DISINTEGRATION:
RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF PSYCHOSISPRONENESS 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 CRITERION
Depersonalization
Derealization
Hallucinations
Attentional problems
Executive dysregulation
Memory Impairment
Shyness
Social anhedonia
Social reservedness
Inflated self-esteem
Recklessness
Overactivity
Ideas of reference
Belief in afterlife and
reincarnation
Perceptual
Distortions
General
Executive
Impairment
Social
Anhedonia
Mania
Magical Thinking
Enhanced
Awareness
Somatoform
Dysregulation
Flattened Affect
Depression
Paranoia
DISINTEGRATION
TRAIT LEVEL
Energetic connection with
others
Increased cognition
Responsiveness to
engaging stimuli
Synesthesia
Insensitivity to pain
Feeling of organ
malfunctions
Severe sensory and motor
conversions
Emotional numbing
Lack of planning
Emotional indifference
Suicidal ideation
Fatigue
Sadness
Feeeling of conspiracy
Paranoid resentment
Suspiciousness
BROADNESS...
Ten non-overlapping, non-tautological
(in content) modalities comprising
wide range of psychotic-like
emotional, cognitive, perceptual,
motoric and motivational phenomena
MODALITY (FACET) LEVEL
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 INCLUDED
Mental 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 higherorder factor (that we labeled “Disintegration”)
• 2 drop out factors (not converging on the higher-order factor) were
Physical Anhedonia and Rigid Conscientiousness
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= 0.29
Ku= - 0.22
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 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= 1.67
Ku= 3.75
Perceptual Distortions:
• Schneider First Order Rank Symptoms, depersonalization,
derealization, feelings of dissociation and multiple identities
Factor 4: Mania
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= 0.53
Ku= 0.23
Mania
 Over-activity, agitation, excessive optimism, inflated mood,
inflated self-esteem, grandiosity
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= 1.31
Ku= 1.82
Depression
• Sadness, feeling lonely, chronic fatigue, feelings of uselessness, selfpity, hopelessness, helplessness, suicidal ideation
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= 0.38
Ku= 0.05
Paranoia
 Suspicion, distrust of others, ideas of reference and persecution,
blaming others for personal failures, oversensitivity, feelings of
conspiracy
Factor 8: Flattened Affect
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= 0.04
Ku= - 0.11
Flattened Affect
• Emotional indifference toward self and others, distancing from and
disinterest in others, emotional numbing, disinterest in the future
Factor 9: Social Anhedonia
Sample Items:
I never form close relationships with
others
I’m happiest when I’m alone
Sk= 0.55
Ku= 0.20
Social Anhedonia
 Social reservedness, loneliness and social withdrawal, preference to
live alone, shyness, absence of enjoyment in pleasant stimuli
Factor 10: Magical Thinking
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= 0.34
Ku= - 0.08
Magical Thinking
 Feeling telepathic and energetic connections with others, illogical
thinking, belief in the afterlife, reincarnation, magical influences
and horoscope
Factor 11: Somatoform Dysregulation
Sample Items:
Sometimes my body, or a part
of it, feels numb
Sometimes I am paralysed for
a while
Sk= 2.49
Ku= 7.38
Somatoform Dysregulation
• Serious forms of sensory and motor conversions, somatic delusions,
insensitivity to pain and general body numbing
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= 0.16
Ku= - 0.12
Enhanced Awareness
 Synesthesia, heightened awareness, heightened cognition,
dissociative involvement, vivid reminiscence, responsiveness to
engaging stimuli
EYSENCK’S PSYCHOTICISM vs
DISINGRATION MODEL
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
P
Aggressive
Nonempathic
Cold
FLATENED
AFFECT?
Egocentric
Impersonal
Impulsive
SOCIAL
ANHEDONIA?
Antisocial
Creative
Toughmindedness
ENHANCED
AWARENESS
A POSSIBLE LIST OF CRITERIA, APART
FROM THE LEXICAL CRITERION
...AND RELEVANCE
Crucial 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”
Patients in the Institute of psychiatry, Belgrade
Total: 131 patient and 49 healthy controls
N
GENDER
N
UZRAST
MALES
78
FEMALES
102
M=33,5 god.
