Abstract
Background Past studies associating personality with psychosis have been limited by small nonclinical samples and a focus on general symptom burden. This study uses a large clinical sample to examine personality’s relationship with psychosis-specific features and compare personality dimensions across clinically and neurobiologically defined categories of psychoses.
Methods A total of 1352 participants with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar with psychosis, as well as 623 healthy controls (HC), drawn from the Bipolar-Schizophrenia Network for Intermediate Phenotypes (BSNIP-2) study, were included. Three biomarker-derived biotypes were used to separately categorize the probands. Mean personality factors (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) were compared between HC and proband subgroups using independent sample t-tests. A robust linear regression was utilized to determine personality differences across biotypes and diagnostic subgroups. Associations between personality factors and cognition were determined through Pearson’s correlation. A canonical correlation was run between the personality factors and general functioning, positive symptoms, and negative symptoms to delineate the relationship between personality and clinical outcomes of psychosis.
Results There were significant personality differences between the proband and HC groups across all five personality factors. Overall, the probands had higher neuroticism and lower extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Openness showed the greatest difference across the diagnostic subgroups and biotypes, and greatest correlation with cognition. Openness, agreeableness, and extraversion had the strongest associations with symptom severity.
Conclusions Individuals with psychosis have different personality profiles compared to HC. In particular, openness may be relevant in distinguishing psychosis-specific phenotypes and experiences, and associated with biological underpinnings of psychosis, including cognition. Further studies should identify potential causal factors and mediators of this relationship.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This manuscript was supported by funding and data acquired from United States Public Health Service, National Institute of Health grants MH103368, MH077851, MH078113, and MH077945.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each local site. After complete description of the study to the volunteers, written informed consent was obtained. The sites IRB include: Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas; the Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; the Institute of Living, Hartford, Conn.; the Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.; the Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens; the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore; and the University of Illinois School of Pharmacy, Chicago.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data is available from the NIMH NDA.
