Continuity between Neuroticism and its maladaptive variant: a correlational study
Keywords:
DSM-5, neuroticism, negative affectivityAbstract
The latest version of the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) has produced remarkable debate in the field of personality disorders by offering a dimensional model that diverge from the categorical perspective of previous editions. This new model, based on the Five Factor Model (FFM), assumes that it is posible to recognize a maladaptive pole for each domain of the normal personality (Widiger, Gore, Crego, Rojas, & Oltmanns, 2016; Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009). Much of the current effort focuses on providing empirical evidence of the continuity between normal and maladaptive personality traits by studying the relationship of the different normative instruments developed to measure these constructs (e.g. Griffin & Samuel, 2014; Quilty, Ayearst, Chmielewski, Pollock & Bagby, 2013; Wright & Simms, 2014; Balsis, Ruchensky & Busch, 2017). Specifically, the spectrum of the Neuroticism domain has aroused interest due to its usefulness in the clinical-epidemiological field when associated with multiple health problems and mental disorders (Widiger & Oltmanns, 2017). From the normal perspective, Neuroticism is characterized by the tendency to feel negative emotions such as worries, anger, feelings of insecurity, dissatisfaction with oneself and/or with the context, which generates conflicts in their interpersonal ties (McCrae & Costa, 2010). Its maladaptive variant, Negative Affectivity, is defined as the experience of frequent and intense experiences of a wide range of negative emotions. It also includes behaviors of self-injury and interpersonal bonds with marked dependence (APA, 2013).
In this work it is proposed as objective to obtain local empirical evidences of the existing continuity between the dimensions of the Neuroticism of the FFM and its un-adaptive variant the Negative Affectivity. Several methodological strategies have been used to verify this assumption of continuity, such as factorial analyses (Wright & Simms, 2014) and the Item Response Theory (Balsis, Ruchensky, & Busch, 2017). Given the preliminary nature of this study, and following the strategies implemented by numerous authors, it is proposed here to analyses the correlations between the scales (e.g. Griffin & Samuel, 2014; Quilty et al. 2013).
In this study, 265 individuals residing in the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires collaborated (63% female and 37% male). The subjects were selected using a non-probability sampling for convenience. The mean age was 33.57 (SD = 11.35, Min = 19, Max = 72). As for the level of studies, 54.7% completed secondary school while 40% had a higher education degree. The participants responded to an inventory of 63 items designed ad-hoc that alternately included items of Neuroticism belonging to the IPIP-NEO Inventory (Goldberg et al., 2006, adaptation by Cupani et al, 2014) and the Item Bank (BA-IT-N) of Abal, Auné and Attorresi (2019), with elements that evaluate Negative Affectivity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5, APA, 2013; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012, adaptation by Fernández Liporace & Castro Solano, 2015). All items in this inventory are answered with a 4-option Likert scale. To obtain empirical evidence of the continuity between the dimensions, the total scores of the IPIP-NEO Neuroticism scales (Alpha = .87), BA-IT-N (Alpha = .84), the PID-5 Negative Affectivity scale (Alpha = .87) and their respective sub-dimensions were calculated separately and correlated: Anxiety (Alpha = .82), Insecurity/Separation (Alpha = .77) and Emotional Lability (Alpha = .77).
Medium-high intensity correlations of Negative Affectivity were found with the Neuroticism measurements of IPIP-NEO (r = .67, p <.0001) and BA-IT-N (r = .77, p <.0001). Associations of similar intensity were registered between Neuroticism and the sub-dimensions Emotional Ability (with IPIP-NEO r = .51, p <.0001 and with BA-IT-N r = .64, p <.0001) and Anxiety (with IPIP-NEO r = .71, p <.0001 and with BA-IT-N r = .75, p <.0001). However, the correlation was weaker between Neuroticism and the sub-dimension Insecurity/Separation (with IPIP-NEO r =.40, p <.0001 and with BA-IT-N r =.32, p <.0001). In conclusion, the evidence obtained supports the existing continuity between Neuroticism and its maladaptive variant. The low correlation observed between Neuroticism and Insecurity/Separation could be due to the fact that this sub-dimension represents an extreme aspect of the pathological domain, so it deviates from the normal range evaluated by IPIP-NEO and BA-IT-N. Future research will seek to achieve a higher level of specificity in the analysis of continuity, employing the avant-garde methodological contributions offered by the Item Response Theory.
References
Abal, F. J. P., Auné, S. E. y Attorresi, H. F. (2019). Construcción de un banco de ítems de facetas de neuroticismo para el desarrollo de un test adaptativo. Psicodebate, 19(1), pp. 31-50. doi: 10.18682/pd.v1i1.854
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) Arlington, VA: Author.
Balsis, S., Ruchensky, J. R. y Busch, A. J. (2017). Item response theory applications in personality disorder research. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8(4), pp. 298-308.
Cupani, M., Pilatti, A., Urrizaga, A., Chincolla, A. y Richaud de Minzi, M. C. (2014). Inventario de personalidad IPIP-NEO: estudios preliminares de adaptación al español en estudiantes argentinos. Revista Mexicana de Investigación en Psicología, 6, pp. 55-73.
Fernández Liporace, M. L. y Castro Solano, A. (2015). Personality Inventory for DSM5. Adult Form. Argentinean Version. Manuscrito no publicado.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R. y Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), pp. 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
Griffin, S. A. y Samuel, D. B. (2014). A closer look at the lower-order structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5: Comparison with the five-factor model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 406.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D. y Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, pp. 1879-1890. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002674
Quilty, L. C., Ayearst, L., Chmielewski, M., Pollock, B. G. y Bagby, R. M. (2013). The Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 Field Trial Sample. Assessment, 20(3), pp. 362–369. doi:10.1177/1073191113486183
Tackett, J. L. y Lahey, B. B. (2017). The Oxford handbook of the five factor model. New York: Oxford University Press.
Widiger, T. A., Gore, W. L., Crego, C., Rojas, S. L. y Oltmanns, J. R. (2016). Five Factor Model and Personality Disorder. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199352487.013.4
Widiger, T. A. y Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder: A Proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5(1), pp. 197–220. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153542
Widiger, T. A. y Oltmanns, J. R. (2017). Neuroticism is a fundamental domain of personality with enormous public health implications. World Psychiatry, 16(2), pp. 144–145. doi: 10.1002/wps.20411
Wright, A. G. C. y Simms, L. J. (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(1), pp. 43-54. doi: 10.1037/per0000037
