- Email: [email protected]
The vibrant intersection of personality and psychopathology research: A special issue of the Journal of Research in Personality
Journal of Research in Personality 84 (2020) 103890
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
The vibrant intersection of personality and psychopathology research: A special issue of the Journal of Research in Personality Robert F. Krueger a,⇑, David Watson b, Thomas A. Widiger c a
University of Minnesota, United States University of Notre Dame, United States c University of Kentucky, United States b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 6 November 2019
a b s t r a c t Personality and psychopathological variation are closely linked, both conceptually and empirically. In this introduction, we provide a brief overview of a new special issue of the Journal of Research in Personality focused on links between personality and psychopathology. Contemplating this corpus of work, we conclude that the nexus of personality and psychopathology constitutes a vibrant and active area of inquiry. Psychopathology research informed by personality science has extensive implications not just for the scientific understanding of human individual differences, but also for applied efforts to ameliorate psychological suffering. Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Personality and psychopathology research have been intertwined to different degrees throughout the history of modern psychology and psychiatry. In recent years, these areas have come together in broad and synthetic ways that have been mutually enriching. Of particular contemporary relevance is extensive evidence that personality variation forms the infrastructure for the experience of psychopathological symptoms. Clinically relevant psychological symptomatology tends not to arise de novo; rather, symptoms arise in the context of pre-existing personality structures. Indeed, this evidence of deep connections between personality and psychopathology forms the underpinnings of contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology based on evidence, as opposed to tradition or psychiatric fiat. One recent development in this area pertains to the formation and growth of the Hierarchal Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) consortium (Kotov et al., 2017; Krueger et al., 2018). The fundamental goal of HiTOP is to articulate a model of psychopathology based on evidence. Drawing from extensive available evidence, the working model of HiTOP is strongly influenced by relevant personality data. For example, major spectra of psychopathological variation in HiTOP bear a direct resemblance to the domains of the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; Widiger et al., 2019). This is because, like normative personality variation, maladaptive dispositions linked to psychopathology are well-organized by domains that are generally well conceptualized as maladaptive extensions of the domains of the FFM, as recognized in the current edition of the DSM (DSM-5; APA, 2013). ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.F. Krueger). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103890 0092-6566/Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
One purpose of this special issue was to provide comprehensive reviews of evidence in this area, organized by the domains of the FFM (Extraversion vs. Detachment, Neuroticism vs. Stability, Agreeableness vs. Antagonism, Conscientiousness vs. Disinhibition, and Openness vs. Closemindedness). In addition, the editors solicited novel perspective pieces and empirical reports pertinent to the links between personality and psychopathology. The net result of this effort was five papers organized by the domains of the FFM (which are also well understood as spectrums of maladaptive personality variation), alongside nine other papers that enhance these foundational reviews by providing additional data and perspectives. 1. Foundational reviews The five foundational reviews each have distinctive features yet are united by a focus on the utility of a dimensional-hierarchicalspectrum conceptualization of FFM domains as organizing rubrics for understanding psychopathological tendencies. Watson, Stanton, Khoo, Ellickson-Larew, and Stasik-O’Brien (2019) review their recent program of research on the importance of the hierarchical structure of the broad Extraversion domain in understanding risk for distinguishable psychopathologies. For example, the distinction between agentic and communal Extraversion aspects helps solve a classic puzzle in understanding mood disorders. Although these aspects are both well understood as variants of a general extraverted tendency, low communal Extraversion is associated with dysfunctional social withdrawal, whereas high agentic Extraversion is associated with mania and reward pursuit. The pre-
2
R.F. Krueger et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 84 (2020) 103890
