Personality Dimensions as Common and Broadband-Specific Features for Internalizing and Externalizing Disorders

Abstract

Several researchers have suggested that the nature of the covariation between internalizing and externalizing disorders may be understood better by examining the associations between temperament or personality and these disorders. The present study examined neuroticism as a potential common feature underlying both internalizing and externalizing disorders and novelty seeking as a potential broad-band specific feature influencing externalizing disorders alone. Participants were 12- to 18-year-old twin pairs (635 monozygotic twin pairs and 691 dizygotic twin pairs; 48% male and 52% female) recruited from the Colorado Center for Antisocial Drug Dependence. Genetic and nonshared environmental influences shared in common with neuroticism influenced the covariation among distinct internalizing disorders, the covariation among distinct externalizing disorders, and the covariation between internalizing and externalizing disorders. Genetic influences shared in common with novelty seeking influenced the covariation among externalizing disorders and the covariation between major depressive disorder and externalizing disorders, but not the covariation among internalizing disorders or between anxiety disorders and externalizing disorders. Also, after accounting for genetic and environmental influences shared in common with neuroticism and novelty seeking, there were no significant common genetic or environmental influences among the disorders examined, suggesting that the covariance among the disorders is sufficiently explained by neuroticism and novelty seeking. We conclude that neuroticism is a heritable common feature of both internalizing disorders and externalizing disorders, and that novelty seeking is a heritable broadband specific factor that distinguishes anxiety disorders from externalizing disorders. Keywords: internalizing, externalizing, neuroticism, novelty-seeking, genetics, environment

Testing Models of Psychopathology in Preschool-aged Children Using a Structured Interview-based Assessment

“…Rather, the common factor is likely to reflect some systematic variability in behavior. Recently, conceptual work has argued (Clark 2005), and empirical work (Hink et al 2013; Kotov et al 2010) has found, that neuroticism has strong and consistent associations with all common mental disorders, suggesting that the common factor could reflect neuroticism. In preschool-aged children, this common factor may manifest as negative emotionality (NE), which may be less influenced by cognitive factors implicated in neuroticism.…”

“…This additional step enhances our understanding of the latent structure of psychopathology by describing the nature of the underlying pathological processes. Temperament has garnered much support as a basis for understanding the structure of psychopathology, as different temperament dimensions have been consistently linked to the internalizing and externalizing spectra (e.g., Clark 2005; Hink et al 2013). However, these associations have rarely been examined in studies of the latent structure of youth psychopathology and, when they have been examined, have often relied on the same informant for both psychopathology and temperament.…”

An examination of the developmental propensity model of conduct problems.

“…High negative emotionality also interferes with positive social relationships and socialization of behavior (Waldman et al, 2011). Many researchers have found a positive association between negative emotionality and conduct problems (e.g., Gjone & Stevenson, 1997; Hink et al, 2013), although others have not (e.g., Furnham & Thompson, 1991; John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994). …”

The Brave New World of Personality Disorder-Trait Specified: Effects of Additional Definitions on Coverage, Prevalence, and Comorbidity

“…For example, the personality trait of neuroticism has been shown not only to account for comorbidity between anxiety and depressive disorders (Middeldorp, Cath, Van Dyck, & Boomsma, 2005) but, more generally, to underlie comorbidity of these disorders with PD (e.g., Hink et al, 2013; Jylhä, Melartin, & Isometsä, 2009). In contrast to approaches that rely on categorical diagnoses, a dimensional classification system would allow the complexity of personality pathology that is evidenced by high comorbidity rates to be captured fully and represented with greater clarity and specificity, thus furthering our understanding of a wide range of psychopathology.…”