DISINTEGRATION: RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF PSYCHOSIS- PRONENESS AS A BASIC PERSONALITY TRAIT Goran...

DISINTEGRATION: RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF PSYCHOSIS-PRONENESS AS A BASIC PERSONALITY

TRAIT

Goran Knežević

Belgrade, 23.10.2015.

CENTRAL THESES

• Psychosis proneness can be conceptualized as a broad, hierarchically organized, multi-dimensional behavioral disposition - i.e. a basic personality trait - at the same level of hierarchy as the other Big Five or Big Six (FFM + Honesty) domain traits

• It is distinct form the Big Five

OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION• Criteria for defining a basic personality trait

Relevance (lexical hypothesis and criterion validity) Broadness Temporal stability Continuity (normal or near-normal distribution and factorial

invariance in relevant subgroups) Convergent/discriminant validity (MTMM framework) Cross-cultural replicability Biological distinctness

Disintegration (psychosis-proneness) as a basic personality trait: evidence

CRITERIA FOR DEFINING A BASIC PERSONALITY TRAIT

RELEVANCE (LEXICAL CRITERION)

• The degree of representation of an attribute (descriptor) in natural languages reflects the importance of the attribute

• If terms in a natural language are used as variables, attributes represented by multiple terms will appear as factors.

• Such factors reflect social importance of the disposition they entail i.e. they represent basic personality traits

HOW DISINTEGRATION FARES REGARDING THE LEXICAL CRITERION?

GENERAL FINDING: nothing beyond the well known five factors is found

But…

• … a study examined factors from previous lexical studies using a wider selection of attributes in 7 languages (Chinese, English, Filipino, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, and Turkish) found 6 recurrent factors (basically, Big Five + Honesty/Humility) (Saucier, 2009).

• …a study in other 7 languages using standard lexical criteria (Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Polish) revealed 6 recurrent factors, i.e. Big Five + Honesty/Humility (Ashton et al., 2004).

• Markers of these factors showed substantial incremental prediction of important criterion variables above the Big Five

HOW DISINTEGRATION FARES REGARDING THE LEXICAL CRITERION?

Traditional lexical approach is based on the exclusion of so called evaluative adjectives

Bearing in mind that:

• Lay-persons language encodes psychotic-like phenomena by highly evaluative adjectives, and

• Excluding highly evaluative adjectives from the analysis even if psychotic-like phenomena are adequately represented in language

…prevents the possibility to find something Disintegration-like!

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BROADER SAMPLING OF PERSONALITY DESCRIPTORS IS USED?

• When words are chosen on the basis of high frequency of use (Saucier, 1998), or when sampling from other types of words (for example, type-nouns, Saucier, 2002)“Negative valence” factor appears

• Seven-Factor model (including “Negative Valence”) based on emic studies (of Hebrew and Filipino languages) replicates in English as well as the Five-Factor model (Saucier, 2003)

“Negative valence …representing a now widely replicated empirical phenomenon in lexical-factor studies”

(Saucier, 2003)

The favorable pole of this dimension- “vanilla” descriptors like normal and trustworthy. The unfavorable pole – richly represented (in English) by type-nouns, like creep, idiot, fool, twit, crook, and deadbeat, terms whose use implies that the target is being singled out for social exclusion (Saucier, 2008, p.45)

Factor analysis of 60 marker adjectives of seven factors (Saucier, 2003): the descriptors with the loadings on Negative Valence factor were: Insane (.58), Crazy (.53), Good-for-nothing (.52), Corrupt (.50), Evil (.50), Weird (.48), and Stupid (.47).

MORE REASONS FOR THE “INVISIBILITY” OF SOMETHING DISINTEGRATION-LIKE

• Unusual beliefs or perceptions cannot be reduced to single words or short phrases → the domain has been systematically underrepresented in lexical analyses (Watson, Clark & Chmielewski, 2008).

• Some broad disposition beyond Big Five might exist but are not of sufficient social importance in our historical time to be adequately represented in all natural languages

– Terms describing traits did not appear simultaneously in English, but sequentially (Piedmont & Aycock , 2007), E, A and C appeared early, but N and O fairly recently –17th /18th century

A POSSIBLE LIST OF CRITERIA, APART FROM THE LEXICAL CRITERIONBiological distinctness

Cross-cultural replicability

Convergent/discriminant validity

Continual distribution

Temporal stability

DIS

INTE

GRA

TIO

N

Para

noia

Susp

icio

usne

ss

Para

noid

rese

ntm

ent

Feee

ling

of c

onsp

iracy

Dep

ress

ion

Sadn

ess

Fatig

ue

Suic

idal

idea

tion

Flatt

ened

Affe

ct

Emoti

onal

indi

ffere

nce

Lack

of

plan

ning

Em

otio

nal n

umbi

ng

Som

atof

orm

D

ysre

gula

tion

Sev

ere

sens

ory

and

mot

or

conv

ersi

ons

Fee

ling

of o

rgan

m

alfu

nctio

ns

Inse

nsiti

vity

to

pain

Enha

nced

Aw

aren

ess

Syn

esth

esia

Res

pons

iven

ess

to

enga

ging

stim

uli

Incr

ease

d co

gniti

on

Mag

ical

Thi

nkin

g

Ene

rget

ic c

onne

ctio

n w

ith

othe

rs

Bel

ief

in a

fter

life

and

rein

carn

atio

n

Idea

s of

ref

eren

ce

Man

ia

Ove

ract

ivity

Rec

kles

snes

s

Infla

ted

self-

este

em

Soci

al

Anhe

doni

a

Soc

ial r

eser

vedn

ess

Soc

ial a

nhed

onia

Shy

ness

Gen

eral

Ex

ecuti

ve

Impa

irmen

tA

tten

tiona

l pro

blem

s

Exe

cutiv

e dy

sreg

ulat

ion

Mem

ory

Impa

irmen

t

Perc

eptu

al

Dist

ortio

ns

Dep

erso

naliz

atio

n

Der

ealiz

atio

n

Hal

luci

natio

ns

TRAIT LEVEL

MODALITY (FACET) LEVEL

Ten non-overlapping, non-tautological (in content) modalities comprising wide range of psychotic-like emotional, cognitive, perceptual, motoric and motivational phenomena

BROADNESS...

HOW WAS IT DONE?

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE DOMAIN

• Two-factor model (Kay, Opler, & Fiszbein, 1987)

• Three-factor model (Fossati, Raine, Carretta, Leonardi, & Maffei, 2003; Stefanis et al., 2002)

• Four-factor model (Claridge et al., 1996; Mason, 1995; McGorry, Bell, Dudgeon, & Jackson, 1998)

• The most influential - five-factor model(s) (references for even 25 published variations of the model can be found in van der Gaag, Cuipers, et al., 2006)

• Six-factor model (Karakula & Grzywa, 1999)

• Seven-factor model (Emsley, et al, 2003; Krabbendam et al., 2004),

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE DOMAIN

• Ten-factor model (Cuesta & Peralta, 2001), and

• Twelve-factor model (van Kampen, 2006) model

The progressive increase of the number of subdimensions suggests that the boundaries of the behavioral domain were initially narrowly defined

In line with the findings of Andresen (2000), Markoni (2010) and Caspi et al. (2014) also emphasizing the unexpected broadness of the domain

PHENOMENA INCLUDED• Core symptoms:

positive (perceptual aberrations, magical ideation, delusions, hallucinations)

negative (blunted affect, anhedonia),

• Comorbid symptoms and associated features of psychotic-like behavior, such as:

mania, depression, impulsive nonconformity (Chapman et al., 1984),

dissociation (Momirovic, 1972; Boon & Draijer, 1991; Ross et al., 1990; Merckelbach & Giesbrecht, 2005; Merckelbach, Rassin, & Muris, 2000).

borderline personality characteristics (Rawlings, Claridge, & Freeman, 2001)

PHENOMENA INCLUDEDMental processes found to be related to creative thinking (Bowers, 1979; Manmiller, Kumar, & Pekala, 2005), potential mediators of the relationship between creative thinking and psychotic phenomena (Abraham, Windmann, Daum, & Gunturkun, 2005; Eysenck, 1995; Post, 1994).

• hypnosis (and hypnotizability) (Jamieson & Gruzelier, 2001)

• mental imagery (Sack, van de Ven, Etschenberg, Schatz, & Linden, 2005)

• fantasy proneness (imaginative involvement) (Merckelbach & Giesbrecht, 2005; Rhue & Lynn, 1987)

• paranormal experiences (Thalbourne & Delin, 1994)

• out-of-body experiences (McCreery & Claridge, 2002)

• absorption (Glicksohn, Alon, Perlmutter, & Purisman, 2000-2001).

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

• Widely scooping up the indicators of psychotic-like behavior enables determining the scope and boundaries of this space,

• No negative consequences of being overinclusive - it is easy to detect contents that do not belong to the assumed set

• Truncating the set which naturally stems from the same root, would do more harm to our goal.

PROCEDURE AND FINDINGS• Almost a thousand items were administered to the senior high school

students (N=2,780) in Serbia indicating psychotic-like and related behaviors

• Factor analyses were done on 149 “mini-scales” i.e. item parcels were obtained through the consensus process of the two independent groups of experts

• 12 factors were revealed through a series of factor analyses explaining 56.5% of the overall variance

• 10 out of these 12 factors were found to converge on one higher-order factor (that we labeled “Disintegration”)

• 2 drop out factors (not converging on the higher-order factor) were Physical Anhedonia and Rigid Conscientiousness

General executive impairment• Dysregulation of: attention, planning, memory, concentration,

speech comprehension and production, motor control, control of emotional reactions, coordination between intention and motor output

Factor 1: General Executive Impairment

Sample Items:It happens that I am doing something and I am suddenly struck by a blackout

I find it difficult to concentrate, unimportant things seem to distract me

Sk= 0.29Ku= - 0.22

Perceptual Distortions:• Schneider First Order Rank Symptoms, depersonalization,

derealization, feelings of dissociation and multiple identities

Factor 2: Perceptual Distortions

Sample Items: Sometimes I have thought that some part of my body was rotting away

Sometimes I look at myself in the mirror without recognizing myself

Sk= 1.67Ku= 3.75

Factor 4: Mania

Mania Over-activity, agitation, excessive optimism, inflated mood,

inflated self-esteem, grandiosity

Sample Items: I often get into excited moods where it’s almost impossible for me to stop talking

There have often been times when I had such an excess of energy that I felt little need to sleep at night

Sk= 0.53Ku= 0.23

Depression• Sadness, feeling lonely, chronic fatigue, feelings of uselessness, self-

pity, hopelessness, helplessness, suicidal ideation

Factor 5: Depression

Sample Items: Sometimes I am so down, that for days I am unable to eat

My life has been so full of disappointment that I wish I were not born

Sk= 1.31Ku= 1.82

Paranoia Suspicion, distrust of others, ideas of reference and persecution,

blaming others for personal failures, oversensitivity, feelings of conspiracy

Factor 6: Paranoia

Sample Items: I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back

I believe that someone is after me

Sk= 0.38Ku= 0.05

Factor 8: Flattened Affect

Flattened Affect• Emotional indifference toward self and others, distancing from and

disinterest in others, emotional numbing, disinterest in the future

Sample Items: Even though I know that I should be shaken up by some things, essentially it is all the same to me

In most situations, I do not have positive or negative feelings

Sk= 0.04Ku= - 0.11

Factor 9: Social Anhedonia

Social Anhedonia Social reservedness, loneliness and social withdrawal, preference to

live alone, shyness, absence of enjoyment in pleasant stimuli

Sample Items: I never form close relationships with others

I’m happiest when I’m alone

Sk= 0.55Ku= 0.20

Factor 10: Magical Thinking

Magical Thinking Feeling telepathic and energetic connections with others, illogical

thinking, belief in the afterlife, reincarnation, magical influences and horoscope

Sample Items: Some people have the power to cast evil spells

Occasionally, I have feeling that a TV or radio broadcaster knew I was listening to him

Sk= 0.34Ku= - 0.08

Factor 11: Somatoform Dysregulation

Somatoform Dysregulation• Serious forms of sensory and motor conversions, somatic delusions,

insensitivity to pain and general body numbing

Sample Items: Sometimes my body, or a part of it, feels numb

Sometimes I am paralysed for a while

Sk= 2.49Ku= 7.38

Enhanced Awareness Synesthesia, heightened awareness, heightened cognition,

dissociative involvement, vivid reminiscence, responsiveness to engaging stimuli

Factor 12: Enhanced Awareness

Sample Items: I find that different odors have different colors

Sometimes I experience things as if they were double real

Sk= 0.16Ku= - 0.12

EYSENCK’S PSYCHOTICISM vs DISINGRATION MODEL

P

Aggressive Creative Tough-

mindednessAntisocialImpulsiveImpersonalEgocentric ColdNonempathic

In blue are modalities - proposed by Eysenck

In orange are modalities of psychoticism - proposed by Eysenck - that are, to some extent, similar to the factors in the Disinegraton model

ENHANCED AWARENESSSOCIAL

ANHEDONIA?FLATENED AFFECT?





Temporal stability

...AND RELEVANCECrucial in understanding:• Psychopathology (both Axis I and Axis II) – Predictive relevance was found not only

for psychotic but various non-psychotic disorders (Rössler et al., 2011)• Exposure and sensitivity to stress – Predicts both the exposure to traumatic (war)

events and PTSD symptoms after the traumatic war experience (Knezevic, Savic, Spiric, Wermetten & Vidakovic, in preparation)

• Aspects of creative thinking (Eysenck, 1995, Brod, 1997)• Spiritual experiences (Jackson,1997), • Paranormal beliefs (Goulding, 2005; Thalbourne & Delin, 1994)

Important in understanding:• Personality-cognition relations. Apart from Openness, Disintegration is the only

trait having substantive, theoretically predictable relations with several cognitive measures (Knezevic, Savic, Spiric, Wermetten & Vidakovic, 2011)

• Drug abuse (Stefanis et al., 2004)• Criminal and malevolent behavior (Knezevic, 2003)• Aspects of militant extremists mind set (Stankov, Saucier & Knezevic, 2010)• Various phenomena relevant in social psychology (Keller, 2015; Knezevic, 2015)

Improvement of the diagnostic power of “BIG FIVE”

GENDER N UZRAST

MALES 78 M=33,5 god.SD=9,2FEMALES 102

Patients in the Institute of psychiatry, Belgrade Total: 131 patient and 49 healthy controls

HEALTHY CONTROL

NON-PSYCHOTIC PATIENTS(AGORAFOBIA, OCD)

SCH AFFECTIVE PSYCHOSES(BIPOLAR, DEPRESSION)

OTHER PSYCHOSES(TRANSIENT, SHIZOAFFECTIVE)

N 49 47 29 32 23

INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF DISINTEGRATION ( )D ABOVE AND OVER OCEAN (from 62.2% to 71.1%)

HEALTHY CONTROL

NON-PSYCHOTIC PATIENTS

SCH AFFECTIVE PSYCHOSES

OTHER PSYCHOSES

CAN.CORR.

(FACETS)

% correctly classified Index of dsc.

D 80.0 46.9 41.4 37.5 30.4 0.59

N 65.3 53.2 41.4 37.5 4.4 0.49

E 69.4 55.3 13.8 15.6 0.0 0.38

O 67.4 40.4 41.4 9.4 8.7 0.40

A 73.5 44.7 24.2 37.5 0.0 0.40

C 65.3 51.1 13.8 21.9 13.0 0.40

OCEAN 71.4 57.5 65.5 50.0 65.2 0.65

OCEAN+D

81.6 72.3 82.8 50.0 60.9 0.75

RELEVANCE: CRIMINAL RECIDIVISMCRIMINAL RECIDIVISM AND BASIC PERSONALITY TRAITS

(PRISON HOSPITAL IN BELGRADE) CONVICTED DRUG ABUSERS, M(SD)=29.8 (7.5) OF AGE;

N=110 MALES; 55 NON-RECIDIVISTS (1), 55 RECIDIVISTS (2)

ANOVA M1/M2 SD(tot) F(1, 108) p

D 2.0/2.3 0.7 5.59 .020

N 2.6/2.7 0.7 0.81 .369

E 3.2/3.3 0.6 1.36 .246

O 3.3/3.2 0.6 0.30 .586

A 3.3/3.1 0.5 5.57 .020

C 3.9/3.7 0.6 4.00 .048

RELEVANCE: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PBPTSD, Psycho-Biology of PTSD, EC funded study)

N(tot)= 400, males, M(SD)=42.18 (9.05) of age

Group centroids on discriminant functions:

EXPOSED TO WAR SRESS: Acute PTSD (N= 133) = 1.124 ; Life-time PTSD (N=66) = .317;

Traumatic control (N= 128) = -.643;

HEALTHY Healthy control (N= 73) =-1.080;

Canonical correlations (index of discrimination, effect size), r=.680, p<.000

•Standardized coefficients N .600 E -.097 O -.049A .229C -.039D .514

FINAL MODEL OF NEUROCOGNITIVE AND PERSONALITY RELATIONS WITH PTSD (Knezevic, Savic, Spiric, Wermetten & Vidakovic, in preparation)

2(231)=338.18, p<0.19; RMSEA (90% CI) =0.025(0.000-0.050), SRMR=0.025, CFI=1.00

RELEVANCE: RELATIONS WITH CONSTRUCTS RELEVANT FOR SOCIAL BEHAVIOR (German sample ,N=258, general

population and students, females 73%, Mage= 30.1 ± 13.0)

• Altruism ← A+, N+ (D+ incrementally) – “Performing an action which is at a cost to themselves (e.g., in quality of life, time, or pleasure), but benefits, either directly or indirectly, another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity or compensation for that action”

• Belief in social determinism ← D+ “Belief that a person's essential character is shaped by social factors (e.g., upbringing, social background)”

• Satisfaction with life ← N-, E+, (D- incrementally) “Global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one's life”

RELEVANCE: RELATIONS WITH CONSTRUCTS RELEVANT FOR SOCIAL BEHAVIOR (German sample ,N=258, general

population and students, females 73%, Mage= 30.1 ± 13.0)

• Spiritual transcendence ← A+, E+ (D+ incrementally) ”Capacity of individuals to stand outside of their immediate sense of time and place to view life from a larger… perspective. These …perspective is one in which person sees a fundamental unity underlying diverse strivings of nature and finds a bonding with others …”.

• Right wing orientation ← O-, (D+ incrementally) “Adherence to conventional norms and values, uncritical submission to authorities, and aggressive feelings toward people violating the norms”

• Prejudice toward immigrants (subtle, but not blatant) ← A-, (D+ incrementally) “Negative feeling towards a particular group and its members”

MULTI-GROUP MODEL OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN PERSONALITY (BIG 5 + D), RIGHT-WING ORIENTATION (RWA) AND PREJUDICES

TOWARDS MINORITIES (PTT)

• Disintegration in RWA and prejudices?• Was it noticed before?

TWO GERMAN AND TWO AMERICAN SAMPLES, n= 773 (data collected by Keller and Knezevic)

Paths fixed across four samples, all significant, c2(30)=34.69,

p=n.s., RMSEA (90% CI)=.028 (.000 - .064), CFI=.99, SRMR=.042

ALTEMEYER IN “THE AUTHORITARIANS “: HOW AUTHORITARIAN FOLLOWERS THINK?

ILLOGICAL THINKING

• “Overall, the authoritarians had lots of trouble simply thinking straight. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right.”, p.76

• “Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in”, p. 77.

• “They think that any time science cannot explain something, this proves mysterious supernatural forces are at work”, p. 78

• “You can appreciate their short-fall in critical thinking by how easily authoritarian followers get alarmed by things”, p. 78

ALTEMEYER IN “THE AUTHORITARIANS “: HOW AUTHORITARIAN FOLLOWERS THINK?