cise nature of mood dysfunction is a function of a person’s position within the levels of the variegated Extraversion hierarchy. Lynam and Miller (2019) focus squarely on the unifying explanatory power of the Antagonism domain. The history of psychopathology classification is replete with variants on basic antagonistic tendencies (e.g., varied conceptualizations of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and narcissism). Lynam and Miller (2019) draw on an extensive literature to show that the social impact of numerous such syndromes is realized largely through the common thread of Antagonism. Brandes and Tackett (2019) focus in particular on the need to achieve a more nuanced account of connections between the broad Neuroticism domain and psychopathology. While there is abundant evidence that the Neuroticism domain is the essence of psychopathology in many respects, much remains to be learned about specific relations at lower levels of the trait hierarchy. Similarly, most research on Neuroticism and psychopathology is descriptive, and much remains to be learned about various ways in which specific Neuroticism components influence psychopathological variation. For example, some components may be direct vulnerabilities for psychopathology, whereas others may have a more pathoplastic relationship, influencing the specific form or nature of psychopathological expression. Widiger and Crego (2019) also offer a nuanced account of FFMpsychopathology alignments. Their review focuses on the complex domain of Openness, and the relevance of this domain to thought disorder (as articulated in the working HiTOP model) and psychoticism (as articulated in DSM-5). Relative to other FFM domains, Openness shows a more complex relationship with psychopathology, and Widiger and Crego (2019) articulate a detailed account of specific points of both overlap and disjunction. Mullins-Sweatt, DeShong, Lengel, Helle, and Krueger (2019) focus on the maladaptive pole of Conscientiousness (i.e., Disinhibition). Similar to the perspective articulated by Brandes and Tackett (2019), Mullins-Sweatt et al. (2019) emphasize the importance of moving beyond the already abundant evidence that Disinhibition confers broad risk for psychopathological outcomes. Disinhibition is a core feature of diverse psychopathologies, but less is known about more nuanced associations. For example, Disinhibition may complicate other problems in a pathoplastic fashion, resulting in a potentially poorer prognosis relative to presentations in which higher levels of Neuroticism are accompanied by normative levels of Conscientiousness.
2. Empirical structural elaborations A number of the empirical reports ultimately selected for this special issue complement the five foundational reviews by elaborating connections between established structures of personality and psychopathology. As noted throughout the special issue, personality and psychopathology structures are well-integrated through a hierarchical approach. A robust structural approach to psychopathology, for example, recognizes the three broad spectra of Internalizing, Externalizing, and Thought Disorder. This level of the individual difference hierarchy can be readily integrated with the structure of maladaptive and normative personality. Hierarchical models handle this integration by recognizing Internalizing as the nexus of Neuroticism and Detachment, Externalizing as the nexus of Antagonism and Disinhibition, and Thought Disorder as an extreme variant of the aspect of Openness focused more on experiences such as fantasy proneness, as opposed to the aspect focused more on intellect (see e.g., the working model proposed by the HiTOP consortium; Conway et al., 2019). Interestingly, these empirical papers span a range of ages and levels of the hierarchy. Structural accounts of personality and psy-
chopathology are understandably limited by their tendency to focus on cross-sectional patterns of covariation, as opposed to being focused more on developmental processes. Nevertheless, an understanding of developmental process presupposes an understanding of structure. Understanding development necessitates understanding the constructs that organize individual differences across the life span, such that those constructs then become the focus of developmental inquiry. From this perspective, the structural elaborations in this special issue provide some fundamental advances, at the intersection of research on development and structure. For example, Watts, Poore, Lilienfeld, and Waldman (2019) studied a large sample of youth (participants ages 4–17), delineating the well-recognized Internalizing-Externalizing structure of psychopathology. Interestingly, Internalizing was found to have two sub-factors, Fears and Distress. Distress and Externalizing (but not Fears) showed associations with personality variables that parallel associations obtained in adult samples, with Distress showing an association with Neuroticism, and Externalizing showing negative associations with both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Conway, Li, and Starr (2019) studied a sample of adolescents (14–17 years old), focusing on the question of how anhedonia (traditionally seen as indicative of depression specifically) fits with broad dimensions of both Internalizing and Neuroticism. Their findings underline the value of a hierarchical structural approach in showing that anhedonia was broadly indicative of Internalizing, as opposed to specifically indicative of depression. Further, Neuroticism and Internalizing were strongly associated, underlining the close connection of personality