2016
DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000254
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Disintegration as an Additional Trait in the Psychobiological Model of Personality

Abstract: Abstract. This meta-analytic study investigates the relations between Disintegration-like phenomena (i.e., various aspects of symptomatology with the prefix “schizo-,” both at the clinical and the subclinical level) and the traits of the Psychobiological Model of Personality (PBMP). The empirically based benchmark for assuming the distinctness of the trait Disintegration was .30. The sample included 26 manuscripts with 30 studies and 424 effect sizes. By computing inverse sampling variance weighted mean correl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, it was shown in three meta-analyses Kneževi c et al, 2016Kneževi c et al, , 2019Lazarevi c et al, 2016) that the measures capturing various aspects of PLE&B-other than DELTA-emit information to the substantial extent independent from the measures of the contemporary influential personality models such as FFM, Eysenck's PEN, and Cloninger's biosocial model. Consequently, complementing current personality models with almost any of these measures of psychosis proneness will to a degree incrementally contribute to the predictive power of personality regarding a wide spectrum of the relevant everyday mal(adaptive) behaviors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recently, it was shown in three meta-analyses Kneževi c et al, 2016Kneževi c et al, , 2019Lazarevi c et al, 2016) that the measures capturing various aspects of PLE&B-other than DELTA-emit information to the substantial extent independent from the measures of the contemporary influential personality models such as FFM, Eysenck's PEN, and Cloninger's biosocial model. Consequently, complementing current personality models with almost any of these measures of psychosis proneness will to a degree incrementally contribute to the predictive power of personality regarding a wide spectrum of the relevant everyday mal(adaptive) behaviors.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some prominent advocates of the lexical approach to personality claim that “evidence to date indicates that the replicability of the six‐factor structure (roughly, Big Five + Honesty) across languages probably exceeds that for the Big Five” (Saucier, 2008, p. 41). However, there is growing evidence that the proneness to psychotic‐like experiences is represented neither in the HEXACO (e g., Ashton & Lee, 2012, 2019) nor the other most influential contemporary personality models, such as Big Five (Ashton & Lee, 2019; Knežević et al, 2016, 2017; Watson et al, 2008), Eysenck's PEN model (Knežević et al, 2019), or Cloninger's personality model (Lazarević et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…traits like sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty [Ashton et al, 2014]), and extraversion (i.e. acting and being extraverted [McCabe & Fleeson, 2012]) and negatively related to disintegration (i.e., a proneness to psychosis [Lazarević et al, 2016]) (Lukic & Zivanovic, 2021). Considering the negative associations between HEXACO (i.e., personality characteristics defined as Honesty-humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Consciousness, Openness to experiences) and aggression, this finding is consistent with the expectations (Knight et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to other issues, hotspot issues are thematically heterogeneous and allow for inclusion of all topics that are currently fiercely debated in psychology. The golden thread through potential contributions is methodological in nature: Hotspot issues include state-of-the-art meta-analyses (e.g., Chodura, Kuhn, & Holling, 2015;Lazarević et al, 2016;Rennung & Göritz, 2016, for recent examples), systematic reviews (e.g., Giroux, Coburn, Harley, Connolly, & Bernstein, 2016), and also methodological contributions on research synthesis approaches (e.g., Kühberger, Scherndl, Ludwig, & Simon, 2016). One hotspot issue has appeared so far (Erdfelder & Bošnjak, 2016), and we plan to continue this format regularly once per year, for the next time in issue 1 of volume 226 (2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%