HIGHLY COMPARTMENTALIZED MINDS

• “It’s easy to find authoritarians endorsing inconsistent ideas. …they don’t seem to scan for self-consistency as much as most people do.”, p.81

DOUBLE STANDARDS• “When your ideas live independent lives from one another it is

pretty easy to use double standards in your judgments. You simply call up the idea that will justify (afterwards) what you’ve decided to do. High RWAs seem to get up in the morning and gulp down a whole jar of “Rationalization Pills.”, p. 81.

HYPOCRISY AND BLINDNESS TO THEMSELVES• “…high RWAs think they had lots more integrity than others

do.”





Temporal stability

TEMPORAL STABILITY

Robust rNEUROTICISM 0.80EXTRAVERSION 0.89OPENNESS 0.82AGREEABLENESS 0.87CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 0.73DISINTEGRATION 0.76

One-year stability of Five-factors + DisintegrationSubsample of undergraduate students (N=75; 10 males, 65 females; M(age) = 20.16 (0.69)

First evidence (further evidence is needed):

General finding: Temporal stability of schizotypal (subclinical, attenuated psychotic) symptoms (Sanislow et al., 2009; Lenzenweger, 1999; Cohen, Crawford, Johnson, & Kasen, 2005; Stefanis et al., 2006).





Temporal stability

CONTINUITYGENERAL FINDINGS FAVORING CONTINUITY BETWEEN CLINICAL AND SUBCLINICAL PSYCHOTIC PHENOTYPES • High prevalence of psychotic symptoms in general population (Eaton et al. 1991)• Non-clinical phenotype closely resemble clinical (Chapman, 1994)• Similar association with socio-demographic variables (Johns et al, 2001)• Transition over time from subclinical to clinical level (Chapman et al, 1994)• Familial coclustering of subclinical and clinical phenotypes (Kendler et al. 1993)• Strong dose-response of urban environment on clinical and subclinical phenotypes (van

Os et al, 2001)• Sharing of cognitive and motor deficits (Krabbendam et al, 2005)• Sharing risk genes (Stefanis et al. 2004)

FINDINGS FAVORING DIMENSIONAL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DISINTEGRATION• Normal distribution of the total Disintegration score in general population• High prevalence of psychotic symptoms in general population• Data collecting is still taking place: Structural invariance of Disintegration factor in

general population and those with psychosis (differing only in the level of quantitative presence of the latent variable)

RECENT UNDERSTANDING OF SCHIZOPHRENIA – LATE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EARLY NEURODEVELOPMENTAL PROCESSES

• If risk is analogous to hyperlipidemia, prodrome comparable to angina pectoris, then acute psychosis can be thought of as myocardial infarction with frequent residual loss of function (in spite of consistently positive acute responses to antipsychotic medications/treatments, relapse rates approach 80%)

• If the disorder begins in prenatal or perinatal life → psychosis of late adolescence not as the onset but as a late stage of the condition.

METHOD: SAMPLE National representative sample of the population in Serbia (N=1001).

• Two–staged stratified random representative sample. The strata were 24 administrative centers of the respective districts of Serbia and 11 municipalities representing the city of Belgrade (25th district), grouped by the type of settlement (urban/rural), and by age (18-29, 30-39, 40-49 and 50-64).

• Sampling stages: 1ststage: Sampling units were households. The method of household selection - a random route technique starting from given addresses based on the dwelling register. 2nd stage: A respondent within a household which selection was based on the last birthday in the household in the given age quota.

• 49% men and 51% women from 18 to 64 years (M=40.17, SD=12.69).

METHOD: VARIABLES AND INSTRUMENTS

NEO- PI R (Costa & McCrae,1992), - a 240-item self-report measure of the five basic personality traits according to the Five-Factor Model: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. It also measures 30 subordinate dimensions (facets) of the five traits. It has a 5-point Likert-type response format and contains 106 – or 44% - reversely keyed items.

DELTA-10 (Knežević et al. 2013) – a 120-items self-report measure of Disintegration and its ten subordinate dimensions (facets). It has a 5-point Likert-type response format and contains 34 – or 30% - reversely keyed items).

DEGREES OF CONTINUITY OF PSYCHOSIS DISTRIBUTIONS

Central-limit theorem

DISTRIBUTIONS OF BIG FIVE + DISINTEGRATION

KOLMOGOROV–SMIRNOV TEST FOR NORMALITY OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS (BIG FIVE+DISINTEGRATION)

DISINTEGRATION NEUROTICISM EXTRAVERSION OPENNESS AGREEABLENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESSN 1001 998 998 997 998 998

Normal Parameters

Mean 2.47 89.61 105.42 103.29 114.46 124.44Std. Deviation

0.42 19.53 20.03 19.14 17.89 21.12

Most Extreme Differences

Absolute 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03Positive 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.01Negative -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 0.83 0.91 0.76 1.79 0.87 0.86Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.49 0.38 0.60 0.00 0.43 0.45Skewness .158 .014 -.167 .276 -.124 -.235Std. Error of Skewness .077 .077 .077 .077 .077 .077Kurtosis -.408 .719 .323 .368 .136 .087Std. Error of Kurtosis .154 .155 .155 .155 .155 .155

ENDORSEMENT RATE, HALUCINATIONS

1

2

3

4

5

76.2

8.3

3.6

4.8

7.1

54.5

20.5

13.5

7.5

4.0

94.4

5.6

84.7

8.9

2.9

2.9

.5

75.3

11.8

7.4

3.7

1.7

Sometimes I hear voices in my head telling me what to do or commenting on what I do

opsta srednjoskolska populacija, n=2780 studenti psihologije, n=383

zdrava kontrola, n=149 opsta populacija, n=1001

psihoticni, n=84

PSYCHOSES

GENERAL POPULATION

HEALTHY CONTROLS IN PBPTSD STUDY

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

CONTINUUM: Prevalence of symptoms of psychosis

Prevalence of hallucinatory experiences in the general adult population.

• Nearly 8% of men and 12% of women in the sample reported at least one hallucinatory experience in their lifetime (Sidgewick et al., 1894, 17000 adults interviewed, excluding people with obvious psychiatric or physical illness)

• McKellar (1968) questioned a group of 500 ‘normal’ people- 125 (25%) reported at least one hallucinatory experience.

• Tien (1991) reported data from the NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program (ECA) carried out in the US (1980-1984). 18572 community residents interviewed using the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS). The lifetime prevalence of hallucinations (not related to drugs or medical problems) was 10% for men and 15% for women, and the overall rates were similar for visual, auditory, and tactile hallucinations.

• The proportions of hallucinations causing no distress or impairment of function were much higher than those associated with distress or impairment

ENDORSEMENT RATE, DELUSIONS

1

2

3

4

5

53.6

21.4

8.3

4.8

11.9

55.4

18.3

17.3

5.1

3.9

83.7

12.2

2.7

.7

.7

92.4

6.1

1.1

.5

61.3

18.6

15.5

2.8

1.9

There’s a conspiracy against me

opsta srednjoskolska populacija, n=2780 studenti psihologije, n=383

zdrava kontrola, n=149 opsta populacija, n=1001

psihoticni, n=84

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY

HEALTHY CONTROLS IN PBPTSD STUDY

GENERAL POPULATION

PSYCHOSES

CONTINUUM: Prevalence of symptoms of psychosis

Delusions• In a survey of 60,000 British adults beliefs in unscientific or

parapsychological phenomena were commonly held (50% expressed a belief in thought transference between two people, 25% believed in ghosts, and 25% in reincarnation, Cox & Cowling, 1989).

• Using a formal diagnostic interview in a general population sample, Eaton and al. (1991) found that bizarre delusions were reported by around 2% , paranoid delusions and delusions of having special powers had prevalence rates of 4-8% (Eaton et al., 1991).

• An instrument to measure delusional ideation in normal individuals (PDI) was administered to 272 healthy adults and 20 psychotic inpatients. Although the psychotic patients had significantly higher mean scores, the ranges of scores were almost identical in the groups (nearly 10% of the healthy sample scored above the mean of the deluded group).

ENDORSEMENT RATE, MAGICAL THINKING

1

2

3

4

5

33.9

14.2

26.6

15.7

9.7

56.6187050359714

15.7194244604316

18.9208633093525

6.29496402877696

2.44604316546762

79.4736842105263

12.8947368421053

4.21052631578947

2.10526315789474

1.31578947368421

53.0120481927711

19.2771084337349

9.63855421686747

10.8433734939759

7.22891566265058

I feel the presence of evil forces around me, although I can’t see them

psihoze studentI srednjoškolci opšta populacijaHIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

GENERAL POPULATIONPSYCHOSES

1-PL IRT MODEL: PROBABILITY OF THE SYMPTOM APPEARANCE GIVEN THE POSITION ON THE DISINTEGRATION CONTINUUM

DES

INTE

GRA

TIO

N

ENH

ANCED

AWAR.