with psychopathology in adolescents (beyond extensive evidence for this connection in adults). Levin-Aspenson, Khoo, and Kotelnikova (2019) worked with diagnostic data from four age groups ranging from adolescence to middle age. Their goal was to fit hierarchical models of psychopathology in each age group, and to understand how the resulting dimensions related to Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness. Importantly, the basic hierarchical structure of psychopathology was relatively invariant across age groups. Additionally, associations between psychopathology structures and Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness were also similar across age groups, with Neuroticism showing the strongest effects. This study provides fundamental evidence of the structural continuity of psychopathology across much of the life-course. Ringwald, Beeney, Pilkonis, and Wright (2019) focused specifically on Personality Disorder (PD) criteria from the DSM-IV in a large sample of psychiatric outpatients and community participants. They delineated a hierarchical model of these criteria showing levels and constructs very similar to those of the HiTOP model of general psychopathology. They also make an important conceptual and statistical point in showing that the lowest level of this hierarchy can be rotated to focus on a general factor and three other more specific factors (as opposed to the four correlated factors of their hierarchical model). These are essentially different vantage points on the same four factor structure. Adjudication between these structures entails conceptual considerations because they are the same statistical structure, in the sense of having the same fit to the data. Kotelnikova, Weaver, and Clark (2019) examined the joint structure of two prominent personality assessment instruments, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Invetory-2-RC scales (MMPI-2-RC; Tellegen et al., 2003) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality, 2nd Edition, (SNAP-2; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, 2014) in a large combined sample of clinic patients and military veterans. They argue that the most robust joint structure of these instruments entails factors of Negative Affectivity (similar to Neuroticism), Low Positive Affectivity (similar to Detachment), and Disinhibition.
R.F. Krueger et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 84 (2020) 103890
3. Extensions beyond traditional assessments Traditionally, personality and psychopathology are assessed via self and informant reports and clinical interviews. These approaches form the bedrock for our empirical understanding of the structure of personality and psychopathology. Yet one of the reasons to understand these structures is to contextualize data from other assessment approaches. For example, Rozalski and Benning (2019) utilize the three broad psychopathology spectra of Internalizing, Externalizing, and Aberrant Experiences (thought disorder) to understand individual differences in the Late Positive Potential (LPP), an Event Related Potential (ERP). Various parameters of the LPP related in theoretically predictable ways to Internalizing and Aberrant Experiences, but not to Externalizing. Roche, Pincus, and Cole (2019) focused on the ways in which cross-sectional individual differences are manifest in daily dynamics, which can be assessed through diary methods. They provide robust evidence that maladaptive personality traits are manifest in psychopathology in everyday life, in ways that are predictable from the joint structure of personality and psychopathology. Specifically, Negative Affect (aka Neuroticism) and Detachment predicted diary accounts of Internalizing phenomena, whereas Antagonism predicted diary accounts of Externalizing phenomena. Shields, Reardon, Brandes, and Tackett (2019) provide evidence about the link between hierarchical structures of psychopathology in children and the constructs of executive functions (EF) and effortful control (EC). EF and EC are conceptually related constructs that are nevertheless operationalized using different approaches (laboratory tasks and caregiver reports, respectively). Shields et al. (2019) show that EC is more strongly related to general psychopathology than EF, consistent with psychopathology having been assessed via caregiver reports in their study. 4. Extension to the narrative identity literature Finally, the special issue includes a very unique paper from Adler and Clark (2019) focused on narrative identity. Narrative identity constitutes a robust and rich tradition in personality psychology, focused on understanding the stories people tell about their lives, and how people attribute meaning to those stories. Structural research on personality and psychopathology has proceeded largely in parallel to research in narrative identity, for a variety of reasons (e.g., work on narrative identity requires much more intensive assessment of life stories and corresponding coding approaches to working with such data). Adler and Clark (2019) describe a number of compelling reasons why these separable sub-fields can benefit from greater intellectual commerce. For example, many theorists view problems with conceptualization of the self as central to personality pathology, and the narrative identity literature offers evidence regarding more and less adaptive life narratives that might, in turn, be linked with more and less adaptive trait outcomes. 5. Conclusions To summarize, the scholarly depth and breadth of the contributions in this special issue strike us as firm footing not just for continued empirical inquiry, but also, for applied efforts to reducing human suffering. To our reading, intervention efforts can be hamstrung by the sheer diversity of available conceptualizations and approaches. Our impression is that many practitioners on the front lines would welcome a more integrated and comprehensive