SD=9,2
HEALTHY
CONTROL
NON-PSYCHOTIC
PATIENTS
(AGORAFOBIA,
OCD)
SCH
AFFECTIVE
PSYCHOSES
(BIPOLAR,
DEPRESSION)
OTHER PSYCHOSES
(TRANSIENT,
SHIZOAFFECTIVE)
49
47
29
32
23
INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF DISINTEGRATION (D)
ABOVE AND OVER OCEAN (from 62.2% to 71.1%)
HEALTHY
CONTROL
NONPSYCHOTIC
PATIENTS
SCH
AFFECTIVE
PSYCHOSES
OTHER
PSYCHOSES
CAN.
CORR.
(FACETS)
Index of
dsc.
% correctly classified
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+
81.6
72.3
82.8
50.0
60.9
0.75
D
RELEVANCE: CRIMINAL RECIDIVISM
CRIMINAL 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
D
N
E
O
A
C
M1/M2
2.0/2.3
2.6/2.7
3.2/3.3
3.3/3.2
3.3/3.1
3.9/3.7
SD(tot)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
F(1, 108) p
5.59
0.81
1.36
0.30
5.57
4.00
.020
.369
.246
.586
.020
.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)
Life-time PTSD (N=66)
Traumatic control (N= 128)
= 1.124 ;
= .317;
= -.643;
HEALTHY
Healthy control (N= 73)
=-1.080;
Canonical correlations (index of discrimination, effect size), r=.680, p<.000
•Standardized coefficients
N
E
O
A
C
D
.600
-.097
-.049
.229
-.039
.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)
TWO GERMAN AND TWO AMERICAN SAMPLES, n= 773
(data collected by Keller and Knezevic)
Paths fixed across four samples, all significant,
2
 (30)=34.69, p=n.s., RMSEA (90% CI)=.028 (.000 - .064),
CFI=.99, SRMR=.042
• Disintegration in RWA and prejudices?
• Was it noticed before?
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.”
A POSSIBLE LIST OF CRITERIA, APART
FROM THE LEXICAL CRITERION
TEMPORAL STABILITY
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).
One-year stability of Five-factors + Disintegration
Subsample of undergraduate students (N=75; 10 males, 65 females; M(age) =
20.16 (0.69)
First evidence (further evidence is needed):
NEUROTICISM
EXTRAVERSION
OPENNESS
AGREEABLENESS
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
DISINTEGRATION
Robust r
0.80
0.89
0.82
0.87
0.73
0.76
A POSSIBLE LIST OF CRITERIA, APART
FROM THE LEXICAL CRITERION
CONTINUITY
GENERAL 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 5point 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)
N
Normal
Parameters
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Most Extreme
Absolute
Differences
Positive
Negative
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis
DISINTEGRATION NEUROTICISM EXTRAVERSION OPENNESS AGREEABLENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
1001
998
998
997
998
998
2.47
0.42
89.61
19.53
105.42
20.03
103.29
19.14
114.46
17.89
124.44
21.12
0.03
0.03
-0.02
0.83
0.49
.158
.077
-.408
.154
0.03
0.03
-0.03
0.91
0.38
.014
.077
.719
.155
0.02
0.01
-0.02
0.76
0.60
-.167
.077
.323
.155
0.06
0.06
-0.03
1.79
0.00
.276
.077
.368
.155
0.03
0.03
-0.02
0.87
0.43
-.124
.077
.136
.155
0.03
0.01
-0.03
0.86
0.45
-.235
.077
.087
.155
ENDORSEMENT RATE, HALUCINATIONS
Sometimes I hear voices in my head telling me what to
do or commenting on what I do