MAN

IA

GEN

. EXECUTIVE IM

PAIRMEN

T

FLATTENED

AFFECT

SOCIAL AN

HED

ON

IA

PARANO

IA

DEPRESSIO

N

MAG

ICAL THIN

KING

SOM

ATOFO

RM DYSREG

ULATIO

N

PERCEPTUAL D

ISTORTIO

NS

Undergratuate students (N=175), psychotic patients (N=84), and healty controls from PBPTSD project (N=97)

SUMMARY OF 200 MEASURED Items-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| RAW MODEL INFIT OUTFIT || SCORE COUNT MEASURE ERROR MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD ||-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|| MEAN 655.6 340.6 .98 .06 1.00 .3 .97 .2 || S.D. 191.7 48.6 .42 .01 .18 2.2 .34 2.8 || MAX. 1119.0 356.0 1.99 .14 1.65 8.5 2.34 9.9 || MIN. 217.0 175.0 -.06 .04 .76 -3.4 .42 -3.5 ||-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|| REAL RMSE .06 ADJ.SD .41 SEPARATION 6.40 Item RELIABILITY .98 ||MODEL RMSE .06 ADJ.SD .41 SEPARATION 6.57 Item RELIABILITY .98 || S.E. OF Item MEAN = .03 |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------UMEAN=.000 USCALE=1.000

DISTRIBUTIONS OF BIG FIVE + DISINTEGRATION – GERMAN SAMPLE

KOLMOGOROV–SMIRNOV TEST FOR NORMALITY OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS (BIG FIVE+DISINTEGRATION) – GERMAN

SAMPLE

DISINTEGRATION NEUROT EXTRA OPEN AGREE CONSCIENTN 304 267 267 267 267 267Normal Parameters Mean 2.28 95.02 111.29 119.18 121.44 117.96

Std. Deviation 0.46 26.26 23.12 20.40 19.14 23.44Most Extreme Differences

Absolute 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03Positive 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03Negative -0.03 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05 -0.03

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1.07 0.78 0.89 0.71 0.77 0.54Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.20 0.58 0.41 0.70 0.59 0.93Skewness 0.54 0.17 -0.25 -0.23 -0.20 -0.29Std. Error of Skewness 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15Kurtosis 0.01 -0.37 -0.11 0.40 0.12 0.14Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

ENDORSEMENT RATE, HALUCINATIONSSometimes I hear voices in my head telling me what to do or

commenting on what I do

1

2

3

4

5

.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

64.8

12.8

6.3

11.2

4.6

German sample

ENDORSEMENT RATE, MAGICAL THINKINGI feel the presence of evil forces around me, although I can’t see them

1

2

3

4

5

.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

68.4

14.5

10.5

5.9

.7

German sample

A 20-ITEM DELTA-9 VERSION

• Ant colony optimization algorithm → extraction of 20 items, each of the facets being represented by two items and PD and GEI by three items – CFI maximized.

• CFA - acceptable fit (2(df)= 381.95 (170), p

<.001; RMSEA(90% CI)=.035 (.031 - .040); SRMR=.032; CFI=.95)

FACTORIAL STRUCTURE IN CLINICAL VS NON-CLINICAL POPULATIONS

• If the presence of some psychopathological processes causes appearance of separate variations → Disintegration is a dimension of psychopathology, not a personality → variations along the Disintegration dimension a) nonexistent, b) non-meaningful, or c) they are of different nature in non-clinical populations

MULTI-GROUPS ESEM

Model tested: configural invariance (item intercepts and loadings are allowed to be different in two groups)

N = 164 patients with psychosis (Sch, - F20, and other psychoses - F22-F29 , ICD-10) – first column

N = 1001 general population (representative sample) – second column

Geomin Rotated Maximum Likelihood Factors on NEO-PI-R and DELTA-9 Facets (Self-Report Measures)

Degrees of Freedom = 1044

Chi-Square = 2132.10 (p = 0.000)

RMSEA = 0.042 (0.040 ; 0.045)

CFI = 0.944

SRMR = 0.025

Neuroticism N E C A O D Anxiety .66/.53 -.05/-.45 -.29/ .07 .03/-.03 .23/ .02 .05/ .23 Angry Hostility .81/.53 .00/ .00 .08/-.06 -.41/-.32 -.06/-.06 .02/ .20 Depression .60/.31 -.10/-.42 -.29/-.16 .05/-.05 .10/ .01 .16/ .40 Self-Consciousness .58/.28 -.23/-.43 -.01/-.04 .10/ .07 .22/-.07 .03/ .21 Impulsiveness .63/.55 .30/ .11 -.16/-.35 -.11/ .10 .22/ .03 .00/-.02 Vulnerability .64/.27 .02/-.41 -.42/-.45 .01/-.02 -.02/ .02 -.06/ .13 Extraversion Warmth -.01/ .00 .60/ .33 .48/ .05 .28/ .66 .00/-.04 .14/ .13 Gregariousness -.16/-.05 .63/ .52 .03/-.12 .11/ .30 -.20/ .03 -.07/ .01 Assertiveness -.41/-.07 .07/ .59 .06/ .21 -.50/-.10 .09/ .15 .06/-.03 Activity .12/ .29 .08/ .50 .52/ .31 -.34/ .09 -.01/.01 .13/ .02 Excitement Seeking -.03/ .08 .39/ .60 .05/-.19 -.27/-.02 .16/ .22 .18/ .15 Positive Emotions .02/ .06

.50/ .49

.27/-.08

-.07/ .34

.14/ .21

-.06/-.06

Openness Fantasy -.01/ .20 .17/ .03 -.33/-.25 -.08/ .02 .33/ .53 -.15/-.11 Aesthetics .03/-.06 .02/-.11 .08/ .00 .17/ .19 .70/ .77 -.06/ .12 Feelings .37/ .23 .07/ .02 .29/ .10 -.03/ .34 .50/ .43 -.09/ .00 Actions -.04/-.01 .26/ .16 -.14/-.13 -.34/-.09 .13/ .46 -.15/-.08 Ideas -.42/-.04 -.02/ .17 -.01/ .14 -.02/-.04 .65/ .62 .27/ .02 Values .01/-.02 .10/ .04 -.02/-.15 -.01/ .21 .09/ .20 -.36/-.27 Agreeableness Trust -.09/-.20 .33/ .10 .23/-.08 .47/ .66 -.06/-.02 -.06/ .01 Straightforwardness .09/-.07 .02/-.45 .05/ .03 .70/ .42 -.06/-.03 -.10/-.18 Altruism .03/ .06 .23/-.02 .49/ .20 .45/ .70 .04/ .00 .02/-.06 Compliance -.28/-.37 .07/-.49 -.09/-.02 .68/ .40 .01/ .03 .02/-.01 Modesty .01/-.03 -.19/-.53 -.33/-.15 .50/ .22 .01/-.10 -.04/-.05 Tender-Mindedness .05/ .05 -.08/-.33 .10/ .15 .43/ .54 .30/ .13 .05/ .03 Conscientiousness Competence -.07/-.09

.07/ .25

.76/ .67

-.08/.16

.01/-.03

-.09/-.05

Order .10/ .15 .03/-.02 .55/ .67 .04/-.10 .09/ .12 -.11/-.06 Dutifulness -.05/ .04 -.15/-.05 .71/ .63 .27/ .22 .12/ .00 .03/-.12 Achievement Striving -.09/ .15 .02/ .30 .72/ .70 -.11/ .06 .11/ .05 -.01/ .01 Self-Discipline -.15/-.04 -.14/ .06 .75/ .78 -.01/ .03 -.02/-.02 -.11/-.06 Deliberation -.28/-.30 -.22/-.13 .51/ .63 .08/-.03 -.06/-.01 -.08/ .07 Disintegration Gen. Exec. Impairment .31/ .05 .05/ .01 -.08/-.20 .04/ .06 -.04/-.03 .53/ .60 Perceptual Distortion -.08/-.08 .12/-.01 -.12/-.13 .00/-.03 .05/ .07 .84/ .73 Paranoia .18/ .01 -.01/ .08 .05/ .00 -.10/-.30 -.06/-.02 .63/ .44 Depression .37/-.01 -.05/-.17 -.14/-.16 -.02/-.11 -.21/ .00 .33/ .52 Flattened Affect .28/ .08 -.02/-.07 .02/-.01 -.01/ .02 -.10/-.04 .58/ .68 Somatic Dysregulation .00/-.05 .01/ .05 .01/ .08 -.04/ .04 .12/ .09 .68/ .65 Enhanced Awareness .03/ .06 .00/ .02 .04/ .03 .09/ .17 .12/ .29 .61/ .55 Magical Thinking .01/-.05 -.07/ .00 -.01/-.07 -.15/-.20 -.18/-.06 .59/ .45 Mania .09/ .11 .21/ .36 -.04/-.03 -.16/-.02 .03/-.07 .44/ .40 Congruence/Correlation .84/.82 .62/.64 .87/.87 .71/.73 .85/.83 .93/.91



Convergent/discriminant validityContinual distribution

Temporal stability

MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR DISINTEGRATION

• Ant colony optimization algorithm → extraction of 50 items, each of the facets being represented – CFI maximized.

• Three levels of hierarchy were modelled - from items (50), via first-order factors (10) to the overarching, second-order Disintegration factor

• CFA - marginally acceptable fit (2(df)= 2253.79 (1165); RMSEA(90%

CI)=.031 (.029 - .033); SRMR=.038; CFI=.90)

• ESEM analysis – ten correlated factors - excellent fit to the data (2

(df)= 1088.42 (770); RMSEA(90% CI)=.020 (.017 - .023); SRMR=.019; CFI=.97).

ITEM LEVEL EFA (240 NEO PI-R ITEMS + 50 DELTA-10 ITEMS)

• Whether Disintegration factor will be extracted at the item level?

• Among the six extracted factors Disintegration had the highest correlation (.93) with its summation score (a priori constructed, “theoretical” score )

• For C, O, E, A and N, correlation s were .89, .89, .78, .66 and .65, respectively.

HYPOTHESES ABOUT DISINTEGRATION WITHIN MTMM FRAMEWORK

• The convergence of Disintegration modalities is independent of the method of assessment (self-report or rating).

• Cross-informant correlations (MTMM validity coefficients) for Disintegration similar to those found for Five Factors.

• Six factor solution (assuming extraction of the Disintegration factor independent from Big Five) represents covariances between the variables better than the five-factor versions postulating Disintegration phenomena as an aspect of Neuroticism or Openness.

METHODCHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE

• Students of psychology, Belgrade University (N = 466; 16% males and 84% females, age M=40.17±12.69)•The same students were rated by their mothers and fathers.

VARIABLES AND INSTRUMENTS• Apart from NEO- PI R (Costa & McCrae,1992) and DELTA-10

(Knežević et al. 2013) self-report forms NEO- PI R and DELTA-10 rating forms are administered to students’ mothers and fathers. They are the same as self-report, but worded in a third-person format.