3
approach to conceptualizing patients, grounded in structural data, and accompanied by well-articulated corresponding intervention strategies. In terms of future directions, then, a comprehensive approach to personality-psychopathology conceptualization and intervention seems tractable. Such an approach could be built on the foundations provided by this special issue and facilitated by the coordinated work of the HiTOP consortium, and similar efforts (Ruggero et al., in press). References Adler, J. M., & Clark, L. A. (2019). Incorporating narrative identity into structural approaches to personality and psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–6. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. Brandes, C. M., & Tackett, J. L. (2019). Contextualizing neuroticism in the hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 238–245. Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (2014). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Conway, C. C., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Fried, E. I., Hallquist, M. N., Kotov, R., ... Sunderland, M. (2019). A hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology can transform mental health research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 419–436. Conway, C. C., Li, Y. I., & Starr, L. R. (2019). Trait anhedonia is a transdiagnostic correlate of internalizing problems during adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 56–63. Kotelnikova, Y., Weaver, C. A., & Clark, L. A. (2019). The joint structure of maladaptive personality traits and psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 64–71. Kotov, R., Krueger, R., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R., Bagby, R. M., ... Zimmerman, M. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477. Krueger, R. F., Kotov, R., Watson, D., Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., Ruggero, C. J., ... Bagby, R. M. (2018). Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 282–293. Levin-Aspenson, H. F., Khoo, S., & Kotelnikova, Y. (2019). Hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology across development: Associations with personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 72–78. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019). The basic trait of Antagonism: An unfortunately underappreciated construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118–126. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., DeShong, H. L., Lengel, G. J., Helle, A. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Disinhibition as a unifying construct in understanding how personality dispositions undergird psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 55–61. Ringwald, W. R., Beeney, J. E., Pilkonis, P. A., & Wright, A. G. C. (2019). Comparing hierarchical models of personality pathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 98–107. Roche, M. J., Pincus, A. L., & Cole, P. E. (2019). Linking dimensions and dynamics in psychopathology research: An example using DSM-5 instruments. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–7. Rozalski, V., & Benning, S. D. (2019). Divergences among three higher-order selfreport psychopathology factors in normal-range personality and emotional late positive potential reactivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–8. Ruggero, C. J., Kotov, R., Hopwood, C. J., First, M., Clark, L. A., Skodol, A. E., ... Zimmerman, J. (in press). Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (in press). Shields, A. N., Reardon, K. W., Brandes, C. M., & Tackett, J. L. (2019). The p factor in children: Relationships with executive functions and effortful control. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–8. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation, and interpretation Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota. Watson, D., Stanton, K., Khoo, S., Ellickson-Larew, S., & Stasik-O’Brien, S. M. (2019). Extraversion and psychopathology: A multilevel hierarchical review. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–10. Watts, A. L., Poore, H. E., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Waldman, I. D. (2019). Clarifying the associations between Big Five personality domains and higher-order psychopathology dimensions in youth. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–6. Widiger, T. A., & Crego, C. (2019). HiTOP thought disorder, DSM-5 psychoticism, and five factor model openness. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 72–77. Widiger, T. A., Sellbom, M., Chmielewski, M., Clark, L. A., DeYoung, C. G., Kotov, R., ... Wright, A. G. C. (2019). Personality in a hierarchical model of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 7, 77–92.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
