Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Positive Schizotypy, Maladaptive Openness, and Openness Facets

    Uploaded by

    sofian2p
    15 views8 pages

    Original Title

    Positive Schizotypy, Maladaptive Openness, And Openness Facets

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views8 pages

    Positive Schizotypy, Maladaptive Openness, and Openness Facets

    Uploaded by

    sofian2p

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    E 3 ea solely forthe personal use of the individual usr and is not Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment sepa ea pena Kelsey T, Straub and John G. Kerns ‘University of Missouri Positive setivotypy includes magical eles and unas perceptual experiences ais highly cores With the copnitve-percental symptoms of schiztypal personality sone. Increased openness 0 txpereace is associated with inreused genetic sk for schizophrenia and thas been commonly thought that positive schizotypy might aso be related to increased openness. However, much previous research has failed to identi a sizable association between positive schizotypy and openness. The eutent research examined wheter associations between posiive scizoiypy and opeaness might be higher (a) whoa using measures that more effectively assess the maladapvely high end of openness and (b) for Astin aspects of openness. Parcipants(n = 672) competed tivo measures of openness, the Bi Five [Aspoets Scale (BFAS) and Experiential Permeability Index (EPD). We found tal associations between prstve schizotypy and BEAS-Onen were sal, However, i lem response theory anaes, there was evidence that one facet of the EPI Odkity subscale highly associated with BEAS-Open was more Sensitive tothe maladatively high end of openaess than BFAS-Open. Further, postive schizotypy Was ‘more strongly asociated with this EPL facet han wilh REAS-Open. In ution, postive schizotypy was especially associated with a second facet ofthe EPI Oty subscale. Hence, out study provides Further evidence that associations etwcen positive shizolypy an openness increase when assessing the Positive Schizotypy, Maladaptive Openness, and Openness Facets rmalacapt facats of openness iy highend of openness and thal postive schizotypy i most highly associated with particular ‘Kewonts: shiotypy. openness, experiemial permeubty em response theory. inlet Supplemental materials: Mp: de og/0.1037/pex00C0407 supp Schirotypy refers to traits reflecting increased genetic risk for schizophrenia (Lenzenweger, 2018). Schizotypy is thought to be ‘multidimensional (Kwapil & Barrantes-Vidal, 2015). For instance, positive schizotypy includes magical beliefs anc unusual percep tual experiences that appear at Teast somewhat similar {© the positive symptoms of schizophrenia such as delusions and hallu- Cinations. Self-reported positive schizotypy is also highly come- lated wit, and in confirmatory factor analyses has also been found {o load with, both self-reported cognitive-perceptual schizotypal personality disorder symptoms as well as Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Eadition (DSM-S: PID-S) psychoticism (Cicero & Kerns, 2010: Hua & Kems, 2018). The current study examined relationships between postive schizotypy and openness to experience. Prominent models of personality disorders have proposed that these disorders, and the maladaptive traits associated with them, are best conceptualized via a dimensional model as extreme vark~ ants of typical personality traits (Trull & Widiger, 2013). For Instance, the five-factor model (FFM) of abnormal personality “Tis anicle was published Ontne Fist June 25, 2020, © Kesey T,Siub and © Join G. Kerns, Deparment of Psycholog- ‘cal Seienes, University of Missous. ‘Comespoadence concerning this article shouldbe adres 0 Joba G. ‘Kems, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missou. 204A MeAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 68211. E-mail: kernsj@missoun ‘edu si proposes that DSM-S psychoticism aligns with FEM openness (Helle, Tell, Widiger, & Mullins-Sweatt 2017; Suzuki, Griffin, & ‘Samuel, 2017), However, previous research has often found small to-medium associations between positive schizotypy and openness (Asai, Sugimori, Bando, & Tanno, 2011; Cicero & Kerns, 2010; Crego & Widiger, 2017: Gross, Silvia, Barrantes- Vidal. & Kwai 2012; Helle etal, 2017; Kems, 2006; Kapil, Barrantes-Vidal, & Silvia, 2008; Kwapil, Gross, Silvia, Raulin, & Barrantes-Vidal, 2018; Ross, Lutz, & Bailley, 2002), with similar results for mea- ‘sures of cognitive-perceptual schizotypal personality disorder ‘yymptoms and PID-5 psyehoticism, For instance, ina metas analysis, Samuel and Widiger (2008) found that the association beswcen schizotypal personality disorder symptoms and openness to experience was r = .09. Studies examining the joint-factor structure of openness with schizotypy and psychoticism have {yelled mixed results. Several studies have found that FEM open: rness and paychoticism load together onto the same factor (De Pruyt etal. 2013; Gore & Widiger, 2013: Griffin & Samuel, 2014; Helle et al., 2017). However. several studies have found that neither positive schizotypy (Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, & Bor, 2012; Gutiérrez, Vall, Peri, Girviz, & Garrido, 2014) nor psychotcism (Suzuki, Samuel, Palen, & Krueger, 2015; Watson, (Clark, & Chmielewski, 2008) load together with openness. Finally, Baghy, Costa, Widiger, Ryder, and Marshall (2005) and DeYoung, Carey, Krueger, and Ross (2016) found that pyychoticism or schizotypal traits loaded highly with one aspect of openness, but not with other aspects. Importantly, this has been found even ‘though increased openness to experience, a well as increased allied te disteminaed boa 5 B 2 ¥ 2 STRAUB AND KERNS creativity, have been genetically associated with schizophrenia (Duncan et al, 2018; Lo et al, 2017; Power et al, 2015; Smetand et al, 2017). The current study examined factors that might in- crease or decrease associations between positive schizotypy and ‘openness to experience ‘One factor that might influence associations with openness to experience is that openness is a multifaceted trait, Openness is often defined as a trait involving being receptive to ideas and experiences and is reflected in flexible attitudes and divergent thinking (McCrae, 1994). Although there is some debate surround- ing the conceptualization of openness and which aspects fall under this personality domain, itis typically viewed as a multifaceted construct (Connelly, Ones, & Chermyshenko, 2014). For instance, in developing the Big Five Aspects Scale (BFAS), DeYoung. Quilty, and Peterson (2007) idemiied two different aspects within tho openness o experience domain. They labeled these wo aspects ‘openness and intellect, with these two aspeets being positively associated with each other, but nevertheless exhibiting diferent pattems of correlations with other variables, This suggests that positive schizotypy might be differentially associated with these ‘ovo particular aspects of openness. Inthe current study. we used the BFAS (DeYoung et al, 2007) 44s a normative measure of openness, which separately assess ‘openness and intellect, Using the BFAS allowed us to provide one test of the idea that positive schizotypy might be differentially associated with particular facets of openness, Several studies have found that positive schizotypy is differentially associated with BFAS-Open and BFAS-Intellect, with postive associations with, BFAS-Open but negative, of no, associations with Intellect (DeY- ‘oung et al, 2016, DeYoung, Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012; Grazioplene, Chaver, Rustichini, & DeYoung, 2016). At the same ‘ime, BEAS-Open and BEAS-Intellect do share variance and show «positive association with each other (DeYoung eta, 2007). This suggests the possibilty that associations beoween openness and positive schizotypy could be stronger if this shared variance with intellect was removed. Further, at least one study has identified this suppression effect and found that associations between psy- choticism and BFAS-Open are further increased when removing variance shared with Intellect (DeYoung et al., 2016). Hence, in the current study, we examined whether positive schizotypy would be differentially associated with BFAS-Open and BFAS-Intellect and also whether associations between positive schizotypy and BFAS-Open would increase after removing variance shared with Intellect Another factor that might influence associations with openness ‘to experience is whether the measure of openness used assesses the maladaptive high range of the trait. In general, i is often thought that either the extreme high or low end of personality traits can be maladaptive (€ high conscicntiousness — rigid, low conscien- tiousness = disorganized; high agrecableness — gullible, low ‘agreeableness = mistrustul: Widiger, 2011). From this perspec tive, positive schizotypy could correspond to the maladaptive high range of openness. However, sles might vary in how well they assess the extrome end of a trait, For instance, strongly endorsing the item “I have a very active imagination” may not indicate as high ofa level om the trait as strongly endorsing the item “I have an excessive imagination” (Haigler & Widiger, 2001), Infact. it thas becn argued that many measures of openness do not assess the maladaptive high range of the tat (Haigler & Widiger, 2001; ‘Widiger, 2011). For instanec, a previous study examining the overlap between normative and maladaptive personality tats found that openness and schizotypy did not foad onto the same factor. In this model, all other general personality factors ad an ‘adaptive and maladaptive range, but openness had no maladp: tive range (Ashton et al. 2012). However, measures that were designed to assess the maladaptive high range of openness have ‘been shown to exhibit stronger associations with postive schizo typy (Bagby et al. 2005: Crego & Widiger, 2017; Haigler & Widiger, 2001; Trull, Widiger, & Burr, 2001). However, © our Iknossledge, no study has used item response theory (IRT) analyses to dircetly examine whether putative maladaptive openness mes sures do assess a higher range of the trait than scales that scem= ingly do not assess the maladaptive high range of the trait. Again, it might be expected that pesitive schizotypy would have a stron ger association with an openness seale that is more informative than with an openness seale that is less informative at the high range of the tat. Tn the current study, we used the Experiential Permeability Index (EPI; Piedmont, Sherman, & Sherman, 