Facet-Level Personality Relations of the Symptom Dimensions of the Tripartite Model
- 24 Downloads
The tripartite model (Clark and Watson, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3), 316–336 1991) was developed to explain both the strong comorbidity and the distinction between anxiety and depression. The model includes a shared general distress factor that is most strongly associated with Neuroticism/Negative Emotionality (N/NE); a unique depression factor, anhedonia, which is most strongly associated with low Positive Emotionality/Extraversion; and anxious arousal, a unique anxiety factor that subsequent research has shown to be most strongly related to panic/agoraphobia among the anxiety disorders (e.g., Mineka et al. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 377–412 1998) and to have the weakest link to personality. The present study extends past work by demonstrating that narrower facets of personality domains show nuanced relations that are masked when only the broader domains are examined. Specifically, we investigated facet-level relations of the tripartite model’s symptom dimensions using three hierarchical personality measures (BFI-2, NEO-PI-3, and FI-FFM) and data from three separate samples (Ns = 353–451). In one sample, the tripartite-model dimensions were assessed twice across a 9.5-month interval. At the domain level, N/NE, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness were the strongest predictors of these factors. At the facet level, general distress and anhedonia were most strongly related to N/NE’s Depression facet; anhedonia also was substantially linked to the low Energy/Positive Temperament component of Extraversion. Finally, anxious arousal was best predicted by the Somatic Complaints facet of N/NE. This pattern of results was highly stable across measures, samples, and time points. Theoretical implications of the findings are discussed, including connecting these findings to the dimensional Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology framework.
KeywordsPersonality facets Depression Anxiety Tripartite model
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Shereen Khoo, Kasey Stanton, Lee Anna Clark, and David Watson declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Allott, K., Chanen, A., & Yuen, H. P. (2006). Attrition bias in longitudinal research involving adolescent psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(12), 958–961. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000243761.52104.91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bienvenu, O. J., Samuels, J. F., Costa, P. T., Reti, I. M., Eaton, W. W., & Nestadt, G. (2004). Anxiety and depressive disorders and the five-factor model of personality: A higher- and lower-order personality trait investigation in a community sample. Depression and Anxiety, 20(2), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Structural relationships among dimensions of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders and dimensions of negative affect, positive affect, and autonomic arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.107.2.179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Casillas, A., & Clark, L. A. (2000). The mini mood and anxiety symptom questionnaire (mini-MASQ). In Poster presented at the 72 ndannual meeting of the Midwestern psychological association. Chicago: IL.Google Scholar
- Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Reynolds, S. (1995). Diagnosis and classification of psychopathology: Challenges to the current system and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 121–153. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.46.020195.001005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Winter, J. C. F., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2016). Comparing the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: A tutorial using simulations and empirical data. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000079.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan personality inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.Google Scholar
- Joiner Jr., T. E., Catanzaro, S. J., & Laurent, J. (1996). Tripartite structure of positive and negative affect, depression, and anxiety in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kotelnikova, Y., Weaver, C. A., & Clark, L. A. (in press). The joint structure of maladaptive personality traits and psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality. Google Scholar
- Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., Brown, T. A., Carpenter, W. T., Caspi, A., Clark, L. A., Eaton, N. R., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Goldberg, D., Hasin, D., Hyman, S. E., Ivanova, M. Y., Lynam, D. R., Markon, K., Miller, J. D., Moffitt, T. E., Morey, L. C., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Ormel, J., Patrick, C. J., Regier, D. A., Rescorla, L., Ruggero, C. J., Samuel, D. B., Sellbom, M., Simms, L. J., Skodol, A. E., Slade, T., South, S. C., Tackett, J. L., Waldman, I. D., Waszczuk, M. A., Widiger, T. A., Wright, A. G. C., & Zimmerman, M. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2010). NEO inventories for the NEO personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO five-factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO personality inventory- revised (NEO-PI-R): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Naragon-Gainey, K., Prenoveau, J. M., Brown, T. A., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2016). A comparison and integration of structural models of depression and anxiety in a clinical sample: Support for and validation of the tri-level model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(7), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Stanton, K., Rozek, D. C., Stasik-O’Brien, S. M., Ellickson-Larew, S., & Watson, D. (2016a). A transdiagnostic approach to examining the incremental predictive power of emotion regulation and basic personality dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(7), 960–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Subica, A. M., Allen, J. G., Frueh, B. C., Elhai, J. D., & Fowler, J. C. (2016). Disentangling depression and anxiety in relation to neuroticism, extraversion, suicide, and self-harm among adult psychiatric inpatients with serious mental illness. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12098.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Strauss, M. E., & McCormick, R. A. (1995). Testing a tripartite model: II. Exploring the symptom structure of anxiety and depression in student, adult, and patient samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.104.1.15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Watson, D., O’Hara, M. W., Naragon-Gainey, K., Koffel, E., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., & Ruggero, C. J. (2012). Development and validation of new anxiety and bipolar symptom scales for an expanded version of the IDAS (the IDAS-II). Assessment, 19, 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112449857.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar