Explore the vast range of titles available.

A large body of research has focused on identifying the optimal number of dimensions – or spectra – to model individual differences in psychopathology. Recently, it has become increasingly clear that ostensibly competing models with varying numbers of spectra can be synthesized in empirically derived hierarchical structures. We examined the convergence between top-down (bass-ackwards or sequential principal components analysis) and bottom-up (hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis) statistical methods for elucidating hierarchies to explicate the joint hierarchical structure of clinical and personality disorders. Analyses examined 24 clinical and personality disorders based on semi-structured clinical interviews in an outpatient psychiatric sample (n=2900). The two methods of hierarchical analysis converged on a three-tier joint hierarchy of psychopathology. At the lowest tier, there were seven spectra – disinhibition, antagonism, core thought disorder, detachment, core internalizing, somatoform, and compulsivity – that emerged in both methods. These spectra were nested under the same three higher-order superspectra in both methods: externalizing, broad thought dysfunction, and broad internalizing. In turn, these three superspectra were nested under a single general psychopathology spectrum, which represented the top tier of the hierarchical structure. The hierarchical structure mirrors and extends upon past research, with the inclusion of a novel compulsivity spectrum, and the finding that psychopathology is organized in three superordinate domains. This hierarchy can thus be used as a flexible and integrative framework to facilitate psychopathology research with varying levels of specificity (i.e., focusing on the optimal level of detailed information, rather than the optimal number of factors).

Background/objectivesMany personality traits correlate with BMI, but the existence and direction of causal links between them are unclear. If personality influences BMI, knowing this causal direction could inform weight management strategies. Knowing that BMI instead influences personality would contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms of personality development and the possible psychological effects of weight change. We tested the existence and direction of causal links between BMI and personality.Subjects/methodsWe employed two genetically informed methods. In Mendelian randomization, allele scores were calculated to summarize genetic propensity for the personality traits neuroticism, worry, and depressive affect and used to predict BMI in an independent sample (N = 3 541). Similarly, an allele score for BMI was used to predict eating-specific and domain-general phenotypic personality scores (PPSs; aggregate scores of personality traits weighted by BMI). In a direction of causation (DoC) analysis, twin data from five countries (N = 5424) were used to assess the fit of four alternative models: PPSs influencing BMI, BMI influencing PPSs, reciprocal causation, and no causation.ResultsIn Mendelian randomization, the allele score for BMI predicted domain-general (β = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.08; P = 0.003) and eating-specific PPS (β = 0.06; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.09; P < 0.001). The allele score for worry also predicted BMI (β = −0.05; 95% CI: −0.08, −0.02; P < 0.001), while those for neuroticism and depressive affect did not (P ≥ 0.459). In DoC, BMI similarly predicted domain-general (β = 0.21; 95% CI:, 0.18, 0.24; P < 0.001) and eating-specific personality traits (β = 0.19; 95% CI:, 0.16, 0.22; P < 0.001), suggesting causality from BMI to personality traits. In exploratory analyses, links between BMI and domain-general personality traits appeared reciprocal for higher-weight individuals (BMI > ~25).ConclusionsAlthough both genetic analyses suggested an influence of BMI on personality traits, it is not yet known if weight management interventions could influence personality. Personality traits may influence BMI in turn, but effects in this direction appeared weaker.

Despite a lively debate about the dimensional vs. categorical nature of Personality Disorders (PDs), direct empirical tests of the underlying structure are missing for most PDs. Taxometrics can be used to investigate whether latent structures are categorical or dimensional. We investigated the latent structure underlying Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Depressive, Paranoid, and Borderline PD by means of three types of taxometric analyses. SCID-II based DSM-IV PD criterion scores from 1,816 patients from Mental Health and Forensic Institutes, and 63 nonpatients, were analyzed with three types of taxometric analyses. MAMBAC, MAXEIG, and L-MODE taxometric analyses were applied on multiple criteria sets, constituted both on theoretical grounds and randomly. Assumptions for taxometric analyses were generally met. All but two of the 78 taxometric analyses indicated greater evidence for a latent dimensional structure, with better fit of empirical data to dimensional than to taxonic simulations; mean Comparative Curve Fit Index (CCFI) = .23, SD = .09. Only two analyses yielded ambiguous evidence (CCFI in the .40-.60 range) and none indicated taxonic structure.

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), a new measure of maladaptive personality traits, has recently been developed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Workgroup. The PID-5 variables were examined within the seven-factor space defined by the six HEXACO factors and the Schizotypy/Dissociation factor (Ashton & Lee, 2012) using participant samples from Canada (N = 378) and the Netherlands (N = 476). Extension analyses showed that several PID-5 facet-level scales represented each of the Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Schizotypy/Dissociation factors. In contrast, only one PID-5 scale loaded strongly on HEXACO Agreeableness, and no PID-5 scales loaded strongly on Openness to Experience. In addition, a joint factor analysis involving the PID-5 variables and facets of the Five-Factor Model was conducted in the Canadian sample and recovered a set of seven factors corresponding rather closely to the HEXACO factors plus Schizotypy/Dissociation. The authors discuss implications for the assessment and structure of normal and abnormal personality.

