4.3 Article

Do sex differences in emotionality mediate sex differences in traits of psychosis-proneness?

期刊

COGNITION & EMOTION
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 747-758

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02699930302284

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was to determine if sex differences in emotionality might account for sex differences in distinct traits of proneness to psychosis (or schizotypy). Females report higher levels of positive schizotypy (e.g., magical thinking) than males, along with a tendency toward greater schizotypal disorganisation, whereas males report higher levels of negative schizotypal traits, such as social anxiety (Jackson Claridge, 1991; Raine, 1992). Given the affect-oriented nature of negative schizotypal traits, we tested the hypothesis that higher levels of negative schizotypy among males would be accounted for by more general sex differences in emotionality; that is, by less frequent and less intense emotional experiences. A total of 81 student participants were administered the Cognitive-Perceptual Deficits, the Disorganisation, and the Interpersonal Deficits components of Raine's (1991) Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ), indexing respectively, positive schizotypy, schizotypal disorganisation, and negative schizotypy. Frequency of emotional experience was assessed using the Emotionality subscale (Buss & Plomin, 1984) and intensity, the Affect Intensity Measure (Larsen & Diener, 1987). As predicted, males scored significantly higher than females on the SPQ Interpersonal Deficits component but no sex differences emerged for the other two components. Males reported significantly less intense, although not less frequent, experiences than females. A reduced intensity of positive emotions in particular was found to mediate the sex difference in negative schizotypy. Our results suggest that a less intense experience of positive affect might contribute to males' propensity to develop negative symptoms should a schizophrenic breakdown occur.

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

4.3
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