2012; Piedmont, Sherman, Sherman, Dy-Liacco, & Williams, 2009) to measure ‘maladaptive openness. Although our measure of normative open: ress, the BFAS, separately assesses openness and intellect, the BFAS did not involve an attempt to specifically assess the mal: adaptively high end of openness. In contrast, the EPI was explicitly developed to assess the maladaptively high end of apenness (Pie: ‘mont etal, 2009, 2012). Hence, using the EPI allowed us to test the idea that measures that do assess the maladaptive high range ‘might exhibit stronger associations with positive schizotypy. The EPI is based on a conceptualization ofthe maladaptive high range ‘of openness as involving heightened experiential permeability, whieh is defined as a “pyychological membrane” between an individual and their environment, From this view, people with high experiential permeability have difficuly distinguishing between inner and outer experionces, can show a disregard for convention- ality, and can exhibit eccentric behaviors and hold odd beliefs all, fof which can also be characteristic of positive schizotypy (Pied ‘mont etal, 2009, 2012). Thus, at least conceptually, this concep: ‘walization of maladaptive openness, which would fit with Me- Crne's (1904)'s conceptualization of openness, as the extreme extension ofa receptivity to different ideas and experiences and a propensity for divergent thinking. should be related to schizotypy. ‘The EPI consists of four subscales measuring two aspects of maladaptively high openness and two aspects of maladaptively low openness. All four subscales were found to share conceptual space with openness and were associated with openness in the hypothesized direction. In addition, the EPI was mote associated ‘than traditional personality measures with maladaptive personality laits, suggesting that it is measuring the maladaptive range of ‘openness. Importantly, Piedmont et al. (2009, 2012) hypothesized that EPI-Odd, a subscale measuring ideas and behaviors viewed as odd or eccentric, would be especially associated with positive schizotypy. Consistent with this, two previous studies have found thatthe EPI-Oda subscale docs exhibit strong positive associ with postive schizotypy and related constructs (Crego & Widiger, 2017: Tan, Ng, Chin, Chua, & Hong, 2018). In the current re Search, we further examined whether positive schizotypy was differentially associated with EPI subscales and most associated with the EPI-Odd subscale te disteminaed boa This aril is imended sole forthe personal use ofthe individual user and sn POSITIVE SCHIZOTYPY AND MALADAPTIVE OPENNESS 33 In adkiion to examining. the association between positive schizotypy, BFAS-Open and EPI-Odd, we also used IRT analyses to directly examine whether EPLOdd was more informative at the hhigh range of the tait than BFAS-Open, which would be consis- {ent with the idea that EPI-Odd assesses the maladaptive high range of openness. We also examined whether positive schizotypy ‘was more highly associated with EPI-Oda than with BEAS-Open, Again, EPI-Odd items (eg. “Thave special abilities that allow me {o experience life in ways very different from the ways. most ‘people do.”) were designed to be sensitive wo the high end of the trait. In contrast, BEAS-Open items (e.g. “Believe in the impor tance of art") were not, Hence, we expected that some people who score high on the BFAS-Open would not necessarily seore as high fon the EPI-Odd. We also expected in IRT analyses that the EPI-Odd would be more informative atthe high end ofthe tait, than the BFAS-Open. Importantly, before conducting IRT analy- ses, it was necessary to first examine whether EPLOdd was uni- dimensional, which to our knowledge has not been examined. In the event of finding multiple EPI-Odd factors, and given evidence that postive schizotypy might be especially associated only with certain aspects of openness, we also examined whether positive schizotypy was differentially associated with EPL-Odd factor Henee, in the current study we examined associations between positive schizotypy and openness to experience. We expected that associations would vary depending on the particular aspect of ‘openness and to what extent measures assess the maladaptively high end of openness. We expected positive schizotypy t be associated with BFAS-Open but not BFAS-Inicllect, We also {expected that associations between postive schizotypy and BEAS- Open would be further increased after removing variance sbared With Intellet. We expected that EPI-Odd would be more infor- mative at the high end of the teat than BFAS-Open and that positive schizorypy would be more strongly associated with EPI- (Odd than with BFAS-Open. We also examined whether postive schizotypy would be most assoclated with only a particular EPI dd fact ‘Method Participants Participants (n = 702) were reeruited from introductory psy= chology courses at « midwestem university and reosived course credit for their participation. Participants were eliminated from analyses if they skipped an entire questionnaire or if they endorsed at least three infrequeney items indicating careless responding (Chapman, Chapman, Kwapil, Fekblad, & Zinser, 1994), Mean imputation was used to calculate scale total scores for participants with missing items (tue form = 6, all missing a single item). This