPD factor derived from Section III traits exhibits (1) familial aggregation among siblings and (2) association with constructs related to borderline pathology. The authors also tested whether gender moderated associations. A total of 498 community-recruited adults completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, a behavioral assessment of risk-taking, and reported their history of childhood maltreatment, substance use, nonsuicidal self-injury, and suicidal ideation. Familial aggregation was assessed among 232 sibling pairs. Siblings' BPD scores were significantly correlated and most external validators were significantly associated with BPD, with the exception of risk-taking. Results did not vary by gender. Findings further support the construct validity of Section III's BPD trait profile.

Associations Between Repetitive Negative Thinking and Habituation of Defensive Responding Within and Between Sessions

Repetitive negative thinking (RNT) is a transdiagnostic risk factor for internalizing psychopathology, and theoretical models suggest that RNT may maintain symptoms by interfering with psychophysiological habituation. The present study therefore examined associations between RNT and habituation within and between study sessions. Community members (N=86) completed a habituation task involving exposure to acoustic probes at up to five sessions spaced 7 days apart on average. Eyeblink startle response was measured using the electromyography startle magnitude. Self-reported anxiety was assessed before and after the habituation task at each session. Multilevel growth curve modeling indicated that RNT was associated with a higher "floor" (i.e., asymptote) of startle responding as evidenced by reduced within-session startle habituation at later sessions. Results suggest that RNT may disrupt startle habituation and are consistent with theoretical models proposing that RNT sustains physiological activation to support avoidance of negative emotional contrasts or perceived future threats.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-022-00121-w.

Using what we know about threat reactivity models to understand mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by unprecedented levels of stress and threats in a variety of domains (e.g., health, livelihood). Individual differences in threat reactivity may explain why some individuals are at elevated risk for the development or maintenance of psychopathology during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article describes several prominent models, mechanisms, and components of threat reactivity (e.g., appraisals, intolerance of uncertainty, avoidance) and discusses how they might help improve understanding of changes in psychopathology during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Is Not an Improvement Over the DSM

In their response to our article (both in this issue), DeYoung and colleagues did not sufficiently address three fundamental flaws with the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). First, HiTOP was created using a simple-structure factor-analytic approach, which does not adequately represent the dimensional space of the symptoms of psychopathology. Consequently, HiTOP is not the empirical structure of psychopathology. Second, factor analysis and dimensional ratings do not fix the problems inherent to descriptive (folk) classification; self-reported symptoms are still the basis on which clinical judgments about people are made. Finally, HiTOP is not ready to use in real-world clinical settings. There is currently no empirical evidence demonstrating that clinicians who use HiTOP have better clinical outcomes than those who use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In sum, HiTOP is a factor-analytic variation of the DSM that does not get the field closer to a more valid and useful taxonomy.