CONVERGENT-DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY: CROSS-INFORMANT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FIVE-FACTORS + DISINTEGRATION

MOTHER'S RATING FATHER'S RATING

SELF-REPORT

D O C E A N D O C E A N Cronbach a

D 0.43 0.04 -0.07 -0.11 -0.13 0.19 0.46 0.04 -0.11 -0.10-0.07 -0.18 .95

O 0.41 0.18 0.28 0.11 -0.18 0.37 0.05 0.23 0.11 -0.13 .86

C 0.51 0.14 0.11 -0.21 0.42 0.08 0.06 -0.19 .90

E 0.62 0.08 -0.17 0.55 0.01 -0.12 .86

A 0.51 -0.17 0.40 -0.12 .87

N 0.41 0.35 .91

MOTHER'

S RATING

D 0.51-0.05 -0.15 -0.11-0.06 0.19

O 0.41 0.02 0.24 0.08 -0.04

C 0.55 0.05 0.18 -0.27

E 0.57 0.07 -0.16

A 0.45 -0.16

N 0.51

Cronbach a .94 .79 .91 .85 .87 .91 .95 .80 .90 .83 .84 .90HETERO-TRAIT, HETERO-METHOD MONO-TRAIT, HETERO-METHOD

CONVERGENT VALIDITY: CROSS-INFORMANT REPLICABILITY OF DISINTEGRATION FACTOR IN CORRELATED TRAITS, CORRELATED UNIQUENESSES CFA

GEI PD P D FA SOD EA MT M SAGEI SR .58PD SR .59P SR .52D SR .62FA SR .52SODSR .64EA SR .44MT SR .64M SR .41SA SR .70GEI MR .42PD MR .50P MR .50D MR .66FA MR .64SOD MR .63EA MR .63MT MR .72M MR .54SA MR .63GEI FR .49PD FR .59P FR .58D FR .67FA FR .58SOD FR .61EA FR .59MT FR .58M FR .63SA FR .63

GEI PD P D FA SOD EA MT M SA

GEI

PD .73P .68 .82D .71 .84 .80FA .68 .81 .77 .79SOD .74 .88 .84 .87 .83EA .62 .74 .70 .72 .69 .76MT .51 .61 .58 .60 .57 .63 .53M .66 .79 .74 .77 .74 .81 .67 .56SA .52 .62 .59 .60 .58 .64 .53 .44 .56D .78 .93.88 .91 .83 .96 .80 .67 .85 .67

MODEL: Ten correlated modalities converging towards the higher-order Disintegration factor, within informant correlated uniquenesses

Degrees of Freedom = 260 Chi-Square = 454.62 (p = 0.000) RMSEA = 0.040 (0.034 ; 0.046)CFI = 0.99 SRMR = 0.038

Correlations among Disintegration modalities, Completely standardized solution

CONVERGENT-DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY: CROSS-INFORMANT REPLICABILITY OF FIVE FACTORS + DISINTEGRATION IN MTMM CFA

DEL NEUR EXTRA OPEN AGREE CONSC

DEL SR .60

NEUR SR .57

EXTRA SR .77

OPEN SR .65

AGREE SR .68

CONS SR .66

DEL MR .68

NEUR MR .74

EXTRA MR .80

OPEN MR .62

AGREE MR .76

CONS MR .78

DEL FR .75

NEUR FR .66

EXTRA FR .72

OPEN FR .58

AGREE FR .59

CONS FR .68

DELTA NEUR EXTRA OPEN AGREE

NEUR 0.49 EXTRA -0.30 -0.35 OPEN -0.1 -0.23 0.41 AGREE -0.29 -0.31 0.21 0.21CONSC -0.33 -0.46 0.15 0.11 0.25

MODEL : Six correlated traits, within informant correlated uniquenesses

Degrees of Freedom = 75 Chi-Square = 123.99 (p = 0.00032) RMSEA = 0.041 (0.028 ; 0.054)CFI = 0.98 SRMR = 0.039

Correlations among latent traits, Completely standardized solution

Traits loadings, Completely standardized solution

CONVERGENT-DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY: CROSS-INFORMANT REPLICABILITY OF FIVE FACTORS + DISINTEGRATION IN MTMM CFA

Correlated Traits Correlated Uniquenesses CFA model; Covariance matrix; ML parameters estimation

Models c2(df)

SRMR CFIRMSEA (90% CI)

c2 D df p

Six-factor model (DOCEAN) 106.67(75) 0.034 0.99 0.030 [0.015-0.043] Five-factor

models: a) D and N

fused 336.04(80) 0.049 .94 0.083 [0.074-0.092] 229.37 5 .000c) D and O

fused299.06(80) 0.065 .95 0.077 [0.068-0.077] 192.39 5 .000

d) N and C fused388.64(80) 0.074 .93 0.091 [0.082-0.100] 281.97 5 .000

FINALLY, ESEM ANALYSIS OF THE WHOLE SPACE• FFM+Disintegration (40 facets) with methods (three informant

perspectives) taken into account (120 x 120 matrix).

• The six-factor model had marginally acceptable fit (2(df)=6810.24

(4095); RMSEA(90% CI)=.038 (.036 - .039); SRMR=.045; CFI=.92).

• Evidence favouring the existence of Disintegration factor separated from FFM when different methods of assessment were taken into account.

E O A N CDISINTEGRATION -0.15 -0.17 -0.3 0.21 -0.1EXTRAVERSION -0.01 0.01 -0.34 -0.03OPENNESS 0.2 -0.23 0.14AGREEABLENESS -0.09 -0.01NEUROTICISM 0

A RECENT META-ANALYTIC STUDY: Knezevic, Lazarevic, Bosnjak, Puric, Petrovic, Teovanovic, and

Bodroza (2015). Towards a Six-Factor Personality Model Encompassing a Disintegration Factor: A Meta-Analysis of the

Empirical Evidence

THE AIM: to investigate relations between Disintegration-like phenomena and Big Five

The benchmark for assuming distinctness of the trait Disintegration was the highest meta-analytically derived correlation found among the Big Five traits (slightly above .40).

Results:•Associations between Disintegration and N, E, O, A, and C, respectively: .24, -.27, 0, -.19, and -13

•Moderators: positive-negative symptoms, student-non-student sample and age

• IMPORTANT: Variable clinical-nonclinical sample did not moderate Disintegration-personality relations

CONCLUSIONS

• Strong convergence of Disintegration modalities found independently of the method of assessment (self-report or other informant’s ratings)

• Cross-method correlations (MTMM validity coefficients) for Disintegration similar to those found for Five Factors (contrary to Watson et al., 2008, but in accordance with Simms et al., 2008). Disintegration as visible in behavior as Neuroticism and Openness - and not mistaken for some other traits - at least when informants are close others.

• Disintegration factor separated from Big Five found independently of the method of assessment (self-report or other informant’s ratings)

CONCLUSIONS

• Six factors found not to be orthogonal in MTMM CFA. Medium-size correlations registered between Neuroticism and Disintegration, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness, and Extraversion and Openness (in accordance with Barbaranelli & Caprara, 2000, but contrary to Biesanz & West, 2004)

• The nature of overlapping between Disintegration and Neuroticism

needs to be clarified in future research

• The method-independent correlation between Disintegration and NEO PI-R Openness (-.10) renders the idea about equating them - or conceptualizing the former as an extreme point of the latter – not justified.





Temporal stability

STRUCTURAL INVARIANCE ACROSS DIFFERENT SAMPLES

•Structural invariance investigated across the two samples (psychology students vs. general population) clearly differing in:age, levels of education, level of cognitive competence,gender structure, questionnaire format (grouped vs. intermixed items

•Cross-cultural invariance of Disintegration factor across eight nations from four continents (Knezevic, Saucier & Stankov, 2010)

CROSS-SAMPLE AND CROSS-METHOD REPLICABILITY OF SIX-FACTOR SOLUTION (FIVE FACTORS + DISINTEGRATION)

Method: Orthogonal Procrustes Rotations (six varimax factors extracted in students’ self-report, mothers’ and fathers’ ratings orthogonally rotated to minimize the sums of squares of deviations from a target matrix of six varimax factors extracted in self-report measures from the representative sample of Serbian population)

STUDENTS’ SELF-REPORT. TARGET: GENERAL POPULATION C D E A O N VARCONGRGEN. EXEC. IMPAIRMENT

DISINTEGRATION

-.38 .54 -.19 .06 .07 .25 .97PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION -.19 .81 -.13 -.06 .11 .03 .98

MANIA -.05 .53 .16 -.35 .24 .19 .98DEPRESSION -.19 .63 -.36 .08 -.07 .24 .97PARANOIA -.12 .67 -.18 -.15 .00 .13 .94

SOCIAL ANHEDONIA -.15 .40 -.74 .19 .04 .06 .93FLATTENED AFFECT -.32 .44 -.36 -.09 .03 -.20 .85MAGICAL THINKING -.11 .65 .15 -.05 .16 -.07 .91

SOMATIC DYSREGULATION -.19 .83 -.11 -.04 .08 .02 .94ENHANCED AWARENESS -.10 .54 .02 -.05 .37 .10 .96

ANXIETY

NEUROTICISM

-.02 .39 -.19 .18 -.01 .70 .99ANGRY HOSTILITY -.19 .37 -.27 -.31 -.21 .61 .98

DEPRESSION -.23 .40 -.28 .21 -.04 .63 .97SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS -.23 .29 -.11 .29 -.13 .51 .98