resulted in final sample of (n = 672) participants. Al participants spoke English as a first language, had a mean age of 18.94 years (SD = 1.76), and were 57.0% female, 81.4% Caucasian, 9.7% African American, 2.7% Latino/Latina, 1.5% Asian American, 3.7% biracial, and 1.0% other race/ethnicity. All participants gave informed consent to participate in the study, and all procedures were approved by the university's institutional review board. ‘Materials Wisconsin Schizotypy scales. Positive schizotypy. was as- sessed with the Magical Ideation (Magid; Eckblad & Chapman, 1983) and Perceptual Aberration (PerAb: Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1978) Wisconsin Schizotypy scales. Magicld is a 30-item ‘uuelfulse scale, which assesses the endorsement of abnormal and ‘magical beliefs (Cronbach's e in the current study ~ .82). PerAB is a 35-item truclfalse scale, which assesses distortions in the perceptions of one's own body and other perceptual distortions (c= 86), We calculated a combined PerMag score by summing, participants’ z-scores on Magicld and PerAb. Participants also completed the Infrequency Scale (Chapman & Chapman, 1983), ‘which is a Litem truefalze scale which measures careless = sponding. BFAS Open and Intellect. BFAS-Open (eg, “Believe inthe Importance of art”; a = 73) and Intellect (e.g, “Am quick to understand things"; « = .77) each consist of 10 items answered on 41 105 scale from very inaceurate to very accurate (DeYoung et al, 2007). Experiential Permeability Index. The EPI measures mal- adaptive openness and includes four subscales, with EPI-Odd and EPL Unrestricted measuring maladaptively high openness and EPI- Rigid and EPI-Supericial measuring maladaptively low openness (Piedmont et al 2000). The Odd subscale (EPI-Odd: a = 82) consists of 16 items measuring ideas and behaviors viewed as odd ‘or eccentric, such as “Usually, when I wish for something hard enough, I can make it happen” and “I have special abilities that allow me to experience life in ways very different from the ways. ‘most people do.” The Unrestricted Self subscale (EPI-Unrestrict= ced; e = 64) consists of 11 items measuring. absorption with personal idcas and freedoms, such as “Goverment should stop interfering with how people want t0 live thei lives.” The Rigid subscale (EPL-Rigid; « = ,69) consists of 12 items measuring reliance on conventionalty, such as “T think there is a certain way ‘of doing things, and we would all be bette off if we followed the rules of “right” and “wrong.” The Superficial subscale (EPI- Superficial; a = .70) consists of 16 items measuring a lack of interest in new ideas and lack of affect, such as “I do not have ‘many outside interests or hobbies.” All tems are rated om a to 5 scale from strongly disagree o strongly agree. IRT Analysis Using IRT analysis, we wanted 0 dicetly examine whether the maladaptive openness measure (EPI-Odd) was actually more in- formative at the high end of the trait than the nonmaladaptive ‘openness measure (BEAS-Open). However, a eritical assumption underlying IRT models is that all items in the model form a ‘unidimensional construct. Thus, as is standard with IRT analyses (Samuel, Caroll, Rounsaville, & Ball, 2013; Samuel, Simms, (Clark, Livesley, & Widiger, 2010; Stepp et al., 2012; Suzuki eta. 2015), we first conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for EPI-Odd and BFAS-Open, with CFA conducted using Mplus8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) and using the categorical option to accommodate dichotomous and polytomous data, and with maxi ‘mum likelihood estimation and varimax rotation. To determine acceptable unidimensionality, we examined several fit statistics: ‘the comparative fit index (CHD, the TucketLewis Index (TLD, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Gen te disteminaed boa This aril is imended sole forthe personal use ofthe individual user and sn 4 STRAUB AND KERNS rally, for CFI and TLL, 90 is considered acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and is offen used as @ cutoff for IRT analyses (Samuel et al, 2010; Stepp et al, 2012; Suzuki et al, 2015). For RMSEA, values below .08 are considered acceptable fit (MeDon- ald & Ho, 2002) and is often used as a eulofT for IRT analyses (Stepp et al, 2012; Suzuki etal, 2015). For scales that didnot show acceptable unidimensionaity, as is standard in IRT analyses (Samuel eta, 2010; Stepp etal. 2012) \we considered two options. First, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to determine the ideal factor solution based on scree plots as well asthe fit statisties described eatier. Second, scales ‘were iteratively purified by removing items with loadings <.35 nd running a new CPA with the remaining items until acceptable lunidimensionality was reached. After establishing unidimensionality, items from EPL-Odd and BEAS-Open were combined, and then the abovementioned steps were repeated to establish unidimensionality of this set of items. ‘Then, s graded response IRT model wat fit othe data (Samejims, 2016) using the Mulidimensional IRT (Chalmers. 