4.5 Article

DSM-5 personality traits and cognitive risks for depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110041

关键词

Personality pathology; Alternative Model of Personality Disorder; Cognitive vulnerabilities; Transdiagnostic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the relationship between personality pathology and cognitive risk variables associated with depression, anxiety, and obsessions/compulsions among 275 college students. Findings suggest a core transdiagnostic factor underlies several cognitive risk variables and is linked to pathological personality domains and facets of negative affectivity and detachment. The delineation of specific patterns between trait dimensions and cognitive processes partially explains the observed comorbidity among distinct psychopathological syndromes.
Given the strong comorbidity between personality and clinical disorders, an integrative model of psychopathology that delineate common and distinct etiologic mechanism is warranted. The relations between personality pathology and cognitive risk variables associated with depression, anxiety, and obsessions/compulsions were examined among college students (N = 275). Self- and informant-reports on the participants' tendencies on maladaptive personality traits were obtained. A core transdiagnostic factor underlie several cognitive risk variables (e.g., negative cognitive style, dysfunctional attitudes, intolerance of uncertainty, obsessive beliefs). This core factor and the constituent cognitive risks were linked to the pathological personality domains and facets of negative affectivity and detachment (as operationalized in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder). Findings were largely consistent across measurement sources. The delineation of specific patterns between trait dimensions and cognitive processes is useful in partially explaining the observed comorbidity among presumably distinct psychopathological syndromes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据