1.7
.5
HIGHsrednjoskolska
SCHOOL STUDENTS
opsta
populacija, n=2780
5
4
studenti
psihologije, n=383
UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY
7.1
3.7
2.9
zdrava
kontrola,
n=149 IN PBPTSD STUDY
HEALTHY
CONTROLS
4
7.5
4.8
opsta
populacija,
n=1001
GENERAL
POPULATION
7.4
2.9
PSYCHOSES
psihoticni,
n=84
3
13.5
3.6
11.8
8.9
2
5.6
20.5
8.3
75.3
84.7
1
94.4
54.5
76.2
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
There’s a conspiracy against me
1.9
5
HIGHsrednjoskolska
SCHOOL STUDENTS
opsta
populacija, n=2780
.7
3.9
11.9
UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY
studenti
psihologije, n=383
2.8
4
.5
.7
HEALTHY
CONTROLS
zdrava
kontrola,
n=149 IN PBPTSD STUDY
5.1
4.8
opsta
populacija,
n=1001
GENERAL
POPULATION
15.5
3
psihoticni,
n=84
PSYCHOSES
1.1
2.7
17.3
8.3
18.6
6.1
2
12.2
18.3
21.4
61.3
92.4
1
83.7
55.4
53.6
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
I feel the presence of evil forces around me, although I can’t see them
7.2
5
1.3
2.4
psihoze
PSYCHOSES
studentI
UNDERGRADUATE
9.7
srednjoškolci
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
opšta
populacija
GENERAL
POPULATION
STUDENTS
10.8
4
2.1
6.3
15.7
9.6
3
4.2
18.9
26.6
19.3
2
12.9
15.7
14.2
53.0
79.5
1
56.6
33.9
DESINTEGRATION
1-PL IRT MODEL: PROBABILITY OF THE SYMPTOM APPEARANCE GIVEN
THE POSITION ON THE DISINTEGRATION CONTINUUM
PERCEPTUAL DISTORTIONS
SOMATOFORM DYSREGULATION
MAGICAL THINKING
DEPRESSION
PARANOIA
SOCIAL ANHEDONIA
FLATTENED AFFECT
GEN. EXECUTIVE IMPAIRMENT
MANIA
ENHANCED AWAR.
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
Undergratuate students (N=175), psychotic patients
(N=84), and healty controls from PBPTSD project (N=97)
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 CONSCIENT
N
304
267
267
267
267
267
Normal 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
23.44
Most Extreme
Absolute
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.03
Differences
Positive
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
Negative
-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
0.54
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
0.20
0.58
0.41
0.70
0.59
0.93
Skewness
0.54
0.17
-0.25
-0.23
-0.20
-0.29
Std. Error of Skewness
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Kurtosis
0.01
-0.37
-0.11
0.40
0.12
0.14
Std. Error of Kurtosis
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
ENDORSEMENT RATE, HALUCINATIONS
Sometimes I hear voices in my head telling me what to do or
commenting on what I do
5
4.6
4
11.2
3
German
sample
6.3
2
12.8
1
64.8
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
ENDORSEMENT RATE, MAGICAL THINKING
I feel the presence of evil forces around me, although I can’t see them
5
.7
4
5.9
3
German
sample
10.5
2
14.5
1
68.4
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
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
N
.66/.53
.81/.53
.60/.31
.58/.28
.63/.55
.64/.27
E
-.05/-.45
.00/ .00
-.10/-.42
-.23/-.43
.30/ .11
.02/-.41
