On the relationships between DSM-5 dysfunctional personality traits and social cognition deficits: A study in a sample of consecutively admitted Italian psychotherapy patients

A Multi-Method Study of Interpersonal Complementarity and Mentalization

Research finds cross-sectional relationships between mentalizing impairments and maladaptive personality traits. The current study connects mentalizing impairments to dynamic interpersonal processes using a multi-method design. A sample of 218 participants completed the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition (MASC; Dziobek et al., 2006) to assess mentalizing ability. Subsequently, participants rated their agentic and communal behavior and their perception of interaction partners' agentic and communal behavior over 21-days. Mentalizing ability moderated the within-person relationship between behavior and perception for both agency and communion. Worse performance on the MASC was associated with weaker interpersonal complementarity, suggesting that mentalizing impairments lead to deviations from expected patterns of behavior and perception across interpersonal situations. These findings confirm the assumption of Contemporary Integrative Interpersonal Theory that mentalization impairments can disrupt normative interpersonal processes (Cain et al., 2024; Pincus & Hopwood, 2012).

Profiles of theory of mind impairments and personality in clinical and community samples: integrating the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

Introduction

Deficits in theory of mind (ToM)-the ability to infer the mental states of others-have been linked to antagonistic traits in community samples. ToM deficits have also been identified in people with personality disorders (PD), although with conflicting evidence, partly due to the use of categorical diagnoses. The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) provides an opportunity for a more precise understanding of the interplay between ToM abilities and personality pathology. Therefore, the study aims to determine whether and how individuals with diverse ToM profiles differ regarding personality impairment (AMPD Criterion A) and pathological facets (AMPD Criterion B).

Method

Adults with PD (n = 39) and from the community (n = 42) completed tests assessing ToM skills and self-reported questionnaires assessing AMPD Criteria A and B. Hierarchical agglomerative and TwoStep cluster analyses were consecutively computed using scores and subscores from ToM tests as clustering variables. Multivariate analyses of variance were subsequently performed to compare the clusters on both AMPD Criteria. Five clinically and conceptually meaningful clusters were found. The most notable differences across clusters were observed for Intimacy and Empathy dysfunctions (Criterion A), as well as for the Deceitfulness, Callousness, and Hostility facets from the Antagonism domain and the Restricted affectivity facet from the Detachment domain (Criterion B).

Discussion

The results support the association between antagonistic personality facets and ToM deficits. However, clusters showing impairments in ToM abilities did not necessarily exhibit high levels of personality dysfunction or pathological facets, emphasizing that both constructs are not isomorphic. Nevertheless, specific profiles can help refine existing interventions to make them more sensitive and specific to the nature of ToM dysfunctions while considering personality functioning and facets.

Impairments in Cognitive and Emotional Empathy as Markers of General versus Specific Personality Pathology

INTRODUCTION

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 5th edition (DSM-5) considers impairments in empathy a basic feature of personality disorders (PDs). In contrast, the AMPD pathological personality trait model and the categorical DSM-5 Section II PD model associate deficits in empathy to specific forms of personality pathology. The present study investigated to what extent impairments in cognitive and emotional empathy are markers of general versus specific personality pathology.

METHODS

In a clinical sample (n = 119), the Multifaceted Empathy Test was used to assess cognitive empathy, emotional empathy for positive emotions, and emotional empathy for negative emotions. Personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and DSM-5 Section II PDs were assessed via interviews and self-reports. Confirmatory factor analyses were applied to associate the three empathy facets with the three personality pathology approaches, each modeled with general personality pathology (common factor) and specific personality pathology (residuals of indicators).

RESULTS

Impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions were significantly correlated with general personality pathology. All three empathy facets were also correlated to specific personality pathology when controlling for general personality pathology, respectively. Impairments in cognitive empathy were incrementally associated with identity and empathy (personality functioning), psychoticism (pathological personality traits), and paranoid and dependent PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs). Deficits in emotional empathy for positive emotions were incrementally associated with self-direction and intimacy (personality functioning) and detachment (pathological personality traits). Impairments in emotional empathy for negative emotions were incrementally associated with antagonism (pathological personality traits) and antisocial PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions, but not for negative emotions, are markers of general personality pathology, while deficits in the three empathy facets are also markers for specific personality pathology.