2012) package in R (model fit examined using CFI, TLL, and RMSEA). Finally to directly examine whether the maladaptive opeaness measure (EPI-Odd) was actually more informative atthe high end of the trait than the nonmaladaptive openness measure (BFAS-Open), for these two scales, we calculated mean scale information curves and then compared the area under each curve at the igh range of the trait (.e., 0 > 2; Samuel et al, 2010). We expected a higher area lunder the curve at the highest level of @ for EPL-Odd than for BFAS-Open (For more details on factor analysesIRT analyses, o> in the online supplemental materials). Results, Zero-Order Correlations ‘To investigate relationships among our variables, zero-order correlations were examined for all variables of interest: PerMag, BFAS-Open, BFAS-Intellect, EPLOdd, EPLUnrestricted, EPI- Rigid, and EPL-Superficial. To examine whether the sizes of cor relations were significantly different, we used Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin's (1902) procedure for comparing nonindependent cor- Table 1 relation coefficients. As can also be seen in Table 1, PerMag ‘exhibited a small, positive association with BFAS-Open. In con: ‘rast, Per Mag was not associated with BEAS-Tatellest, Not that iF we examined a composite BFAS score (combining BEAS-Open and Inellecd), PerMag exhibited small association with the composite BFAS-OpewIntellect scale, r— 163. p< 01. In contrast, PerMag was strongly correlated with EPL-Odd, In line with our hypotheses, PerMag showed statistically larger correla tions with EPLOdd than with BFAS-Open (all p values < 001 Meng et al, 1992). In contrast, PerMag was not strongly assoc ated with other EPL subscales. Nonetheless, positive schizotypy associations with EPL-Unrestricted were comparahle in magnitude to associations between positive schizotypy and BFAS-Open. Far ther, as expected, positive schizotypy associations with the two EPL subscales reflecting maladaptively low openness, Rigi and ‘Superficial, were negative in direction, Tm addition, itis perhaps notable that EPI-Odd was strongly associated with BFAS-Open, with this association being much larger than the association between positive schizotypy and BFAS- ‘Open. This potentially suggests that EPL-Odd comprises multiple factors, with one factor especially associated with postive schizo- Iypy and the other factor especially associated with BFAS-Open, ‘which will be examined inthe following text. Further, as expected by the EPI as a measure of openness, all EPI subscales did have significant associations with BEAS-Open, Partial Correlations Next, we examined the association between our measures of positive schizotypy and BFAS-Open when adjusting for intellect. {As can be seen in Table 2, contrary o our hypotheses, adjusting for intellect did not substantially alter the associations between posi- tive schizotypy and BEAS-Open. Hence, it does not appear that a significant suppression effeet was present in our sample Then, as suggested by Piedmont et al. (2009), we examined if pavtialing shared variance for EPI-Odd reduced the association between postive schizotypy and BFAS-Open. As can be seen in ‘Table 2, adjusting for EPL-Odd eliminated the positive association besveen BRAS-Open and postive schizotypy, with if anything these associations now being negative. Hence, associations be- Zero-Order Correlations Among Positive Schizorypy, Openness, Intellect, and iperiental Permeability BRAS Scale PesMag__ Open Portas — BAS ‘Opea Intellot PI ‘oad Unrest EI (Ox) Unrestricted Rigi Superficial ‘Note. PerMag = Combined Magical ation and Peroptual Aberation; BEAS = Big Five Aspects Seale; EPL Permeabiity Index. “peas ra 5 B 2 ¥ te disteminaed boa POSITIVE SCHIZOTYPY AND MALADAPTIVE OPENNESS 35 Table 2 Positive Schizotypy and BEAS-Open Zero-Order and Partial Correlations Removing BEAS-Inellect or EPI-Odal Conslations with BFAS-Open Panial emoving Pata removing Scale __Zero-ordee _"BEAS Inlet. EPLOW) Pog ane 26" — 088" Note. PorSag = Combined Magica Ie BRAS = Big Five Aspects Seale, EPI = “pcos, p< 0 Experiential Petmeatilily Ende. ‘ween positive schizotypy and BFAS-Open shared varlance with EPLOdd, consistent with the view that EPLOdd’s relationship ‘with positive schizotypy was based in part on opennest-related pathology (note that in the following text we report evidence for ‘so factors within the EPI-Odd subscale: importantly, if we partial either of these EPI-Oda factors, we still find that associations between positive schizotypy and BPAS-Open approach zero: 066 ‘when partialing Factor 1 and .038 when partaling Factor 2). In addition, we examined if partiaing shared variance for BEAS- ‘Open reduced the association between positive schizotypy and EPI-Odd. However, this was not the ease (zero-order correlation, = £663, p <1; adjusting for BFAS-Open, r = .629, p <.01) Using IRT to Compare EPI-Odd and BFAS-Open at the High End of Openness Finally, using IRT analysis, we wanted to test whether EPI-Oda, ‘4 measure that attemprs to assess the maladaptively high end of ‘openness, was in Tact more informative atthe high end of the teat than BFAS-Open. Before using IRT, we first needed {0 use factor analysis to test whether EP-Odd assessed a unidimensional con- Siruct. We note here five aspects of these factor analyticNT results (detailed results presented in the online supplemental ma- terials). First, EPLOdd did not appear to be unidimensional and instead formed two factors. Second, only one EPI factor (Le. Factor 1) formed a unidimensional scale with a subset of items (w = 7) from BEAS-Open. Third, this BPI Factor 1 was in fact ‘more informative than these BEAS-Open items atthe high end of the trait, again consistent withthe idea that EPI-Oda assesses the ‘maladaptive high end of openness. Fourth, as can be seen in Table 3, positive schizotypy was more associated with this EPI Factor 1 than with BFAS-Open, consistent with positive schizotypy's as- sociations with openness being stronger for seales measuring the high end ofthe trait. Fifth, one additional aspect of these results is ‘that, as ean be seen in Table 3, of the two EPL Factors, we found that positive schizotypy was especially associated with the other EPI factor (Le., Fctor 2). This seems consistent with the idea that positive schizotypy is especially associated with particular facets of openness. Discussion Multiple lines of previous research and theory suggest that positive schizotypy could he associated with increased openness (Duncan et al, 2018; Trull & Widiger, 2013). However, previous research results have been mixed, often finding Weak associations between positive schizotypy and openness. The current study has Found additional novel evidence that associations between positive schizotypy and openness vary by at lest Wo factors, with asso- ciations varying by particular opeaness facet and by whether ‘measures assess the maladaptive high end of openness. Overall, the current study has found additonal evidence that positive schizotypy does exhibit sizable associations with some openness In the current research, one way that we examined whether positive schizotypy’s association with openness varies by specific ‘openness facet is by using the BFAS that contains two subscales, BPAS-Open and BFAS-Intellect. Consistont with previous re- search (DeYoung et al. 2012: 2016; Grazioplene et al., 2016), we found that postive schizotypy was significantly associated with BFAS-Open but not with BFAS-Intellect. Note that if we exam ined a composite BFAS-Open/Intellect score, correlation with, PerMag was r = -163. Hence, consistent with previous researc when examining a composite openness to experience meas associations with postive schizotypy were only modestly positive However, the association with positive schizotypy was larger with the BFAS-Open (r ~ 274), whereas the associations with positive schizotypy and BFAS-Intllect was close to zero (7 = ~0.10), Hence, consistent with previous research, positive schizotypy was not associated with intellect but was associated with a measure of ‘openness that does not inelude intellect. However, inconsistent with some previous esearch, we did not find that removing variance shared with intellect increased asso ciations between openness and positive schizotypy. Considered along with previous results, this suggest that finding a suppression effect with intellect may be dependent on specific openness and intellect measures and on sample characteristics. For example, Chmielewski, Bagby, Markon, Ring, and Ryder (2014) in clinical ‘samples found a suppression effect of intellect on the association beeen schizotypal personality disorder distorted cognitions/per- ceptions and mistrust sympioms and openness using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory to measure openness and intellect. DeYoung et al. (2016) examined associations between BFAS- (Open and BEAS-Intellect with PID-S paychoticism and found that intellect suppressed the correlation between openness and psy- choticism in one sample consisting of a mix of college students and a community sample, but notin another community sample Hence, an issue for future research isto continue to examine under Table 3 Zero-Order Correlations Among Positive Schizorypy, Openness, land Factors of EPI-Odd EPLOM Seale Foctor |__ Factor? Portas — bras. ‘Open ome Intel 00 ass PLOSS Foor! aay swat Factor] ene" Sn loose ‘Note. PerMag = Combined Magical Weation and Perceptual Aberatio IFAS = Big Five Aspocs Scale: EPL p= 00 Experiential Permeability lex te disteminaed boa This aril is imended sole forthe personal use ofthe individual user and sn 56 STRAUB AND KERNS which circumstances intellect may suppress the association be- ‘seen openness an positive schizotypy or related tats. ‘Although we Found that positive schizotypy was associated with 'BFAS-Open, nevertheless, the strength of the association between positive schizotypy and BFAS-Open was small. However. a factor that might limit the strength ofthis wssociation is that BFAS-Opea ‘was not designed to assess the maladaptively high end of openness We found evidence consistent with this in the current sty for the EPI, which is a measure designed to assess maladaptive levels of ‘openness. Before discussing this result fr the EPI, we note that we found evidence for the first time that the EPL-Odd scale is multimen= sional. Like BFAS-Open, we found that our EPI-Odd Factor 1 was ‘composed of items reflecting interest in art and intensity of acs= totic experiences. Furthermore, we found that EPI-Odd Factor 1 is highly correlated with BFAS-Open, with evidence that together ‘thoy form a unidimensional scale and measure the same latent constrict. However, we also found that EP-Odd Factor 1 was ‘more accurate than BFAS-Odd at assessing people tthe high end ofthis stent construct. Hence, given evidence that they appear to ‘measure the same