C
-.29/ .07
.08/-.06
-.29/-.16
-.01/-.04
-.16/-.35
-.42/-.45
A
.03/-.03
-.41/-.32
.05/-.05
.10/ .07
-.11/ .10
.01/-.02
O
.23/ .02
-.06/-.06
.10/ .01
.22/-.07
.22/ .03
-.02/ .02
D
.05/ .23
.02/ .20
.16/ .40
.03/ .21
.00/-.02
-.06/ .13
-.01/ .00
-.16/-.05
-.41/-.07
.12/ .29
-.03/ .08
.02/ .06
.60/ .33
.63/ .52
.07/ .59
.08/ .50
.39/ .60
.50/ .49
.48/ .05
.03/-.12
.06/ .21
.52/ .31
.05/-.19
.27/-.08
.28/ .66
.11/ .30
-.50/-.10
-.34/ .09
-.27/-.02
-.07/ .34
.00/-.04
-.20/ .03
.09/ .15
-.01/.01
.16/ .22
.14/ .21
.14/ .13
-.07/ .01
.06/-.03
.13/ .02
.18/ .15
-.06/-.06
-.01/ .20
.03/-.06
.37/ .23
-.04/-.01
-.42/-.04
.01/-.02
.17/ .03
.02/-.11
.07/ .02
.26/ .16
-.02/ .17
.10/ .04
-.33/-.25
.08/ .00
.29/ .10
-.14/-.13
-.01/ .14
-.02/-.15
-.08/ .02
.17/ .19
-.03/ .34
-.34/-.09
-.02/-.04
-.01/ .21
.33/ .53
.70/ .77
.50/ .43
.13/ .46
.65/ .62
.09/ .20
-.15/-.11
-.06/ .12
-.09/ .00
-.15/-.08
.27/ .02
-.36/-.27
-.09/-.20
.09/-.07
.03/ .06
-.28/-.37
.01/-.03
.05/ .05
.33/ .10
.02/-.45
.23/-.02
.07/-.49
-.19/-.53
-.08/-.33
.23/-.08
.05/ .03
.49/ .20
-.09/-.02
-.33/-.15
.10/ .15
.47/ .66
.70/ .42
.45/ .70
.68/ .40
.50/ .22
.43/ .54
-.06/-.02
-.06/-.03
.04/ .00
.01/ .03
.01/-.10
.30/ .13
-.06/ .01
-.10/-.18
.02/-.06
.02/-.01
-.04/-.05
.05/ .03
-.07/-.09
.10/ .15
-.05/ .04
-.09/ .15
-.15/-.04
-.28/-.30
.07/ .25
.03/-.02
-.15/-.05
.02/ .30
-.14/ .06
-.22/-.13
.76/ .67
.55/ .67
.71/ .63
.72/ .70
.75/ .78
.51/ .63
-.08/.16
.04/-.10
.27/ .22
-.11/ .06
-.01/ .03
.08/-.03
.01/-.03
.09/ .12
.12/ .00
.11/ .05
-.02/-.02
-.06/-.01
-.09/-.05
-.11/-.06
.03/-.12
-.01/ .01
-.11/-.06
-.08/ .07
.31/ .05
-.08/-.08
.18/ .01
.37/-.01
.28/ .08
.00/-.05
.03/ .06
.01/-.05
.09/ .11
.05/ .01
.12/-.01
-.01/ .08
-.05/-.17
-.02/-.07
.01/ .05
.00/ .02
-.07/ .00
.21/ .36
-.08/-.20
-.12/-.13
.05/ .00
-.14/-.16
.02/-.01
.01/ .08
.04/ .03
-.01/-.07
-.04/-.03
.04/ .06
.00/-.03
-.10/-.30
-.02/-.11
-.01/ .02
-.04/ .04
.09/ .17
-.15/-.20
-.16/-.02
-.04/-.03
.05/ .07
-.06/-.02
-.21/ .00
-.10/-.04
.12/ .09
.12/ .29
-.18/-.06
.03/-.07
.53/ .60
.84/ .73
.63/ .44
.33/ .52
.58/ .68
.68/ .65
.61/ .55
.59/ .45
.44/ .40
Congruence/Correlation .84/.82
.62/.64
.87/.87
.71/.73
.85/.83
.93/.91
Neuroticism
Anxiety
Angry Hostility
Depression
Self-Consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
Extraversion
Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement Seeking
Positive Emotions
Openness
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Agreeableness
Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tender-Mindedness
Conscientiousness
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement Striving
Self-Discipline
Deliberation
Disintegration
Gen. Exec. Impairment
Perceptual Distortion
Paranoia
Depression
Flattened Affect
Somatic Dysregulation
Enhanced Awareness
Magical Thinking
Mania
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
A POSSIBLE LIST OF CRITERIA, APART
FROM THE LEXICAL CRITERION
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.