The vibrant intersection of personality and psychopathology research: A special issue of the Journal of Research in Personality Robert F. Krueger a,⇑, David Watson b, Thomas A. Widiger c a
University of Minnesota, United States University of Notre Dame, United States c University of Kentucky, United States b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 6 November 2019
a b s t r a c t Personality and psychopathological variation are closely linked, both conceptually and empirically. In this introduction, we provide a brief overview of a new special issue of the Journal of Research in Personality focused on links between personality and psychopathology. Contemplating this corpus of work, we conclude that the nexus of personality and psychopathology constitutes a vibrant and active area of inquiry. Psychopathology research informed by personality science has extensive implications not just for the scientific understanding of human individual differences, but also for applied efforts to ameliorate psychological suffering. Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Personality and psychopathology research have been intertwined to different degrees throughout the history of modern psychology and psychiatry. In recent years, these areas have come together in broad and synthetic ways that have been mutually enriching. Of particular contemporary relevance is extensive evidence that personality variation forms the infrastructure for the experience of psychopathological symptoms. Clinically relevant psychological symptomatology tends not to arise de novo; rather, symptoms arise in the context of pre-existing personality structures. Indeed, this evidence of deep connections between personality and psychopathology forms the underpinnings of contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology based on evidence, as opposed to tradition or psychiatric fiat. One recent development in this area pertains to the formation and growth of the Hierarchal Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) consortium (Kotov et al., 2017; Krueger et al., 2018). The fundamental goal of HiTOP is to articulate a model of psychopathology based on evidence. Drawing from extensive available evidence, the working model of HiTOP is strongly influenced by relevant personality data. For example, major spectra of psychopathological variation in HiTOP bear a direct resemblance to the domains of the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; Widiger et al., 2019). This is because, like normative personality variation, maladaptive dispositions linked to psychopathology are well-organized by domains that are generally well conceptualized as maladaptive extensions of the domains of the FFM, as recognized in the current edition of the DSM (DSM-5; APA, 2013). ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.F. Krueger). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103890 0092-6566/Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
One purpose of this special issue was to provide comprehensive reviews of evidence in this area, organized by the domains of the FFM (Extraversion vs. Detachment, Neuroticism vs. Stability, Agreeableness vs. Antagonism, Conscientiousness vs. Disinhibition, and Openness vs. Closemindedness). In addition, the editors solicited novel perspective pieces and empirical reports pertinent to the links between personality and psychopathology. The net result of this effort was five papers organized by the domains of the FFM (which are also well understood as spectrums of maladaptive personality variation), alongside nine other papers that enhance these foundational reviews by providing additional data and perspectives. 1. Foundational reviews The five foundational reviews each have distinctive features yet are united by a focus on the utility of a dimensional-hierarchicalspectrum conceptualization of FFM domains as organizing rubrics for understanding psychopathological tendencies. Watson, Stanton, Khoo, Ellickson-Larew, and Stasik-O’Brien (2019) review their recent program of research on the importance of the hierarchical structure of the broad Extraversion domain in understanding risk for distinguishable psychopathologies. For example, the distinction between agentic and communal Extraversion aspects helps solve a classic puzzle in understanding mood disorders. Although these aspects are both well understood as variants of a general extraverted tendency, low communal Extraversion is associated with dysfunctional social withdrawal, whereas high agentic Extraversion is associated with mania and reward pursuit. The pre-
2
R.F. Krueger et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 84 (2020) 103890
