The five-factor model of personality and the structure of psychopathology in adolescence
- Autores: Paula Etkin
- Directores de la Tesis: Laura Mezquita Guillamón (dir. tes.), Generós Ortet i Fabregat (dir. tes.)
- Lectura: En la Universitat Jaume I ( España ) en 2021
- Idioma: español
- Tribunal Calificador de la Tesis: Angelina Pilatti (presid.), Helena Villa Martín (secret.), Adrian Bravo (voc.)
- Programa de doctorado: Programa de Doctorado en Psicología por la Universidad Jaume I de Castellón
- Materias:
- Enlaces
- Tesis en acceso abierto en: TDX
- Resumen
Mental health problems are one of the main causes of disability in children and adolescents, where symptoms of anxiety, depression, behavior problems, hyperactivity and attention problems are the most frequently reported. For this reason, many studies have addressed these constructs in recent decades in an attempt to shed light on the structure of psychopathology and its possible predictor variables, including early personality traits.
However, this field is constantly expanding and there are still unanswered questions, mainly in the non-adult population, about how these variables are related, the mechanisms that underlie these associations, and which theoretical models best explain the structure of psychopathology and its relation with personality traits.
Therefore, in the present work the following objectives were proposed: 1. To explore the structure of psychopathology in adolescents, the location of hyperactivity and attention problems in the models, the associations of personality traits with the factors resulting from the observed structure, and the convergence between a general factor of psychopathology (p) and a general factor of personality (GFP).
2. To study different etiological models (i.e., pathoplasty, complication/scar or continuity) that help us understand the relation between personality traits and the structure of psychopathology (internalization, externalization, hyperactivityattention problems and the p factor) in the adolescent population.
3. To examine the relation between personality traits and the Bifactor Model of Psychopathology from a developmental perspective. That is, to explore how different personality growth trajectories are related to the Bifactor Model of Psychopathology and different symptom scales in adolescents in a 3-year longitudinal study.
Consequently, three studies were carried out with adolescents, one cross-sectional and two longitudinal, over 3 years. The Evaluation System for Children and Adolescents (SENA) was used to measure psychopathological symptoms. The JS-NEO-S and the JS-NEO-A60 were employed to assess personality traits according to the Five-Factor Model (FFM: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness). In Study 1, confirmatory factor analyses were carried out by comparing different models that could account for the structure of the evaluated symptoms. Subsequently, regression analyses were performed to explore associations among the resulting factors, personality dimensions and the GFP. For Study 2, a cross-lagged pathway analysis was performed to observe the effects of different hypothesized association models, including three measurement occasions for neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and three waves of internalizing, externalizing and hyperactivity-attention problems, in addition to p. Finally, for Study 3, latent growth curve models were used to examine individual differences in personality trait trajectories and their links with different symptoms and psychopathological factors.
In Study 1, confirmatory factor analyses showed that the Bifactor Model of Psychopathology, which included p and specific internalizing, externalizing and hyperactivityattention problems factors, better fitted the data than other models. The main associations found in the regression analyses were: neuroticism and introversion with the internalizing factor; low agreeableness with the externalizing factor; low conscientiousness with hyperactivity and attention problems; high neuroticism, low conscientiousness and low agreeableness with the p factor. The GFP and p were closely related. The factorial structure of the FFM (in Study 2 and Study 3) and the bifactor structure of psychopathology (in Study 3) remained stable over time.
In addition, the models explored in Study 2 showed that there were bidirectional associations between personality factors (i.e., Big-Five traits and the GFP) and psychopathology as mostly continuity, pathoplasty and complication/scar effects were found among them. Finally, the results of Study 3 reflected a slightly decreasing trend for neuroticism and conscientiousness, and a slight increase in agreeableness. The starting point and change in personality did not correlate with one another, but emerged as independent predictors for the psychopathology factors and the 12 symptom scales included in the analyses. Likewise, individual differences in the starting point and change over time of personality traits predicted later psychopathology, which highlights neuroticism (emotional instability) as the main predictor of different types of mental health problems. According to our findings, the Bifactor Model seemed to adequately represent the structure of psychopathology in adolescence. This structure was supported by differential associations of personality traits with each factor. The found associations were observed both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. This reinforces the importance of considering these parameters in future studies, and taking them as risk or protective factors when developing prevention and treatment programs for mental health problems.
Together, the three studies showed close relations between personality traits and psychopathology. Regarding the general factors of the studied constructs, the GFP seemed to represent more adaptive tendencies, high emotional stability, social skills, and even emotional intelligence, while p can be understood as an indicator of vulnerability to different mental health problems, negative emotionality and high comorbidity, and would seem to be related to more unfavorable treatment prognoses. In fact, high scores for both factors can be considered to be extremes of the same spectrum.