latent construct but that the EPI-Odd Factor | is ‘more informative at a high level of openness, then it might be expected that positive schizotypy would he more highly associated with BPI-Odd Factor 1 than with BFAS-Open. As expected, we found that positive schizotypy did have a significanly larger association with EPI-Odd Factor 1 (r = 429). Hence, we found evidence that associations between positive schizotypy and open ‘ness measures reflecting interest in art and aesthetics cane higher for a measure assessing the maladaptively high end of openness. ‘This is consistent with previous research also Finding that openness associations with positive schizotypy and related constructs varies bby whether measures of openness measute the maladaptively high end (Haigler & Widiger, 2001; Widiger, 2011). Furthermore partialing out the variance of EPI-Odd absorbed the association between PerMag with BFAS-Open, providing further evidence that EPI-Odd is functioning as a measure of pathological openness by representing the shared spice between a more typical meastre of openness and maladaptive traits. In addition to whether openness measures assess the maladap- tively high end, we also found evidence that positive schizorypy exhibits very large associations with particular facets of openness, In particular, we found that positive schizotypy measures were specially associated with our EPI-Odd Factor 2. Again, we found novel evidence that the EPLOdd subscale is multidimensional Further, EPI-Odd Factor 2 had a higher association than EPI-Odd, Factor I with positive schizotypy (r = .676). Hence, we found tevidence that positive schizotypy is most associated with particular facets of openness. (ur results also suggest that research on positive schizotypy and related constructs could benefit from considering links between pos- itive schizotypy and particular facets of openness. In fact, this far there is perhaps even more evidence that openness is genetically associated with schizophrenia than that self-reported positive schizo- {ypy is genetically associated with schizophrenia (Kems, 2020). Fur ‘thermore, both openness (Allen & DeYoung, 2017; Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2003) and positive schizotypy (Gray, Fernandez, Wik Tiams, Rude, & Snowden, 2002; Karcher, Martin, & Kems, 2015) Ihave been theoretically and empirically Tinked to striatal dopamine ‘This suggests that esearch on neurobiological eorcates of positive schizotypy might want to considce similarities and differences with the neurobiological comeates of openness. The current study his several imitations. First, ou sample com sisted of college students and was layely Caveasian. Future studies should investigate these associations in more diverse samples to make conclusions about the generalizability of these resus, In addition, future studies should include different measures of openness to more fully examine how positive schizotypy is related to openness. For ‘example, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, a popular measure for assessing FEM waits, includes six facets of openness: openness 19 ideas, actions, felings, values, fantasy, and aesthetics (Costa & Me: (Cre, 2008). Openness to fantasy consistently shows higher corel tions with schizotypy and schizotypal rats than other NEO openness facets (Bagby eta, 2005; Crego & Widiger, 2017; Helle cal, 2017) ‘Thus, future studics should examine how this NEO faet oF other ‘openness measures. may be related to both measures of positive schizotypy and EPI-Odd (© more fally understand the association between postive schizorypy and openness, Another imitation of the present study is that IRT analyses invol ing the EPI and the BFAS wore performed using altered versions of the scales. An assumption underlying IRT models is tht all tm in the model form a unidimensional construct. Thus, as is standard with IRT analyses, this necessitated only examining one factor from these scales and/or omiting some items from scales to reach unidimension: ality. Hence, it was not possible to examine the fll EPLOdd and BPASOpen scales in IRT analyses owing to the multidimensional nature of those scales. Therefore, these IRT results cannot be inter- preted a directly applying tothe full versions of the scales. Nevor- thcless, these results stil supported the hypothesis that for EPI and BAS items that seemed to measure the same Talent constrt tha the EPI items were more informative atthe high end of the tit Conclusion (Overall, we found additional novel evidence that associations be ‘sven postive schizalypy and openness vary by the particular facet of ‘openness and by whether openness measures asses the maladapively hhigh end. For instance, for PorMag, we found its association with a broad openness: measure (BFAS-Open/Incicet) to be .103; for a ‘measure that exchided intellect (BEAS-Open) the association in- creased (© 274; for 8 measure closely related to BFAS-Open that sessed the maladaptively igh end (EPI-Odd factor 1) the associ tion further increased to 429; and finally for @ particule facet of ‘openness (EPL-Odd factor 2) the association fuer increased to 676, ‘This is comsstent with genetic evidence linking inereased openness 10 cexpsrince to schizophrenia and with dimcnsional models of person ality disorders viewing them as extreme variants