METHOD
CHARACTERISTICS 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
MOTHER'S RATING
SELF-REPORT
D
O
C
E
A
D 0.43 0.04 -0.07 -0.11 -0.13
O
0.41 0.18 0.28 0.11
C
0.51 0.14 0.11
E
0.62 0.08
A
0.51
N
D
O
C
E
A
FATHER'S RATING
N
D
O
C
E
A
-0.18
0.37 0.05 0.23 0.11 -0.13 .86
-0.21
0.42 0.08 0.06 -0.19 .90
-0.17
0.55 0.01 -0.12 .86
-0.17
0.40 -0.12 .87
0.41
0.35 .91
0.51-0.05 -0.15 -0.11-0.06 0.19
0.41 0.02 0.24 0.08 -0.04
0.55 0.05 0.18 -0.27
0.57 0.07 -0.16
0.45 -0.16
0.51
.79 .91
.85
.87
Cronbach a
0.19 0.46 0.04 -0.11 -0.10-0.07 -0.18 .95
N
Cronbach a .94
N
.91
HETERO-TRAIT, HETERO-METHOD
.95
.80 .90
.83
.84
.90
MONO-TRAIT, HETERO-METHOD
CONVERGENT VALIDITY: CROSS-INFORMANT REPLICABILITY OF DISINTEGRATION FACTOR IN
CORRELATED TRAITS, CORRELATED UNIQUENESSES CFA
GEI
GEI SR
PD SR
P SR
D SR
FA SR
SODSR
EA SR
MT SR
M SR
SA SR
GEI MR
PD MR
P MR
D MR
FA MR
SOD MR
EA MR
MT MR
M MR
SA MR
GEI FR
PD FR
P FR
D FR
FA FR
SOD FR
EA FR
MT FR
M FR
SA FR
PD
P
D
FA
SOD
EA
MT
M
SA
.58
.59
.52
.62
.52
MODEL: Ten correlated modalities
converging towards the higher-order
Disintegration factor, within informant
correlated uniquenesses
.64
.44
.64
.41
.70
.42
.50
.50
Degrees of Freedom = 260
Chi-Square = 454.62 (p = 0.000)
RMSEA = 0.040 (0.034 ; 0.046)
CFI = 0.99
SRMR = 0.038
.66
.64
Correlations among Disintegration modalities,
Completely standardized solution
.63
.63
.72
GEI
.54
.49
.59
.58
.67
.58
.61
.59
.58
.63
.63 GEI
PD
P
D
FA
SOD
EA
MT
M
SA
.63 D
.73
.68
.71
.68
.74
.62
.51
.66
.52
PD
.82
.84
.81
.88
.74
.61
.79
.62
P
.80
.77
.84
.70
.58
.74
.59
D
FA SOD
.79
.87
.72
.60
.77
.60
.83
.69
.57
.74
.58
.76
.63
.81
.64
EA
.53
.67
.53
MT
.56
.44
M
SA
.56
.78 .93 .88 .91 .83 .96 .80 .67 .85 .67
CONVERGENT-DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY: CROSS-INFORMANT REPLICABILITY OF
FIVE FACTORS + DISINTEGRATION IN MTMM CFA
MODEL : Six correlated traits, within
informant correlated uniquenesses
Traits loadings, Completely standardized solution
Degrees of Freedom = 75
Chi-Square = 123.99 (p = 0.00032)
RMSEA = 0.041 (0.028 ; 0.054)
CFI = 0.98
SRMR = 0.039
DEL NEUR EXTRA OPEN AGREE CONSC
DEL SR
.60
NEUR SR
.57
EXTRA SR
.77
OPEN SR
.65
AGREE SR
.68
CONS SR
DEL MR
.66
.68
NEUR MR
Correlations among latent traits, Completely
standardized solution
DELTA
NEUR
EXTRA
OPEN
.74
EXTRA MR
.80
OPEN MR
AGREE
.62
AGREE MR
.76
CONS MR
NEUR
0.49
EXTRA
-0.30
-0.35
OPEN
-0.1
-0.23
0.41
AGREE
-0.29
-0.31
0.21
0.21
CONSC
-0.33
-0.46
0.15
0.11
DEL FR
NEUR FR
EXTRA FR
OPEN FR
AGREE FR
0.25
CONS FR
.78
.75
.66
.72
.58
.59
.68
CONVERGENT-DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY: CROSSINFORMANT REPLICABILITY OF FIVE FACTORS +
DISINTEGRATION IN MTMM CFA
Correlated Traits Correlated Uniquenesses CFA model; Covariance matrix;
ML parameters estimation
Models
Six-factor model
(DOCEAN)
Five-factor
models:
a) D and N fused
2(df)
SRMR
CFI
RMSEA (90% CI)
D 2
Ddf
106.67(75)
0.034
0.99
0.030 [0.015-0.043]
336.04(80)
0.049
.94
0.083 [0.074-0.092] 229.37
5 .000
299.06(80)
0.065
.95
0.077 [0.068-0.077] 192.39
5 .000
388.64(80)
0.074
.93
0.091 [0.082-0.100] 281.97
5 .000
p
c) D and O fused
d) N and C fused
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.
DISINTEGRATION
EXTRAVERSION
OPENNESS
AGREEABLENESS
NEUROTICISM
E
-0.15
O
-0.17
-0.01
A
-0.3
0.01
0.2
N
0.21
-0.34
-0.23
-0.09
C
-0.1
-0.03
0.14
-0.01
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.