IMPULSIVITY -.31 .17 .05 -.25 .20 .55 .97VULNERABILITY -.38 .35 .03 .05 -.38 .46 .83

WARMTH

EXTRAVERSION

.12 -.06 .78 -.04 .01 -.14 .97GREGARIOUSNESS -.05 -.11 .70 -.22 -.05 -.05 .92

ASSERTIVENESS .32 .01 .22 -.56 -.03 -.21 .91ACTIVITY .32 .01 .36 -.50 .12 .05 .99

EXCITEMENT SEEKING -.11 .05 .37 -.45 .20 .10 .94POSITIVE EMOTIONS .06 -.19 .59 -.12 .42 -.21 .93

FANTASY

OPENNESS

-.06 -.03 .02 .07 .68 .12 .90AESTHETICS .10 .10 .14 .07 .66 .14 .97

FEELING .21 -.04 .27 .01 .67 .35 .96ACTIONS .14 .10 .22 -.29 .01 -.24 .48

IDEAS .14 .02 -.04 -.05 .53 -.03 .94 .09 -.13 .11 .06 .43 -.02 .80VALUES

TRUST

AGREEABLEN

ESS

.08 -.17 .51 .22 .19 -.18 .98STRIAGHTFORWARDNESS .12 -.12 .27 .49 .09 -.02 .95

ALTRUISM .37 -.09 .57 .31 .22 -.07 .97COMPLIANCE .02 -.04 .30 .66 -.10 -.25 .96

MODESTY -.04 .05 .04 .51 -.18 .05 .97TENDERMINDEDNESS .13 .05 .47 .45 .18 .04 .95

COMPETENCE

CONSCIENTIOUSNES

.73 -.11 .11 -.08 .14 -.21 .95ORDER .56 .08 -.07 .00 .01 .02 .95

DUTIFULNESS .78 -.06 .14 .09 .10 -.06 .95 .78 -.01 .09 -.11 .23 .11 .95ACHIEVEMENT STRIVING

SELF-DISCIPLINE .37 -.21 .05 -.12 -.23 .07 .77DELIBERATION .53 .03 -.06 .36 -.23 -.24 .95

FACTORCONGR - .96 .97 .94 .95 .83 .92 .93

N E O A C DNeuroticismAnxiety .78/ .54 -.17/-.41 .08/ .01 -.01/-.03 .14/ .06 .06/.25Angry Hostility .61/ .51 -.14/ .02 -.09/-.07 -.48/-.34 .01/-.05 .05/.24Depression .71/ .33 -.24/-.39 .05/-.01 .02/ -.03 -.06/-.16 .11/.39Self-Consciousness .64/.30 -.07/-.41 -.08/-.07 .16/ .08 -.10/-.03 .04/.20Impulsiveness .48/.54 .09/ .13 .33/ .04 -.35/ .06 -.23/-.36 -.02/.00Vulnerability .64/.24 .18/ -.37 -.32/ .02 -.02/ .02 -.22/-.43 .07/.20ExtraversionWarmth -.05/ .02 .79/ .36 -.05/-.06 .17/ .65 .06/ .04 .00/ .09Gregariousness .01/ -.05 .74/ .57 -.06/-.03 -.06/ .33 -.09/-.16 -.11/-.02Assertiveness -.30/-.09 .30/ .59 -.06/ .12 -.44/-.13 .31/ .19 .09/-.03Activity -.04/ .25 .39/ .52 .14/-.01 -.41/ .05 .32/ .31 .00/ .06Excitement Seeking .01/ .07 .42/ .63 .24/ .18 -.37/ -.05 -.12/-.22 .05/ .15Positive Emotions -.29/ .04 .51/ .52 .39/ .19 .06/ .32 -.08/-.10 .00/-.04OpennessFantasy -.06/ .21 -.13/ .03 .72/ .54 .05/-.03 -.14/-.28 .08/-.10Aesthetics .00/-.06 .01/-.12 .67/ .83 .09/ .13 .04/-.04 .18/ .13Feelings .22/ .25 .11/ .03 .74/ .45 .00/ .28 .14/ .07 -.06/-.01Actions -.27/-.06 .29/ .18 -.03/ .45 -.16/-.11 -.15/-.14 .22/-.01Ideas -.20/-.03 -.15/.14 .53/.63 -.04/-.11 .08/.09 .16/-.01Values -.12/-.01 -.01/.02 .44/.21 .08/ .19 .00/-.18 -.03/-.29AgreeablenessTrust -.12/-.21 .42/ .12 .13/-.02 .37/ .67 -.03/-.07 -.05/ .02Straightforwardness .10/-.07 .16/-.45 .04/ .00 .53/ .44 .05/ .05 -.09/ -.16Altruism .02/ .07 .46/-.02 .14/ .01 .44/ .67 .28/ .20 -.03/ -.08Compliance -.03/-.37 .23/-.47 -.22/ .03 .77/ .44 -.04/ .01 .04/ .02Modesty .23/-.02 .01/-.52 -.23/-.09 .49/ .25 -.02/ -.13 -.02/ -.03Tender-Mindedness .17/ .08 .38/-.32 .11/ .14 .55/ .52 .09/ .14 .06/ .01ConscientiousnessCompetence -.27/-.07 .03/ .22 .08/ -.03 -.01/ .12 .67/ .66 -.02/-.11Order .03/ .13 -.11/-.04 .02/ .13 .04/-.13 .56/ .66 .02/-.05Dutifulness -.08/ .05 .06/ -.09 -.02/ .02 .08/ .17 .76/ .62 -.02/-.17Achievement Striving .03/ .13 .01/ .30 .22/ .04 -.10/ .02 .76/ .70 -.04/ .01Self-Discipline .10/-.08 .05/ .05 -.19/-.02 -.14/ .02 .37/ .80 -.31/-.03Deliberation -.10/-.27 -.10/-.15 -.33/-.01 .42/-.03 .52/ .63 .04/ .02DisintegrationGen. Exec. Impairment .25/ .04

-.09/ -.10 .01/-.06 -.01/-.04 -.22/-.32 .49/ .55

Perceptual Distortion .06/-.11 .01/ .05 .03/ .01 .00/-.04 -.03/-.08 .82/ .89Paranoia .14/ .04 -.04/ .07 -.06/-.03 -.09/-.38 .06/ .02 .62/ .55Depression .31/ .06 -.25/-.29 -.08/ .00 .01/-.22 -.02/-.19 .50/ .49Flattened Affect -.24/-.13 -.26/-.04 -.02/-.23 -.04/-.16 -.24/-.24 .55/ .44Somatic Dysregulation .07/-.02 .04/-.17 -.02/ .02 .02/-.01 -.02/-.12 .84/ .73Enhanced Awareness .03/ .00 .04/ .05 .31/ .55 -.02/ .08 .01/ .05 .62/ .60Magical Thinking -.05/ .05 .26/-.02 .00/ .25 .03/ .04 .02/ .08 .73/ .63Mania .14/ .24 .26/ .40 .25/ .07 -.21/ .12 .05/ .01 .49/ .56Social Anhedonia .03/-.07 -.70/-.43 .01/-.08 .03/-.42 -.03/-.02 .39/ .22

Correlations / congruencies .73/.76 .57.54 .73/.79 .62/.68 .94/.93 .90/.92

MULTI-GROUPS ESEM

Model tested: configural invariance (item intercepts and loadings are allowed to be different in two groups)

N = 466 undergraduate students

N = 1001 general population (representative sample)

Geomin Rotated Maximum Likelihood Factors on NEO-PI-R and DELTA-10 Facets (Self-Report Measures)

Degrees of Freedom = 1120

Chi-Square = 3498.35 (p = 0.000)

RMSEA = 0.054 (0.052 ; 0.056)

CFI = 0.922

SRMR = 0.0273498.347

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GEOMIN ROTATED FACTORS

N E O A C DNeuroticism -.19 .01 -.04 -.18 .40

Extraversion .13 .24 .13 .21 -.18

Openness .13 .41 .13 .13 -.05

Agreeableness .12 .07 .29 .09 -.21

Conscientiousness -.05 .06 .17 .31 -.16

Disintegration .33 -.19 -.08 -.29 -.43

Note. Upper triangle - university studentsLower triangle – general population

CONCLUSION

• Disintegration factor extracted independently from Five-Factors across samples and methods with the congruence superior than any of the Big Five except Conscientiousness.

CROSS-CULTURAL INVARIANCE OF DISINTEGRATION FACTOR ACROSS EIGHT

NATIONS FROM FOUR CONTINENTS

THE STUDY

Sample

• N=2227 college students from eight countries (USA, Serbia, Slovakia, Chile, Guatemala, Maleysia, Korea and China)

• Age=21 years (SD 3.20)

• The grouping of countries is based on the GLOBE (House et al., 2004) classification of five world regions (Anglo, Latin America, Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Confucian Asia)

Variables and instruments

• 25-item version of “Big six” (Saucier, in press)

• 10-item version of “DELTA-10”, the short version of the instrument tapping Disintegration (Knezevic et al., 2008)

DISTRIBUTIONS OF SCORES (N=2227)

BIG SIX + D MEANS AND SDs ACROSS NATIONS

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

TRAITS USA SLOVAKIA GUATEMALA KOREA C 3,22 0,82 3,22 0,89 3,48 0,82 3,15 0,62 14,177 ,000

H 3,27 0,64 3,48 0,73 3,40 0,66 2,96 0,58 48,612 ,000

A 3,51 0,71 3,52 0,70 3,31 0,82 3,33 0,58 4,061 ,000

R 3,28 0,69 3,28 0,71 3,40 0,66 3,24 0,60 12,324 ,000

E 3,97 0,65 3,78 0,68 3,87 0,71 3,59 0,66 42,892 ,000

O 3,48 0,63 3,18 0,60 3,60 0,65 3,11 0,61 45,943 ,000

D 2,30 0,62 2,50 0,59 2,24 0,69 2,60 0,56 74,206 ,000

SERBIA CHILE MALAYSIA CHINA

C 3,56 0,85 3,41 0,73 3,59 0,72 3,37 0,61 H 3,70 0,62 3,76 0,62 3,22 0,60 3,21 0,64 A 3,50 0,71 3,36 0,74 3,44 0,70 3,47 0,67 R 3,44 0,63 3,11 0,65 2,99 0,59 3,20 0,67 E 3,97 0,67 4,10 0,64 3,30 0,64 3,54 0,71 O 3,66 0,62 3,58 0,57 3,06 0,66 3,13 0,48 D 2,19 0,59 2,19 0,62 3,15 0,59 2,57 0,59

RESULTSTucker’s congruence and cross-congruence coefficients, their means, SDs, and congruence to cross-congruence ratios for each of the

traits across eight nations in the seven-factor solution (target matrix: pattern matrix of PCs extracted on USA sample, promax rotated)

DISINTEGRATION EXTRAVERSION CONSCIENTIOUSNESS HONESTY OPENNESS RESILIENCY AGREEABLENESS

CONGR.CROSS - CONGR. CONGR.

