Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2002
Publication Source
Journal of Personality Assessment
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the Five-factor model in the concurrent prediction of positive symptomschizotypy as measured by the Magical Ideation (Eckblad & Chapman, 1983) and Perceptual Aberration (Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1978) scales and negative symptom schizotypy as measured by the Physical Anhedonia (Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1976) and Revised Social Anhedonia (Eckblad, Chapman, Chapman, & Mishlove, 1982; Mishlove & Chapman, 1985) scales. Previous studies suggest that these measures reflect the core symptoms found in schizotypal and schizoid personality disorder (Bailey, West, Widiger, & Freiman, 1993). Negative symptoms were significantly predicted by Neuroticism (+), Extraversion (-), Openness (-), and Agreeableness (-) domains of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Additionally, positive symptoms were significantly predicted by Neuroticism (+), Openness (+), and Agreeableness (-). In addition, we examined the validity of lower order traits in describing these symptoms of character pathology. These findings lend further support for the use of domain and facet scales of the NEO-PI-R in the identification of personality pathology.
Inclusive pages
53-72
ISBN/ISSN
0022-3891
Document Version
Postprint
Copyright
Copyright © 2002, Taylor & Francis.
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Volume
79
Issue
1
Peer Reviewed
yes
eCommons Citation
Ross, Scott R.; Lutz, Catherine J.; and Bailley, Steven E., "Positive and Negative Symptoms of Schizotypy and the Five-Factor Model: A Domain and Facet Level Analysis" (2002). Psychology Faculty Publications. 15.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/psy_fac_pub/15
Included in
Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, Clinical Psychology Commons, Counseling Psychology Commons, Other Psychology Commons, Social Psychology Commons
Comments
Article available for download here is the authors' accepted manuscript, later published in the Journal of Personality Assessment.
Some differences may exist between the manuscript and the published version; as such, researchers wishing to quote directly from this resource are advised to consult the version of record.