A POSSIBLE LIST OF CRITERIA, APART
FROM THE LEXICAL CRITERION
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)
DISINTEGRATION
STUDENTS’ SELF-REPORT. TARGET: GENERAL POPULATION
GEN. EXEC. IMPAIRMENT
PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION
MANIA
DEPRESSION
PARANOIA
SOCIAL ANHEDONIA
FLATTENED AFFECT
MAGICAL THINKING
SOMATIC DYSREGULATION
ENHANCED AWARENESS
ANXIETY
ANGRY HOSTILITY
DEPRESSION
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS
AGREEABLENESS
CONSCIENTIOUSNES
ACHIEVEMENT STRIVING
SELF-DISCIPLINE
DELIBERATION
OPENNESS
VALUES
TRUST
STRIAGHTFORWARDNESS
ALTRUISM
COMPLIANCE
MODESTY
TENDERMINDEDNESS
COMPETENCE
ORDER
DUTIFULNESS
EXTRAVERSION
FANTASY
AESTHETICS
FEELING
ACTIONS
IDEAS
NEUROTICISM
IMPULSIVITY
VULNERABILITY
WARMTH
GREGARIOUSNESS
ASSERTIVENESS
ACTIVITY
EXCITEMENT SEEKING
POSITIVE EMOTIONS
-
C
D
E
A
-.38
-.19
-.05
-.19
-.12
-.15
-.32
-.11
-.19
-.10
-.02
-.19
-.23
.54
.81
.53
.63
.67
.40
.44
.65
.83
.54
.39
.37
.40
-.19
-.13
.16
-.36
-.18
-.74
-.36
.15
-.11
.02
-.19
-.27
-.28
.06
-.06
-.35
.08
-.15
.19
-.09
-.05
-.04
-.05
.18
-.31
.21
O
.07
.11
.24
-.07
.00
.04
.03
.16
.08
.37
-.01
-.21
-.04
.25
.03
.19
.24
.13
.06
-.20
-.07
.02
.10
.70
.61
.63
N
VARCONGR
.97
.98
.98
.97
.94
.93
.85
.91
.94
.96
.99
.98
.97
-.23
-.31
-.38
.12
-.05
.32
.32
-.11
.29
.17
.35
-.06
-.11
.01
.01
.05
-.11
.05
.03
.78
.70
.22
.36
.37
.29
-.25
.05
-.04
-.22
-.56
-.50
-.45
-.13
.20
-.38
.01
-.05
-.03
.12
.20
.51
.55
.46
-.14
-.05
-.21
.05
.10
.98
.97
.83
.97
.92
.91
.99
.94
.06
-.06
.10
.21
.14
.14
-.19
-.03
.10
-.04
.10
.02
.59
.02
.14
.27
.22
-.04
-.12
.07
.07
.01
-.29
-.05
.42
.68
.66
.67
.01
.53
-.21
.12
.14
.35
-.24
-.03
.93
.90
.97
.96
.48
.94
.09
.08
.12
.37
.02
-.04
.13
.73
.56
.78
-.13
-.17
-.12
-.09
-.04
.05
.05
-.11
.08
-.06
.11
.51
.27
.57
.30
.04
.47
.11
-.07
.14
.06
.22
.49
.31
.66
.51
.45
-.08
.00
.09
.43
.19
.09
.22
-.10
-.18
.18
.14
.01
.10
-.02
-.18
-.02
-.07
-.25
.05
.04
-.21
.02
-.06
.80
.98
.95
.97
.96
.97
.95
.95
.95
.95
.78
.37
.53
-.01
-.21
.03
.09
.05
-.06
-.11
-.12
.36
.23
-.23
-.23
.11
.07
-.24
.95
.77
.95
Neuroticism
Anxiety
Angry Hostility
Depression
Self-Consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
Extraversion
Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement Seeking
Positive Emotions
Openness
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Agreeableness
Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tender-Mindedness
Conscientiousness
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement Striving
Self-Discipline
Deliberation
Disintegration
Gen. Exec. Impairment
Perceptual Distortion
Paranoia
Depression
Flattened Affect
Somatic Dysregulation
Enhanced Awareness
Magical Thinking
Mania
Social Anhedonia
Correlations / congruencies
N
E
O
A
C
.78/ .54
.61/ .51
.71/ .33
.64/.30
.48/.54
.64/.24
-.17/-.41 .08/ .01
-.14/ .02 -.09/-.07
-.24/-.39 .05/-.01
-.07/-.41 -.08/-.07
.09/ .13 .33/ .04
.18/ -.37 -.32/ .02
-.01/-.03
-.48/-.34
.02/ -.03
.16/ .08
-.35/ .06
-.02/ .02
-.05/ .02
.01/ -.05
-.30/-.09
-.04/ .25
.01/ .07
-.29/ .04
.79/ .36
.74/ .57
.30/ .59
.39/ .52
.42/ .63
.51/ .52
-.05/-.06
-.06/-.03
-.06/ .12