CROSS - CONGR. CONGR.





CROSS - CONGR.

USA VS SERBIA 0,81 0,06 0,74 0,12 0,85 0,09 0,64 0,22 0,70 0,12 0,27 0,16 0,07 0,18

USA VS SLOVAKIA 0,83 0,11 0,86 0,14 0,79 0,08 0,63 0,22 0,28 0,11 0,79 0,08 0,37 0,14

USA VS CHILE 0,82 0,11 0,79 0,13 0,73 0,12 0,60 0,15 0,55 0,12 0,24 0,23 0,44 0,21USA VS GUATEMALA 0,67 0,20 0,77 0,13 0,62 0,15 0,66 0,10 0,51 0,15 0,57 0,14 0,47 0,18

USA VS MALAYSIA 0,60 0,21 0,67 0,12 0,44 0,14 0,48 0,14 0,64 0,14 0,05 0,16 0,24 0,10

USA VS KOREA 0,82 0,11 0,90 0,07 0,79 0,09 0,64 0,16 0,51 0,17 0,52 0,16 0,19 0,18

USA VS CHINA 0,83 0,06 0,87 0,06 0,56 0,11 0,64 0,17 0,50 0,14 0,59 0,17 0,18 0,14

MEAN 0,77 0,12 0,80 0,11 0,68 0,11 0,61 0,16 0,53 0,14 0,43 0,16 0,28 0,16

SD 0,09 0,06 0,08 0,03 0,15 0,03 0,06 0,04 0,13 0,02 0,25 0,04 0,15 0,04CONG/CROSSCONG 6,34 7,33 6,13 3,72 3,90 2,79 1,75

RESULTS Tucker’s congruence and cross-congruence coefficients, their means, SDs, and congruence to cross-congruence ratios for each of the traits

across eight nations in the six-factor solution (target matrix: pattern matrix of PCs extracted on USA sample, promax rotated)

DISINTEGRATION EXTRAVERSION CONSCIENTIOUSNESS OPENNESS A+H RESILIENCY

CONGR.






CROSS - CONGR.

USA VS SERBIA 0,86 0,06 0,86 0,11 0,64 0,19 0,26 0,16 0,57 0,19 0,49 0,22

USA VS SLOVAKIA 0,80 0,12 0,79 0,11 0,81 0,11 0,61 0,17 0,71 0,17 0,50 0,17

USA VS CHILE 0,80 0,14 0,80 0,12 0,66 0,14 0,43 0,10 0,60 0,15 0,34 0,26

USA VS GUATEMALA 0,62 0,22 0,74 0,20 0,43 0,14 0,48 0,14 0,59 0,10 0,56 0,18

USA VS MALAYSIA 0,64 0,14 0,69 0,12 0,52 0,17 0,35 0,23 0,48 0,17 0,52 0,15

USA VS KOREA 0,84 0,11 0,87 0,06 0,81 0,07 0,57 0,12 0,65 0,16 0,47 0,20

USA VS CHINA 0,84 0,40 0,86 0,08 0,38 0,13 0,43 0,15 0,65 0,17 0,61 0,17

MEAN 0,77 0,17 0,80 0,11 0,61 0,14 0,45 0,15 0,61 0,16 0,50 0,19

SD 0,10 0,11 0,07 0,04 0,17 0,04 0,12 0,04 0,07 0,03 0,08 0,04

CONG/CROSSCONG 4,54 7,10 4,43 2,91 3,85 2,58

RESULTS Tucker’s congruence and cross-congruence coefficients, their means, SDs, and congruence to cross-

congruence ratios for each of the traits across eight nations in the five-factor solution (target matrix: pattern matrix of PCs extracted on USA sample, promax rotated)

DISINTEGRATION EXTRAVERSION R+O CONSCIENTIOUSNESS A+H





CROSS - CONGR.

USA VS SERBIA 0,81 0,14 0,70 0,10 0,46 0,20 0,80 0,14 0,67 0,22

USA VS SLOVAKIA 0,85 0,05 0,86 0,08 0,41 0,17 0,74 0,12 0,68 0,16

USA VS CHILE 0,80 0,12 0,89 0,06 0,46 0,13 0,68 0,19 0,64 0,23

USA VS GUATEMALA 0,71 0,16 0,69 0,21 0,42 0,14 0,65 0,09 0,38 0,17

USA VS MALAYSIA 0,55 0,18 0,49 0,15 0,41 0,24 0,53 0,17 0,48 0,17

USA VS KOREA 0,82 0,04 0,82 0,04 0,73 0,21 0,76 0,12 0,57 0,17

USA VS CHINA 0,83 0,03 0,89 0,09 0,53 0,17 0,48 0,13 0,60 0,21

MEAN 0,77 0,10 0,76 0,11 0,49 0,18 0,66 0,14 0,57 0,19

SD 0,10 0,06 0,15 0,06 0,11 0,04 0,12 0,03 0,11 0,03

CONG/CROSSCONG 7,48 7,22 2,69 4,87 3,04

RESULTS Tucker’s congruence and cross-congruence coefficients, their means, SDs, and congruence to cross-congruence ratios for each of the traits across eight nations in the four-factor solution (target matrix: pattern matrix of PCs extracted on USA sample, promax rotated)

DISINTEGRATION E+O R+A+H CONSCIENTIOUSNESS




CROSS - CONGR.

USA VS SERBIA 0,70 0,12 0,82 0,19 0,49 0,28 0,66 0,26

USA VS SLOVAKIA 0,86 0,06 0,85 0,15 0,66 0,24 0,85 0,09

USA VS CHILE 0,77 0,23 0,76 0,16 0,72 0,21 0,63 0,27

USA VS GUATEMALA 0,73 0,11 0,63 0,25 0,57 0,21 0,57 0,13

USA VS MALAYSIA 0,54 0,22 0,63 0,15 0,64 0,12 0,45 0,24

USA VS KOREA 0,70 0,16 0,78 0,20 0,56 0,23 0,61 0,11

USA VS CHINA 0,81 0,12 0,80 0,16 0,83 0,19 0,75 0,13

MEAN 0,73 0,15 0,75 0,18 0,64 0,21 0,65 0,17

SD 0,10 0,06 0,09 0,04 0,11 0,05 0,13 0,08

CONG/CROSSCONG 4,99 4,22 3,04 3,71

RESULTS Tucker’s congruence and cross-congruence coefficients, their means, SDs, and congruence to cross-congruence ratios for each of the traits across eight nations in the three-factor solution (target matrix: pattern matrix of PCs extracted on USA sample, promax rotated)

D+R+A+H E+O CONSCIENTIOUSNESS



CROSS - CONGR.

USA VS SERBIA 0,85 0,20 0,84 0,13 0,84 0,17

USA VS SLOVAKIA 0,87 0,13 0,77 0,16 0,84 0,07

USA VS CHILE 0,59 0,34 0,72 0,20 0,69 0,04

USA VS GUATEMALA 0,63 0,34 0,63 0,39 0,59 0,05

USA VS MALAYSIA 0,80 0,11 0,48 0,32 0,49 0,21

USA VS KOREA 0,84 0,19 0,77 0,24 0,55 0,14

USA VS CHINA 0,82 0,29 0,68 0,39 0,19 0,15

MEAN 0,77 0,23 0,70 0,26 0,60 0,12

SD 0,11 0,09 0,12 0,11 0,23 0,07

CONG/CROSSCONG 3,37 2,68 5,03

CONCLUSION• The analyses using Tucker’s congruence coefficients

demonstrated the following order of factor replicability across eight samples:

In the seven factor solution: Extraversion, Disintegration, Conscientiousness, Honesty, Openness, Neuroticism, Agreeableness

In the six factor solution: Extraversion, Disintegration, Conscientiousness, A+H, Openness, Neuroticism

In the five factor solution: Disintegration, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, A+H, N+O,

In the four factor solution: Disintegration, E+O, Conscientiousness, N+A+H

In the three factor solution: Conscientiousness, D+A+N+H, E+O

RESULTS Multi-group CFA; covariance matrix analyzed; configural factor invariance

tested in eight samples

Models c2(df)

SRMRRMSEA (90% CI)

c2 dfpro(+) /

contra(-)

Seven-factor model 6073(2032) .067 .085 (.082-.087) Six factor models:

a) D and H fused 7133.96(2080) .080 .094 (.091 - .096) 1060,96 48Saucier (-)

b) D and N fused 6518.30(2080) .076 .088 (.085 - .090) 445,03 48Widiger (-)

c) D and O fused 6950.37(2080) .090 .092 (.090 - .094) 877,37 48

Ashton & Lee (+)Watson (+)Widiger (-)DeYoung (-)

d) A and H fused 6603.24(2080) .076 .089 (.086 - .091) 530,24 48

Saucier, Ashton & Lee (+)

e) N and C fused 6853.32(2080) .072 .091 (.089 - .093) 780,32 48 f) E and O fused 6595.77(2080) .071 .087 (.084 - .089) 522,77 48

CONCLUSIONS

• The replicability of Disintegration is comparable to the replicability of Extraversion and Conscientiousness which were better than for Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Openness

• Seven-factor model fits population covariance matrix better than any of the six-factor solutions that were tested





Temporal stability

INDIRECTLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (NEUROANATOMICAL AND NEUROCHEMICAL)

•Neurobiological (neuroanatomical and neurochemical) foundations of personality traits seems to be different for different personality traits (Panksepp, 1998; Zuckermann, 2005).

•Each trait is related to the volume of different brain regions - - evidence found for all traits except Openness (DeYoung, Hirsh, Shane, Papademetris, Rajeevan, & Gray, 2010).