Distressed (‘Type D’) personality, the combination of negative affectivity (NA) and social inhibition (SI), has been associated with adverse health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine if an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program could reduce Type D personality characteristics. Distressed individuals from the Dutch general population ( N  = 146; mean age = 46.07; 69 % female) participated in a randomized trial comparing the mindfulness intervention with waitlist control. Although change in Type D caseness did not differ between groups, the intervention group showed stronger reductions for both NA ( p  < .001) and SI ( p  < .05) dimensions, even when change in state negative affect was statistically controlled. These effects were mediated by change in self-reported mindfulness. In conclusion, MBSR may reduce characteristics of the distressed personality type, likely through the mechanism of increased mindfulness.

Dimensional models of co-morbidity have the potential to improve the conceptualization of mental disorders in research and clinical work, yet little is known about how relatively uncommon disorders may fit with more common disorders. The present study estimated the meta-structure of psychopathology in the US general population focusing on the placement of five under-studied disorders sharing features of thought disorder: paranoid, schizoid, avoidant and schizotypal personality disorders, and manic episodes as well as bipolar disorder. Data were drawn from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a face-to-face interview of 34 653 non-institutionalized adults in the US general population. The meta-structure of 16 DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II psychiatric disorders, as assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule DSM-IV version (AUDADIS-IV), was examined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. We document an empirically derived thought disorder factor that is a subdomain of the internalizing dimension, characterized by schizoid, paranoid, schizotypal and avoidant personality disorders as well as manic episodes. Manic episodes exhibit notable associations with both the distress subdomain of the internalizing dimension as well as the thought disorder subdomain. The structure was replicated for bipolar disorder (I or II) in place of manic episodes. As our understanding of psychopathological meta-structure expands, incorporation of disorders characterized by detachment and psychoticism grows increasingly important. Disorders characterized by detachment and psychoticism may be well conceptualized, organized and measured as a subdimension of the internalizing spectrum of disorders. Manic episodes and bipolar disorder exhibit substantial co-morbidity across both distress and thought disorder domains of the internalizing dimension. Clinically, these results underscore the potential utility of conceptualizing patient treatment needs using an approach targeting psychopathological systems underlying meta-structural classification rubrics.

The distinction between general personality dysfunctioning (GPD) and specific personality traits (SPT) is an important focus of attention in the proposed revisions of the DSM-5. The present study explores the distinction between GPD and SPT using the self-report questionnaires General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD) and Severity Indices for Personality Problems (SIPP-118) to measure GPD, and the NEO-PI-R to measure SPT. The sample consisted of 424 psychiatric patients. Using principal component analysis, GPD and SPT appeared to be clearly distinct components of personality. Our GPD model consisted of three factors, i.e., Self-identity dysfunctioning, Relational dysfunctioning, and Prosocial functioning. This model remained by and large intact when combined with SFT factors. Our findings support the distinction between personality traits and personality dysfunction laid down in the recent proposal by the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group of the DSM-5 Task Force.

There is general agreement that the classification of personality disorders in DSM-IV is unsatisfactory. We systematically reviewed all studies that have analyzed patterns of personality disorder symptoms and signs in psychiatric patients; twenty-two papers were included in the final synthesis. There is reasonable consistency over the number and type of personality pathology traits reported despite differing samples, varying assessment methods, and different statistical manipulations. There are three or four high order traits; an externalizing factor incorporating borderline, narcissistic, histrionic, and antisocial traits (the latter is sometimes recorded as a separate trait); an internalizing factor incorporating avoidant and dependent traits; a schizoid factor; and often a compulsive factor. Using these domains of personality pathology would simplify classification, have higher clinical utility, and allow relatively easy translation of current research.

The extant major psychiatric classifications DSM-IV and ICD-10 are purportedly atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis is greatly enhanced by an understanding of the etiology. In an attempt to group mental disorders on the basis of etiology, five clusters have been proposed. We consider the validity of the fifth cluster, externalizing disorders, within this proposal. We reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force, in terms of the extent to which these criteria support the idea of a coherent externalizing spectrum of disorders. This cluster distinguishes itself by the central role of disinhibitory personality in mental disorders spread throughout sections of the current classifications, including substance dependence, antisocial personality disorder and conduct disorder. Shared biomarkers, co-morbidity and course offer additional evidence for a valid cluster of externalizing disorders. Externalizing disorders meet many of the salient criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force to suggest a classification cluster.

An empirically-based classification is proposed based on studies of the phenotypic structure and genetic architecture of personality disorder. The proposed system has two parts: (1) a definition of general personality disorder, and (2) a system for diagnosing different forms of disorder. General personality disorder is conceptualized as a pervasive disturbance in the overall structure and organization of the personality system that is manifested as the failure to establish a coherent self-system and the capacity for adaptive interpersonal and social behavior. Different forms of disorder are represented by a dimensional system consisting of 30 primary traits organized into four higher-order domains. The system is intended to offer a systematic and comprehensive diagnosis of personality disorder for clinical and research purposes. It is also intended to be used in a flexible but prescribed way to provide a diagnostic assessment tailored to different assessment needs.