cise nature of mood dysfunction is a function of a person’s position within the levels of the variegated Extraversion hierarchy. Lynam and Miller (2019) focus squarely on the unifying explanatory power of the Antagonism domain. The history of psychopathology classification is replete with variants on basic antagonistic tendencies (e.g., varied conceptualizations of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and narcissism). Lynam and Miller (2019) draw on an extensive literature to show that the social impact of numerous such syndromes is realized largely through the common thread of Antagonism. Brandes and Tackett (2019) focus in particular on the need to achieve a more nuanced account of connections between the broad Neuroticism domain and psychopathology. While there is abundant evidence that the Neuroticism domain is the essence of psychopathology in many respects, much remains to be learned about specific relations at lower levels of the trait hierarchy. Similarly, most research on Neuroticism and psychopathology is descriptive, and much remains to be learned about various ways in which specific Neuroticism components influence psychopathological variation. For example, some components may be direct vulnerabilities for psychopathology, whereas others may have a more pathoplastic relationship, influencing the specific form or nature of psychopathological expression. Widiger and Crego (2019) also offer a nuanced account of FFMpsychopathology alignments. Their review focuses on the complex domain of Openness, and the relevance of this domain to thought disorder (as articulated in the working HiTOP model) and psychoticism (as articulated in DSM-5). Relative to other FFM domains, Openness shows a more complex relationship with psychopathology, and Widiger and Crego (2019) articulate a detailed account of specific points of both overlap and disjunction. Mullins-Sweatt, DeShong, Lengel, Helle, and Krueger (2019) focus on the maladaptive pole of Conscientiousness (i.e., Disinhibition). Similar to the perspective articulated by Brandes and Tackett (2019), Mullins-Sweatt et al. (2019) emphasize the importance of moving beyond the already abundant evidence that Disinhibition confers broad risk for psychopathological outcomes. Disinhibition is a core feature of diverse psychopathologies, but less is known about more nuanced associations. For example, Disinhibition may complicate other problems in a pathoplastic fashion, resulting in a potentially poorer prognosis relative to presentations in which higher levels of Neuroticism are accompanied by normative levels of Conscientiousness.
2. Empirical structural elaborations A number of the empirical reports ultimately selected for this special issue complement the five foundational reviews by elaborating connections between established structures of personality and psychopathology. As noted throughout the special issue, personality and psychopathology structures are well-integrated through a hierarchical approach. A robust structural approach to psychopathology, for example, recognizes the three broad spectra of Internalizing, Externalizing, and Thought Disorder. This level of the individual difference hierarchy can be readily integrated with the structure of maladaptive and normative personality. Hierarchical models handle this integration by recognizing Internalizing as the nexus of Neuroticism and Detachment, Externalizing as the nexus of Antagonism and Disinhibition, and Thought Disorder as an extreme variant of the aspect of Openness focused more on experiences such as fantasy proneness, as opposed to the aspect focused more on intellect (see e.g., the working model proposed by the HiTOP consortium; Conway et al., 2019). Interestingly, these empirical papers span a range of ages and levels of the hierarchy. Structural accounts of personality and psy-
chopathology are understandably limited by their tendency to focus on cross-sectional patterns of covariation, as opposed to being focused more on developmental processes. Nevertheless, an understanding of developmental process presupposes an understanding of structure. Understanding development necessitates understanding the constructs that organize individual differences across the life span, such that those constructs then become the focus of developmental inquiry. From this perspective, the structural elaborations in this special issue provide some fundamental advances, at the intersection of research on development and structure. For example, Watts, Poore, Lilienfeld, and Waldman (2019) studied a large sample of youth (participants ages 4–17), delineating the well-recognized Internalizing-Externalizing structure of psychopathology. Interestingly, Internalizing was found to have two sub-factors, Fears and Distress. Distress and Externalizing (but not Fears) showed associations with personality variables that parallel associations obtained in adult samples, with Distress showing an association with Neuroticism, and Externalizing showing negative associations with both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Conway, Li, and Starr (2019) studied a sample of adolescents (14–17 years old), focusing on the question of how anhedonia (traditionally seen as indicative of depression specifically) fits with broad dimensions of both Internalizing and Neuroticism. Their findings underline the value of a hierarchical structural approach in showing that anhedonia was broadly indicative of Internalizing, as opposed to specifically indicative of depression. Further, Neuroticism and Internalizing were strongly associated, underlining the close connection of personality with psychopathology in adolescents (beyond extensive evidence for this connection in