Development and Validation of the Certainty About Mental States Questionnaire (CAMSQ): A Self-Report Measure of Mentalizing Oneself and Others

The Certainty About Mental States Questionnaire (CAMSQ) is a self-report measure of the perceived capacity to understand mental states of the self and others (i.e., mentalizing). In two studies (total N = 1828), we developed the CAMSQ in both English and German as a two-dimensional measure of Self- and Other-Certainty, investigated associations with other measures of mentalizing, and explored relationships to personality functioning and mental health. The CAMSQ performed well in terms of convergent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement invariance across the United States and Germany. The present research indicates that the CAMSQ assesses maladaptive forms of having too little or too much certainty about mental states (consistent with hypomentalizing and hypermentalizing). A psychologically adaptive profile of perceived mentalizing capacity appears to be characterized by high Self-Certainty that exceeds Other-Certainty, suggesting that imbalances between Self-Certainty and Other-Certainty (Other-Self-Discrepancy) play an important role within personality pathology.

Reliability and validity of the Hungarian version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5)

Objectives and methods

In order to assess the internal consistency, fit indexes, test-retest reliability, and validity of the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) and its associations with age, gender, and education, 471 non-clinical (69,6% female; mean age: 37,63) and 314 clinical participants (69,7% female, mean age: 37,41) were administered the Hungarian translation of the PID-5, as well as the SCL-90-R and the SCID-II Personality Questionnaire.

Results

We found that; (a) temporal consistency of the Hungarian PID-5 was confirmed by one-month test-retest reliability analysis, (b) validity of the PID-5 instrument is acceptable in the clinical and the non-clinical sample as well, based on significant correlations with SCID-II and SCL-90-R, (c) PID-5 facets’ and domains’ associations with gender, age, and level of education are in accordance with previous findings.

Conclusion

These findings support that the Hungarian PID-5 is a reliable and valid instrument for both clinical and non-clinical populations.

Hypermentalizing and Borderline Personality Disorder: A Meta-Analytic Review

OBJECTIVE

A hypermentalizing impairment, or tendency to overattribute mental states to others, has been identified among individuals with borderline personality disorder. However, associations between hypermentalizing and other disorders call into question the specificity of this impairment to borderline personality disorder. This study aimed to evaluate the relative strength of the association between hypermentalizing and borderline personality disorder compared with other disorders and to assess the impact of moderators on the relationship between hypermentalizing and psychopathology.

METHODS

The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 36 studies (N=4,188 people) to investigate the relative strength of the association between hypermentalizing and borderline personality disorder, compared with other disorders, and to assess the impact of moderators on this relationship. The Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition, an ecologically valid experimental instrument, was used to measure hypermentalizing.

RESULTS

Results indicated support for an association between psychopathology and hypermentalizing (r=0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.17 to 0.31), but the association was not significantly stronger for borderline personality disorder (r=0.26, 95% CI=0.12 to 0.39) than for other disorders (r=0.24, 95% CI=0.14 to 0.33). Neither age nor gender significantly moderated the association between psychopathology and hypermentalizing.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypermentalizing may be related to psychopathology in general rather than borderline personality disorder in particular. The findings are discussed in view of the possibility that features of borderline personality disorder associated with other psychopathology may explain the overall association between psychopathology and hypermentalizing. Clinical implications for mentalization-based treatment and concerns that the measurement used for hypermentalization may be too narrow and not representative of variations in functioning across cultures and race-ethnicity also are discussed.

Attachment, Mentalization, and Criterion B of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD)

BACKGROUND

The mentalization theory posits that interpersonal difficulties and maladaptive personality traits develop from an insecure attachment pattern with one's caregiver and corresponding deficits in mentalizing-the ability to understand others' and one's own mental states. Mentalizing deficits have been theorized as the basis for all psychopathology, with the paradigmatic case being Borderline Personality Disorder. Nevertheless, developments in the personality field indicate personality pathology is best represented dimensionally, and such a proposal was outlined by the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Despite evidence linking the mentalization theory to personality disorders, however, it has yet to be applied to Criterion B of the AMPD. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the moderating role of mentalizing in the relation between attachment and Criterion B maladaptive trait function in a sample of undergraduates. We hypothesized a model in which: (1) attachment insecurity would be positively associated with the Negative Affectivity, Antagonism, and Disinhibition personality domains; (2) mentalizing ability would be negatively associated with these domains; and, (3) there would be an interaction effect between attachment and mentalizing when predicting these same domains.