.14/-.01
.24/ .18
.39/ .19
.17/ .65 .06/ .04
-.06/ .33 -.09/-.16
-.44/-.13 .31/ .19
-.41/ .05 .32/ .31
-.37/ -.05 -.12/-.22
.06/ .32 -.08/-.10
.00/ .09
-.11/-.02
.09/-.03
.00/ .06
.05/ .15
.00/-.04
-.06/ .21 -.13/ .03 .72/ .54
.00/-.06 .01/-.12 .67/ .83
.22/ .25 .11/ .03 .74/ .45
-.27/-.06 .29/ .18 -.03/ .45
-.20/-.03 -.15/.14 .53/.63
-.12/-.01 -.01/.02 .44/.21
.05/-.03 -.14/-.28
.09/ .13 .04/-.04
.00/ .28 .14/ .07
-.16/-.11 -.15/-.14
-.04/-.11 .08/.09
.08/ .19 .00/-.18
.08/-.10
.18/ .13
-.06/-.01
.22/-.01
.16/-.01
-.03/-.29
-.12/-.21
.10/-.07
.02/ .07
-.03/-.37
.23/-.02
.17/ .08
.37/ .67
.53/ .44
.44/ .67
.77/ .44
.49/ .25
.55/ .52
-.03/-.07
.05/ .05
.28/ .20
-.04/ .01
-.02/ -.13
.09/ .14
-.05/ .02
-.09/ -.16
-.03/ -.08
.04/ .02
-.02/ -.03
.06/ .01
-.27/-.07 .03/ .22 .08/ -.03 -.01/ .12
.03/ .13 -.11/-.04 .02/ .13
.04/-.13
-.08/ .05 .06/ -.09 -.02/ .02 .08/ .17
.03/ .13 .01/ .30 .22/ .04 -.10/ .02
.10/-.08 .05/ .05 -.19/-.02 -.14/ .02
-.10/-.27 -.10/-.15 -.33/-.01
.42/-.03
.67/
.56/
.76/
.76/
.37/
.52/
.66
.66
.62
.70
.80
.63
-.02/-.11
.02/-.05
-.02/-.17
-.04/ .01
-.31/-.03
.04/ .02
.25/ .04
.06/-.11
.14/ .04
.31/ .06
-.24/-.13
.07/-.02
.03/ .00
-.05/ .05
.14/ .24
.03/-.07
-.22/-.32
-.03/-.08
.06/ .02
-.02/-.19
-.24/-.24
-.02/-.12
.01/ .05
.02/ .08
.05/ .01
-.03/-.02
.49/ .55
.82/ .89
.62/ .55
.50/ .49
.55/ .44
.84/ .73
.62/ .60
.73/ .63
.49/ .56
.39/ .22
.73/.76
.42/ .12
.16/-.45
.46/-.02
.23/-.47
.01/-.52
.38/-.32
-.09/ -.10
.01/ .05
-.04/ .07
-.25/-.29
-.26/-.04
.04/-.17
.04/ .05
.26/-.02
.26/ .40
-.70/-.43
.57.54
.13/-.02
.04/ .00
.14/ .01
-.22/ .03
-.23/-.09
.11/ .14
.01/-.06 -.01/-.04
.03/ .01
.00/-.04
-.06/-.03 -.09/-.38
-.08/ .00
.01/-.22
-.02/-.23 -.04/-.16
-.02/ .02
.02/-.01
.31/ .55 -.02/ .08
.00/ .25
.03/ .04
.25/ .07
-.21/ .12
.01/-.08
.03/-.42
3498.347
.73/.79
.62/.68
.14/ .06
.01/-.05
-.06/-.16
-.10/-.03
-.23/-.36
-.22/-.43
D
.94/.93
.06/.25
.05/.24
.11/.39
.04/.20
-.02/.00
.07/.20
.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 (SelfReport Measures)
Degrees of Freedom = 1120
Chi-Square = 3498.35 (p =
0.000)
RMSEA = 0.054 (0.052 ; 0.056)
CFI = 0.922
SRMR = 0.027
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GEOMIN
ROTATED FACTORS
N
Neuroticism
E
-.19
O
.01
A
-.04
C
-.18
D
.40
.24
.13
.21
-.18
.13
.13
-.05
.09
-.21
Extraversion
.13
Openness
.13
.41
Agreeableness
.12
.07
.29
Conscientiousness
-.05
.06
.17
.31
Disintegration
.33
-.19
-.08
-.29
Note. Upper triangle - university students
Lower triangle – general population
-.16
-.43
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
TRAITS
C
H
A
R
E
O
D
C
H
A
R
E
O
D
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
USA
SLOVAKIA GUATEMALA
KOREA
3,22
0,82
3,22
0,89
3,48
0,82
3,15
0,62
3,27
0,64
3,48
0,73
3,40
0,66
2,96
0,58
3,51
0,71
3,52
0,70
3,31
0,82
3,33
0,58
3,28
0,69
3,28
0,71
3,40
0,66
3,24
0,60
3,97
0,65
3,78
0,68
3,87
0,71
3,59
0,66
3,48
0,63
3,18
0,60
3,60
0,65
3,11
0,61
2,30
0,62
2,50
0,59
2,24
0,69
2,60
0,56
SERBIA
CHILE
MALAYSIA
CHINA
3,56
0,85
3,41
0,73
3,59
0,72
3,37
0,61
3,70
0,62
3,76
0,62
3,22
0,60
3,21
0,64
3,50
0,71
3,36
0,74
3,44
0,70
3,47
0,67
3,44
0,63
3,11
0,65
2,99
0,59
3,20
0,67
