logo
    This paper reviewed relationship between adult attachment and psychopathology,mainly in two aspects:first,relationship between early psychopathological factors and the development of one's adult attachment;second,relationship between one's adult attachment and his/her current psychopathology.At last,we discussed the limits,and put forward suggestions for further studies.
    Citations (0)
    Recent initiatives emphasize the need to consider developmental and transdiagnostic contributions of temperamental variation to psychopathological expression. Triarchic neurobehavioral trait dimensions (boldness, meanness, disinhibition), which demonstrate compatibility with established temperament models and can be quantified using items from different existing inventories, are well-suited to pursuing these goals. We undertook to develop item-based scales for indexing these traits in 285 children (ages 5-10) tested in the Child Mind Institute's Healthy Brain Network (HBN) study, and evaluated their psychometric properties in two separate samples of similar-aged children: 519 others from the HBN study and 261 for whom parental-informant ratings were obtained through MTurk. Associations with psychopathology measures provided evidence for a) transdiagnostic utility of the triarchic scales, b) (reversed) boldness as the strongest predictor of internalizing problems, c) meanness as related to both internalizing and externalizing problems, d) disinhibition as the strongest predictor of externalizing problems, and e)a moderating effect of meanness level on disinhibition's relationship with externalizing problems. This research demonstrates that the triarchic traits can be effectively represented in young children and show expected relations with clinical outcome measures. As such, this work provides a foundation for developmental research clarifying the role that core neurobehavioral dispositions play in mental health.
    Disinhibition
    Boldness
    Trait
    When subjects attempt to fake psychopathology on the MMPI, scores on subtle subscales tend to be lower than those of nonfaking subjects. Our study hypothesized that this paradox comes about because the subtle subscales have no predictive validity, but their face validity for psychopathology is the opposite of the keyed direction for psychopathology. Subjects who attempt to fake psychopathology do so on the basis of item content and thus achieve lower rather than higher scores. Three groups of 80 undergraduates took the MMPI under regular, faking-good, or faking-bad instructions. As expected, faking-bad subjects scored significantly lower than regular subjects on the 100 most subtle items, and this was due to their responses to those. 73 of the items whose face validity was misleading. The results are consistent with other work showing valid uses of subtle items in detecting deception.
    Malingering
    Personality test
    Face validity
    Citations (24)