METHODS

Personality domains were measured dimensionally via the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-SF), while the dependence and avoidance domains of attachment were assessed via the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). Mentalizing ability was tapped by the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition (MASC). The AMPD personality domains and trait facets were examined as dependent variables; attachment dependence, attachment avoidance, and overall mentalizing ability were entered as independent variables; and interaction terms between mentalizing and each attachment dimension were used to test moderation via MANCOVAs.

RESULTS

Consistent with expectations, results indicated overall mentalizing moderated the relation between attachment avoidance and Negative Affectivity. Posthoc analyses revealed similar effects on the relations between attachment avoidance and the Emotional Lability, Hostility, and Perseveration trait facets; however, there were no significant moderation findings related to attachment dependence.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the mentalization theory's application to Criterion B of the AMPD, particularly in relation to the links between Negative Affectivity and borderline-related traits, and encourage future research of dimensional maladaptive personality. They further bolster support for understanding maladaptive personality as a dimensional construct.

Linking RDoC and HiTOP: A new interface for advancing psychiatric nosology and neuroscience

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) and the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) represent major dimensional frameworks proposing two alternative approaches to accelerate progress in the way psychopathology is studied, classified, and treated. RDoC is a research framework rooted in neuroscience aiming to further the understanding of transdiagnostic biobehavioral systems underlying psychopathology and ultimately inform future classifications. HiTOP is a dimensional classification system, derived from the observed covariation among symptoms of psychopathology and maladaptive traits, which seeks to provide more informative research and treatment targets (i.e., dimensional constructs and clinical assessments) than traditional diagnostic categories. This article argues that the complementary strengths of RDoC and HiTOP can be leveraged in order to achieve their respective goals. RDoC's biobehavioral framework may help elucidate the underpinnings of the clinical dimensions included in HiTOP, whereas HiTOP may provide psychometrically robust clinical targets for RDoC-informed research. We present a comprehensive mapping between dimensions included in RDoC (constructs and subconstructs) and HiTOP (spectra and subfactors) based on narrative review of the empirical literature. The resulting RDoC-HiTOP interface sheds light on the biobehavioral correlates of clinical dimensions and provides a broad set of dimensional clinical targets for etiological and neuroscientific research. We conclude with future directions and practical recommendations for using this interface to advance clinical neuroscience and psychiatric nosology. Ultimately, we envision that this RDoC-HiTOP interface has the potential to inform the development of a unified, dimensional, and biobehaviorally-grounded psychiatric nosology.

Investigating the neural substrates of Antagonistic Externalizing and social-cognitive Theory of Mind: an fMRI examination of functional activity and synchrony

Recently developed quantitative models of psychopathology (i.e., Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology) identify an Antagonistic Externalizing spectrum that captures the psychological disposition toward criminal and antisocial behavior. The purpose of the present study was to examine relations between Antagonistic psychopathology (and associated Five-Factor model Antagonism/Agreeableness) and neural functioning related to social-cognitive Theory of Mind using a large sample (N = 973) collected as part of the Human Connectome Project (Van Essen et al., 2013a). No meaningful relations between Antagonism/Antagonistic Externalizing and Theory of Mind-related neural activity or synchrony were observed (p < .005). We conclude by outlining methodological considerations (e.g., validity of social cognition task and low test-retest reliability of functional biomarkers) that may account for these null results, and present recommendations for future research.

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

Evaluation of DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in a Brazilian sample of psychiatric inpatients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to test if the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is an adequate instrument to evaluate psychiatric inpatients' pathological personality traits.

METHODS

Inpatients (n = 130; mean age: 38.5 years; 62.3% female; 63.9% single) answered the PID-5 after clinical improvement of their psychiatric symptoms. The mean scores of the DSM-5 personality domains, facets and profiles, and ICD-11 domain traits were compared with the mean scores of a Brazilian normative sample (n = 656). We investigated the diagnostic performance of the scales to identify individuals with and without psychopathology.

RESULTS

The final sample included mainly diagnoses of mood disorders. Except for Antagonism and Disinhibition, all DSM-5 personality domains and most facets as well as almost all DSM-5 personality disorder profiles (except Narcissist) and ICD-11 trait domains (except Detachment and Dissociality) of the inpatients presented high differences compared with the normative sample. In general, the PID-5 scales presented a high negative predictive value and a low positive predictive value to identify individuals with severe psychopathology.

DISCUSSION

This study found high scores of pathological personality traits in a sample of Brazilian psychiatric inpatients. The PID-5 may be a promising instrument to measure pathological personality traits among psychiatric inpatients. Methodological and sample size limitations may have influenced the results. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.