3,97
0,67
4,10
0,64
3,30
0,64
3,54
0,71
3,66
0,62
3,58
0,57
3,06
0,66
3,13
0,48
2,19
0,59
2,19
0,62
3,15
0,59
2,57
0,59
14,177
48,612
4,061
12,324
42,892
45,943
74,206
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
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 seven-factor solution (target matrix: pattern matrix of
PCs extracted on USA sample, promax rotated)
DISINTEGRATION
EXTRAVERSION
CROSS CROSS CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. CONGR.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
CONGR.
CROSS CONGR.
HONESTY
CROSS CONGR. CONGR.
OPENNESS
CONGR.
CROSS CONGR.
RESILIENCY
CONGR.
CROSS CONGR.
AGREEABLENESS
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
USA VS
GUATEMALA
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
0,21
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
CONG/
CROSSCONG
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
0,04
6,34
6,13
3,72
3,90
2,79
7,33
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
CROSS
CROSS CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. CONGR.
CROSS CONGR.
OPENNESS
A+H
RESILIENCY
CROSS CROSS CROSS CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. 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
CONGR.
EXTRAVERSION
CROSS CONGR. CONGR.
CROSS CONGR.
R+O
CONGR.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
CROSS CONGR.
CONGR.
CROSS CONGR.
A+H
CONGR.
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
CROSS CROSS CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. CONGR. CONGR.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
CROSS CONGR.
CONGR.
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
CONGR.
E+O
CROSS CONGR. CONGR.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
CROSS CONGR.
CONGR.
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
Seven-factor model
2(df)
SRMR RMSEA (90% CI)
6073(2032) .067
.085 (.082-.087)
D 2
pro(+) /
D df contra(-)
Six factor models:
a) D and H fused
7133.96(2080)
.080
.094 (.091 - .096) 1060,96
48 Saucier (-)
b) D and N fused
6518.30(2080)
.076
.088 (.085 - .090)
445,03
48 Widiger (-)
877,37
Ashton &
Lee (+)
Watson (+)
Widiger (-)
48 DeYoung (-)
c) D and O fused
6950.37(2080)
.090
.092 (.090 - .094)
d) A and H fused
6603.24(2080)
.076
.089 (.086 - .091)
530,24
Saucier,
Ashton &
48 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
A POSSIBLE LIST OF CRITERIA, APART
FROM THE LEXICAL CRITERION
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 higherorder 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 = ObsessiveCompulsive 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, DyLiacco & 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
2003, BBS
& Silverstein,
• 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 voltagedependent 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 DIRECTIONS
1. 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).
3. POSSIBLE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
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)
4. POSSIBLE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
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)