Search

Abstract: The Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales is a self-report measure that assesses neurobiologically defined, primary emotional system activation in a clinically feasible way. The current study introduces the Dutch translation of the Brief Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (BANPS) and investigates its relation with lexical–statistical Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality traits. A Flemish community sample of 339 participants (76.7% female, 23.3% male, 18–65 years) completed the BANPS, of which 255 (73.7% female, 26.3% male) also completed the NEO-PI-3. Confirmatory factor analysis corroborated the BANPS six-factor structure. Alpha coefficients were indicative of adequate subscale internal consistencies. Congruence coefficients with the original factor solution were high. Hierarchical regression analyses related primary emotional systems to lexical–statistical personality traits. The Dutch version of the BANPS appears to be a reliable scale exhibiting meaningful relations to the FFM.

To advance our understanding of adolescents’ identity formation and how it may play into their psychological functioning, this study investigated developmental trajectory classes of adaptive and disturbed dimensions of identity formation, and whether adolescents belonging to different trajectory classes develop differently on self-esteem, resilience, symptoms of depression, and borderline personality disorder (BPD) features. Three-wave longitudinal data from 2,123 Flemish adolescents was used (54.2% girls; Mage = 14.64, range = 12–18 at T1). Results pointed to four trajectory classes of identity formation: adaptive identity, identity progression, identity regression, and diffused identity. The adaptive identity class presented with stable high levels of self-esteem and resilience, and stable low levels of symptoms of depression and BPD, whereas opposite results were obtained for the diffused identity class. The identity progression class reported an increase in self-esteem and resilience as well as a decrease in symptoms of depression and BPD, whereas opposite results were obtained for the identity regression class. These results emphasize that adaptive and disturbed dimensions of identity formation are closely related to markers of well-being and psychopathology among adolescents, and could help identify adolescents with an increased risk for negative psychological functioning or increased opportunity for positive psychological functioning.

BackgroundBoth the ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (DSM-5 AMPD) conceptualize personality pathology in a dimensional way, but differ in the way they carve up their respective pathological personality domains. Recently, a combination of ICD-11 and DSM-5 AMPD descriptive pathological personality traits, the Modified Personality Inventory for DSM-5—Brief Form Plus (PID5BF + M), was developed.The current studyWe investigated the utility of the additional ANANKASTIA domain (not represented in the DSM-5 AMPD) as well as of the additional PSYCHOTICISM domain (not represented in the ICD-11 model) in the identification of meaningful pathological personality domain clusters based on the PID5BF + M. Next to the classical 2- and 3-cluster solutions, we examined whether the presence of the additional ANANKASTIA domain would also gave rise to a meaningful 4-cluster solution. We then validated these clusters by investigating differences between them in mean DSM-5 Section II cluster A, B, and C personality disorder scores. Finally, we investigated whether cluster membership was able to differentiate between levels of identity functioning, a key feature of personality disorder severity in both the ICD-11 model and the DSM-5 AMPD.Materials and methodsWe used a Flemish community sample of 242 participants, and applied k-means cluster analyses in a two-step manner on PID5BF + M domains to investigate 2-, 3-, and 4-cluster solutions. We used MANOVAs to examine differences between clusters in PID5BF + M domains, DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II Assessment of Personality disorders (ADP-IV) cluster A, B, and C scores, and Self-Concept and Identity Measure (SCIM) scores.ResultsCluster analyses on PID5BF + M pathological personality domains (1) revealed meaningful 2-, 3-, and 4-cluster solutions, with the 4-cluster solution explaining the most variance in the clustering variables, (2) allowed to identify a classical Overcontrolled cluster which DSM-5 AMPD PID-5 does not, and (3) demonstrated the utility of representing ANANKASTIA and DISINHIBITON as separate pathological personality domains. PID5BF + M clusters (5) were informative of DSM-5 Section II cluster A, B, and C personality disorder scores and (6) showed different levels of clinical-developmental Identity functioning.ConclusionCurrent results demonstrate the utility of a combined ICD-11/DSM-5 AMPD view from a person-centered perspective.