adults). Levin-Aspenson, Khoo, and Kotelnikova (2019) worked with diagnostic data from four age groups ranging from adolescence to middle age. Their goal was to fit hierarchical models of psychopathology in each age group, and to understand how the resulting dimensions related to Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness. Importantly, the basic hierarchical structure of psychopathology was relatively invariant across age groups. Additionally, associations between psychopathology structures and Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness were also similar across age groups, with Neuroticism showing the strongest effects. This study provides fundamental evidence of the structural continuity of psychopathology across much of the life-course. Ringwald, Beeney, Pilkonis, and Wright (2019) focused specifically on Personality Disorder (PD) criteria from the DSM-IV in a large sample of psychiatric outpatients and community participants. They delineated a hierarchical model of these criteria showing levels and constructs very similar to those of the HiTOP model of general psychopathology. They also make an important conceptual and statistical point in showing that the lowest level of this hierarchy can be rotated to focus on a general factor and three other more specific factors (as opposed to the four correlated factors of their hierarchical model). These are essentially different vantage points on the same four factor structure. Adjudication between these structures entails conceptual considerations because they are the same statistical structure, in the sense of having the same fit to the data. Kotelnikova, Weaver, and Clark (2019) examined the joint structure of two prominent personality assessment instruments, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Invetory-2-RC scales (MMPI-2-RC; Tellegen et al., 2003) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality, 2nd Edition, (SNAP-2; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, 2014) in a large combined sample of clinic patients and military veterans. They argue that the most robust joint structure of these instruments entails factors of Negative Affectivity (similar to Neuroticism), Low Positive Affectivity (similar to Detachment), and Disinhibition.
R.F. Krueger et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 84 (2020) 103890
3. Extensions beyond traditional assessments Traditionally, personality and psychopathology are assessed via self and informant reports and clinical interviews. These approaches form the bedrock for our empirical understanding of the structure of personality and psychopathology. Yet one of the reasons to understand these structures is to contextualize data from other assessment approaches. For example, Rozalski and Benning (2019) utilize the three broad psychopathology spectra of Internalizing, Externalizing, and Aberrant Experiences (thought disorder) to understand individual differences in the Late Positive Potential (LPP), an Event Related Potential (ERP). Various parameters of the LPP related in theoretically predictable ways to Internalizing and Aberrant Experiences, but not to Externalizing. Roche, Pincus, and Cole (2019) focused on the ways in which cross-sectional individual differences are manifest in daily dynamics, which can be assessed through diary methods. They provide robust evidence that maladaptive personality traits are manifest in psychopathology in everyday life, in ways that are predictable from the joint structure of personality and psychopathology. Specifically, Negative Affect (aka Neuroticism) and Detachment predicted diary accounts of Internalizing phenomena, whereas Antagonism predicted diary accounts of Externalizing phenomena. Shields, Reardon, Brandes, and Tackett (2019) provide evidence about the link between hierarchical structures of psychopathology in children and the constructs of executive functions (EF) and effortful control (EC). EF and EC are conceptually related constructs that are nevertheless operationalized using different approaches (laboratory tasks and caregiver reports, respectively). Shields et al. (2019) show that EC is more strongly related to general psychopathology than EF, consistent with psychopathology having been assessed via caregiver reports in their study. 4. Extension to the narrative identity literature Finally, the special issue includes a very unique paper from Adler and Clark (2019) focused on narrative identity. Narrative identity constitutes a robust and rich tradition in personality psychology, focused on understanding the stories people tell about their lives, and how people attribute meaning to those stories. Structural research on personality and psychopathology has proceeded largely in parallel to research in narrative identity, for a variety of reasons (e.g., work on narrative identity requires much more intensive assessment of life stories and corresponding coding approaches to working with such data). Adler and Clark (2019) describe a number of compelling reasons why these separable sub-fields can benefit from greater intellectual commerce. For example, many theorists view problems with conceptualization of the self as central to personality pathology, and the narrative identity literature offers evidence regarding more and less adaptive life narratives that might, in turn, be linked with more and less adaptive trait outcomes. 5. Conclusions To summarize, the scholarly depth and breadth of the contributions in this special issue strike us as firm footing not just for continued empirical inquiry, but also, for applied efforts to reducing human suffering. To our reading, intervention efforts can be hamstrung by the sheer diversity of available conceptualizations and approaches. Our impression is that many practitioners on the front lines would welcome a more integrated and comprehensive
