Integrating and distinguishing personality and psychopathology

Structure of psychopathology in adolescents and its association with high-risk personality traits

The present study examined high-risk personality traits and associations with psychopathology across multiple levels of a hierarchical-dimensional model of psychopathology in a large adolescent, general population sample. Confirmatory factor analyses were run using data from two randomized controlled trials of Australian adolescents (N = 8,654, mean age = 13.01 years, 52% female). A higher-order model - comprised of general psychopathology, fear, distress, alcohol use/harms, and conduct/inattention dimensions - was selected based on model fit, reliability, and replicability. Indirect-effects models were estimated to examine the unique associations between high-risk personality traits (anxiety sensitivity, negative thinking, impulsivity, and sensation seeking) and general and specific dimensions and symptoms of psychopathology. All personality traits were positively associated with general psychopathology. After accounting for general psychopathology, anxiety sensitivity was positively associated with fear; negative thinking was positively associated with distress; impulsivity was positively associated with conduct/inattention; and sensation seeking was positively associated with alcohol use/harms and conduct/inattention, and negatively associated with fear. Several significant associations between personality traits and individual symptoms remained after accounting for general and specific psychopathology. These findings contribute to our understanding of the underlying structure of psychopathology among adolescents and have implications for the development of personality-based prevention and early intervention programs.

Opportunities of measuring hierarchical models of psychopathology

All psychiatric phenomena are positively associated, and several different models can account for this observation. These include the correlated factors, network, general psychopathology as outcome, and hierarchical models. Advantages of hierarchical models, which consist of one general and several (general factor-residualized) specific factors, is that the general factor provides an opportunity to reliably measure global distress and impairment, while the specific factors might improve the ability to discriminate between individuals with different kinds of problems. Nevertheless, other models also have their respective advantages, and it remains challenging to empirically determine which model best accounts for the positive manifold in psychiatry. Instead, I present two non-empirical arguments in favor of hierarchical models. First, by measuring the general factor in isolation, the specific factors tend to include both favorable and unfavorable correlates, which might reduce stigma compared to psychiatric diagnoses that by and large are associated with only unfavorable outcomes. Second, the general psychopathology factor displays an unusual psychometric property in that it includes symptoms of opposite meaning if they have similar valence (e.g., self-reported symptoms such as gullible and paranoid, lazy and workaholic, and terrified and apathetic load in the same direction), which one might want to measure in isolation from variance capturing the content of symptoms. I conclude by speculating that tests designed based on hierarchical models might help clinical assessment.

Personality dynamics: Regulatory mechanisms and processes

Personality dynamics have recently revived interest as a subject of systematic investigation in personality science. Personality dynamics theories and research refer to nonstatic phenomena related to personality, such as the regulatory mechanisms and processes involved in the control of behavior and experience related to personality and their interactions with situations. Such research is not only important to understand personality but also important to explain the large amount of variability in behavior and experience in an individual that can hardly be explained by a few personality traits. This introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Personality outlines the contributions of 11 articles tackling four emerging trends in the field: (1) personality dynamics and levels of regulation; (2) personality dynamics and the motivational dimension of regulation; (3) dynamics and regulatory potentials of structural personality components; and (4) personality dynamics and timescales. Moreover, we add recommendations for future exploration. Together, we believe that our special issue advances personality science in conceptualizing and examining personality dynamics as well as drawing attention to unanswered issues.