•Models developed to explain disorganized cognitions and perceptions in schizophrenia (focusing on disturbances in internal representations of contextual information, Cohen & Servan-Schreiber, 1992; Philips & Silverstein, 2003) → biological mechanisms of individual differences in psychosis-proneness are different from those operating in other five traits.

INDIRECTLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (GENETIC)

•Genetic structure of personality strongly resembles its phenotypic structure (Livesley, Jang & Vernon, 1998). •For example, findings of Jang, Woodward, Lang, Honer, and Livesley (2005), support distinctness between higher-order genetic factor describing psychosis-paranoia and those that could roughly be identified as E and N. •Contrary evidence: overlapping genetic influence in case of schizotypy and N (Macare, Bates, Heath, Martin & Ettinger, 2012)

INDIRECTLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (EVOLUTIONARY)

•The most probable mechanism explaining heritable individual differences in Disintegration-like phenomena (and Intelligence) is the polygenetic mutation-selection balance (Keller & Miller, 2006).

•Unlike Disintegration, heritable variations of other personality traits are the consequence of an entirely different mechanism - balancing selection by environmental heterogeneity (Nettle, 2006; Penke, Denissen & Miller, 2007).

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

What is the reason that such different, even disparate, but temporally stable behavioral patterns hold together across samples, methods and instrument formats?

• The most parsimonious explanation is that they are parts of a real trait-like disposition operating in a manner similar to the other five traits

• Empirical evidence shows that the reasons to articulate Disintegration as a basic personality trait are not less convincing than those given for any other of the five basic dispositions

DID ANYONE ELSE OBTAIN ANYTHING SIMILAR? (SOMETHING DISINTEGRATION-LIKE, FORMING A SEPARATE

PERSONALITY FACTOR)

• The answer is – yes.

• Actually, nobody did obtain anything different when the chance was given for something Disintegration-like to appear.

FOR EXAMPLE, RECENTLY...

• Watson, Clark, & Chmielewski (2008) obtained the following:

• N=327 students recruited from introductory psychology classes

Instruments:

• The 90-item EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975)

• The 390-item SNAP (Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press) - trait dimensions relevant to the Axis II PDs: three higher-order temperament dimensions (Negative Temperament, Positive Temperament, and Disinhibition), and 12 more specific trait scales (Mistrust, Manipulativeness, Aggression, Self-harm, Eccentric Perceptions, Dependency, Exhibitionism, Entitlement, Detachment, Impulsivity, Propriety, Workaholism).

• The 54-item version of the BFI (John & Srivastava, 1999)

• The 240-item NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992)

• The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein & Putnam,1986; Carlson & Putnam, 1992) 28-item questionnaire measuring dissociative tendencies

• The Questionnaire of Experiences of Dissociation (QED; Riley, 1988) is a 26-item scale intended primarily for research on dissociative disorders.

• The Dissociative Processes Scale (DPS; Harrison & Watson, 1992) consists of 33 items including three factor-analytically derived subscales: Obliviousness, Detachment, and Imagination

Do the authors obtain a better model fit by specifying distinct Openness and Oddity factors?

• CFA to compare two contrasting models

• (1) a one-factor model in which 11 scales from five-factor solution reflected a single undifferentiated dimension and

• (2) a two-factor model - distinct dimensions of Openness and Oddity (marked by SNAP Eccentric Perceptions and the five dissociation measures).

• The two-factor model fit the data significantly better than the one factor model

• However, these factors correlated (r=.54) in the two-factor model.

• These two measures are better viewed as defining distinct (but moderately correlated) factors rather than a single broad dimension.

• Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, & Born (2012) obtained:

Canadian sample, N = 378, mean age was 20.4 years (SD = 3.8), and 55% were women (undergraduates)

H = Honesty/Humility

E = Emotionality

X = Extraversion

A = Agreeableness

C = Conscientiousness

O = Openness

S/D = Schizotypy/ Dissociation

CES = Curious Experiences Survey

PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5

Extension factor-analysis (Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse & Born, 2012)

Dutch sample, N = 476 , mean age was 51.5 years (SD = 13.7), and 50% were women (a multiple-wave Internet panel study)

H = Honesty/Humility

E = Emotionality

X = Extraversion

A = Agreeableness

C = Conscientiousness

O = Openness

S/D = Schizotypy/ Dissociation

CES = Curious Experiences Survey

PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5

Extension factor-analysis (Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse & Born, 2012)

• Ashton & Lee (2012) obtained this:

N=409, community sample

• CES = Curious Experiences Survey;

• SDQ = Somatform Dissociation Questionnaire;

• MIS = Magical Ideation Scale;

• CEQ = Creative Experiences Questionnaire;

• OCI = Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory.

N=409, community sample

• CES = Curious Experiences Survey;

• SDQ = Somatform Dissociation Questionnaire;

• MIS = Magical Ideation Scale;

• CEQ = Creative Experiences Questionnaire;

• OCI = Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory.

CAN PSYCHOTIC-LIKE PHENOMENA BE CONCEPTUALIZED AS HIGH LEVEL OF OPENNESS?

• In spite of the fact that correlations between schizotypy and O were not found in meta-analyses, there is a persistent effort to conceptualize schizotypy-like phenomena as extreme levels of O.

Why?

• First, the extreme O has some “flavor” of schizotypy leading scholars to equate them (postulating a possible common mechanism responsible for both phenomena, such as experiential permeability).

• Second, while N, E, A, and C are largely represented in DSM-IV-TR, O is not. On the other hand, schizotypy/psychotic spectrum from the DSM-IV-TR seems not to be adequately related to any FFM trait. To try to interrelate the only two "unpaired" entities seems to be a reasonable strategy (Piedmont, Sherman, Sherman, Dy-Liacco & Williams, 2009).

• Third, disturbingly low correlations between O and indices of schizotypy could be to a certain extent ascribed to the fact that standard measures of O (NEO PI-R and HEXACO) do not contain items capturing the extreme levels of O. If they had been included, the expected correlations between measures of O and schizotypy would have appeared (Haigler & Widiger, 2001)

DeYoung, Grazioplene & Peterson, 2012

UNDERSTANDING THE INNER MECHANISMS OF DISINTEGRATION

•Disintegration and affective priming (Orlić, 2012)

Tendency to process negative stimuli faster when they are preceded by affectively charged words (no matter whether positive or negative)

•Disintegration and working memory, processing speed

Not related to the WMC, but negatively correlated with the reading speed

•Disintegration and long term memory

Correlates with verbal and visual long term memory (negatively)

UNDERSTANDING THE INNER MECHANISMS OF DISINTEGRATION

•Disintegration and Deese–Roediger–McDermott memory paradigm (Purić, 2009)

Less incorrect recognitions (weaker effects of contextual, associative memory enhancement) – by those high on GEI and PD

•Disintegration and executive functions

D predicts executive inhibition (negatively) and immediate visual memory (negatively). However, weaker executive inhibition was not found on the sample of undergraduate students.

•Disintegration and biological correlates

D – correlates positively with the basal glucose level.

D –negative correlations with DHEAS i DHEAS/CORT (DHEAS and potentiation of NMDA, Bergeron, Montigny & Debonnel,1996) but unrelated either to the basal cortisol level ACTH, or HPA-axis responsiveness

A PLAUSIBILE MECHANISM EXPLAINING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ON DISINTEGRATION

• Computational models “…demonstrate that a disturbance in the internal representation of contextual information can provide a common explanation for schizophrenic deficits in several attention and language-related tasks (Cohen & Servan-Schreiber, 1992)

• Simulation show that cognitive deficits of SCH patients in a) “Stroop task”, b) “Continuous performance test”, and c) “Lexical disambiguation task” may arise from a disturbance in a model parameter (gain) – specifying context representations - which corresponds to the neuromodulatory effects of dopamine

ON THE SAME TRACK... One of the best elaborated models: Philips & Silverstein,

2003, BBS• Cortical activity is coordinated by widely distributed local

interactions within and between regions

• This coordination is based on dynamic organizational processes emphasized by Gestalt psychology (pre-attentive, local, implying “central executive ignorance”), such as disambiguation and dynamic grouping.

• Mechanisms of this coordination - long-range connections within and between cortical regions that activate synaptic channels via NMDA receptors (controlling gain through their voltage-dependent mode of operation)

• Impairment of these mechanisms is central to PCP-psychosis, and SCH

1. POSSIBLE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

1. Weakened contextual representation should explain distortion not only of cognitions, but of the affects (visible in symptoms of depression, mania, and emotional flatness).

2. Relations of NMDA polymorphisms and the functional properties of NMDA receptors

3. NMDA polymorphisms → Disintegration level (both cognitive and emotional aspects)

2. POSSIBLE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS1. Psychosis-proneness associated with deficits in somatosensory processing (Chapman et al., 1978; Lenzenweger et al., 2003; Chang and Lenzenweger, 2005; Lenzenweger, 2010).

2. Susceptibility to the rubber hand illusion varies across individuals and experimental conditions (Botvinick & Cohen, 1998; Tsakiris & Haggard, 2005).

3. Disintegration → susceptibility to the rubber hand illusion of body ownership (biased judgments of the body’s location in space, i.e. proprioceptive drift; Botvinick and Cohen, 1998), illusory sensations on the rubber hand (Durgin et al., 2007), and cooling of the participant’s own hand (Moseley et al., 2008).


1.It is well established that emotion recognition (ER) is impaired in psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia (Hoekert et al., 2007; Kohler et al., 2010)

2.In line with Disintegration concept, these deficits may be present to varying degrees all along the schizophrenia spectrum

3.Disintegration → higher ER errors

4.Different aspects of Disintegration → different ER errors (Abbott, 2013)


1. Stressful experiences influences level of superstition (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008)

2. People higher on Disintegration are prone to superstition

3. Disintegration might influence level of superstition after experimentally induced stress (moderation)

Date post:	17-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	michael-mason
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

DISINTEGRATION: RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF PSYCHOSIS- PRONENESS AS A BASIC PERSONALITY TRAIT Goran...

Documents