3
approach to conceptualizing patients, grounded in structural data, and accompanied by well-articulated corresponding intervention strategies. In terms of future directions, then, a comprehensive approach to personality-psychopathology conceptualization and intervention seems tractable. Such an approach could be built on the foundations provided by this special issue and facilitated by the coordinated work of the HiTOP consortium, and similar efforts (Ruggero et al., in press). References Adler, J. M., & Clark, L. A. (2019). Incorporating narrative identity into structural approaches to personality and psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–6. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. Brandes, C. M., & Tackett, J. L. (2019). Contextualizing neuroticism in the hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 238–245. Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (2014). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Conway, C. C., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Fried, E. I., Hallquist, M. N., Kotov, R., ... Sunderland, M. (2019). A hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology can transform mental health research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 419–436. Conway, C. C., Li, Y. I., & Starr, L. R. (2019). Trait anhedonia is a transdiagnostic correlate of internalizing problems during adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 56–63. Kotelnikova, Y., Weaver, C. A., & Clark, L. A. (2019). The joint structure of maladaptive personality traits and psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 64–71. Kotov, R., Krueger, R., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R., Bagby, R. M., ... Zimmerman, M. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477. Krueger, R. F., Kotov, R., Watson, D., Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., Ruggero, C. J., ... Bagby, R. M. (2018). Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 282–293. Levin-Aspenson, H. F., Khoo, S., & Kotelnikova, Y. (2019). Hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology across development: Associations with personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 72–78. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019). The basic trait of Antagonism: An unfortunately underappreciated construct. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 118–126. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., DeShong, H. L., Lengel, G. J., Helle, A. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Disinhibition as a unifying construct in understanding how personality dispositions undergird psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 55–61. Ringwald, W. R., Beeney, J. E., Pilkonis, P. A., & Wright, A. G. C. (2019). Comparing hierarchical models of personality pathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 98–107. Roche, M. J., Pincus, A. L., & Cole, P. E. (2019). Linking dimensions and dynamics in psychopathology research: An example using DSM-5 instruments. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–7. Rozalski, V., & Benning, S. D. (2019). Divergences among three higher-order selfreport psychopathology factors in normal-range personality and emotional late positive potential reactivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–8. Ruggero, C. J., Kotov, R., Hopwood, C. J., First, M., Clark, L. A., Skodol, A. E., ... Zimmerman, J. (in press). Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (in press). Shields, A. N., Reardon, K. W., Brandes, C. M., & Tackett, J. L. (2019). The p factor in children: Relationships with executive functions and effortful control. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–8. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation, and interpretation Unpublished manuscript. University of Minnesota. Watson, D., Stanton, K., Khoo, S., Ellickson-Larew, S., & Stasik-O’Brien, S. M. (2019). Extraversion and psychopathology: A multilevel hierarchical review. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–10. Watts, A. L., Poore, H. E., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Waldman, I. D. (2019). Clarifying the associations between Big Five personality domains and higher-order psychopathology dimensions in youth. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1–6. Widiger, T. A., & Crego, C. (2019). HiTOP thought disorder, DSM-5 psychoticism, and five factor model openness. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 72–77. Widiger, T. A., Sellbom, M., Chmielewski, M., Clark, L. A., DeYoung, C. G., Kotov, R., ... Wright, A. G. C. (2019). Personality in a hierarchical model of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 7, 77–92.