of typical personality teats Tell & Widiger, 2013). This suggests that future research that continues 19 examine similarities and differences between positive schizotypy and openness might further help understand the nature of cluster A disorders. References Alle, T A, & DeYoung, C. ©, 2017) Personality neuroscience snd the Five Factor Model nT. A. Wier (F4), The Oxford handbook ofthe {ve factor mode! (pp. 319-349). New York, NY: Oxford University rss. hips do orp, 1093/efordhb9780199352587.013.26 Asi, T. Sugimor, E, Bando, N.. & Tanno, Y. 2011), The hierarchic struetre in schizopy and the five-ictr model of personaly. PsChi This documer “Tis article sim 5 E 3 ea solely forthe personal use of the individual usr and is not POSITIVE SCHIZOTYPY AND MALADAPTIVE OPENNESS, 37 airy Research, 185, T8-83.bilp:/f.de.rg/10.10164 psychres. 2009 ‘718 ‘Aston, M. C., Lee, K, de Vries, RE, Hendrikse, J & Bor, MP (2012). The maladaptive personality traits ofthe Personality Inventory for DSU5 (PID-5) in elation to the HEXACO personality factors ant schizotypydssocialion. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 641-689. upd doi onp10.152p.2012.265.68 ‘Bagby. R. ML Costa, P.T. Je, Widigr. TA. Ryder, A... & Marshal, M. (2005), DSM-IV personality csordes andthe Fve-Factor Moe! of personaly: A muli-methed exumination of domainand faetevel ‘rations Ewrapean Journal ef Personal, 19, 307-324, bpd. org/10.1002/p 563, (Cason, 5. H, Peterson, J.B. & Higgins, D. M, (2003), Decreased latent “hibition is associat with increased crestive achicvement in hi Funetioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Socal Psycholo 5, 499-506 pido ong/10.1037/0022.3914. 85.3499 (Chalmers, R. P. 2012). mist: A mulidimensionl item response thoory package for the R environment. Journal of Satisieal Software, 8, 1-29 do rg 10.18637}s. 048.06 (Chapman, LJ, Chapman, JP (1983) frequency Scale (Unpublished ‘eat, (Chapman, L. J, Chapman, J. P, Kwapil, TR. Eekblad, M. & Zinses, M.C. (1954), Pattvely psyehosis-prone subjects 10 years ae, Journal (of Nonormal Prychology. 103, 171183. ps. doi. or/10.108TAND SH3X1032171 CChapean, LJ, Chapman, J.P, & Raulie, M. L. (1978). Body-imape aeration in Schizopenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87,399 407. psx oLonp/10.103700021-883X.87.3.399 CChmiclowsk, M. Bagby, R.M., Markon, K. Ring, A.J. & Ryder. AG. (2014). Openness experience, iaellet, schizotypal persoaality cir. er, and psychotics: Resolving the controversy. Jura! of Personal ity Disorders, 28, 483-499, hp/idxsdoiang/O.1321 pedi 2014 2k ie (Ciera, D.C. & Kem, JG. 2010). Maligimensional factor structure of posiive schizotypy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 327-33, pds doi ong/10.1521/pe.2010.25,3327 Connelly, B. S., Ones, . ..& Chernyshenko, O, 8. (2018), Introducing ‘the special section on psoness to experionc: Review of openness {axonomies, measurement, and nomologcal nt, Journal of Personality Assessment, 9, 1-16. px. do ore/0.10S0H223891,2013 830620 (Cost, P-T. Jr. & MeCrae, R. R. 2008). The Revised NEO Personality Taventory (NEOPER) In G.I Boye, C. Matthews, & D.H, Saklofske (ids), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vo 2, Personality measurement and isting (pp. 179-198). Thousand Oaks, (CA: Saga, upside dot or/10.4138997818:9200470 09 (Cre, & Widige,T. A. (2017), The conceptualzation and asessment of schizotypal tris: comparison ofthe FFSI and PID-S. Journal of Personality Disorders, 41, 606-623. hilp/féx.doi.org/10.1521 pad 2016 30.270 De Fryt, F, De Clery, B, De Bolle, M., Wille, B, Markon, K. & Krueger, RF. (2013), General snd maladapive tits in a fve-faetor Tramework for DSM-S in university student sample. Assessment, 20. 293-307. px door 10.1171/1073191 113473808 DeYoung, C. G., Carey, B. FE. Krieger, RF & Ross, SR. (2016). Ten aspects of the Big Five in tho Personality Invenory for DSM-S. Per Sonaly Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 113-123. pd doi or/10-1037/90000170 DeYoung. C.G, Graviolene, R. G, & Peers, J.B. (2012), From ‘madness o gon: The Opennessntllct ait domain asa paradoxical simples. Jounal of Research in Personality, 46, 6378. tpstd.doi .p/10.1016) 9. 2011.12003 DeYoung, C.., Quily, LC, & Poterson, 1. B. 2007). Between faces And domains: 10 aypects ofthe Big Five, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 890-896. hips doi ong 10.103770022-3514 93.5880 Duncan, LF. Shon, H, Ballo, J. S., Hardy, K.V., Noorsy, D.L. & Levinson, D. F. Q01%), Genetic coreaton pile of schizopinenia ‘mirrors epidemiological results and sugpests ink hawveen polyganic 20d ‘ae variant (22411. 2) cases of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, “#4, 1350-1361, bpd. do. og/10.1078schbalse 74 Eckl, M. & Chapman, LJ. (1983). Magical ideation as am indicator of Sehizotyp. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51, 215 225. upd. do. ogf10.103700022-006X 51.2215 Gore, We Ln & Witt. A, 2013). The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-actor models of general personally. Journal of Abwormat Paychology, 122, $16-821. hip dosog/10,1037/40032822 Gray, N.S. Feraandcr, M., Williams, J, Rude, RA, & Saowdea, RJ. (2002) Which sehiztypl dimensions abuts alent inition? British Sourrat of Clinica Psychology, 41, 21-24, hpidssi a 10.13487 “o14466502760379136, Graroplene, R.G., Chaver, R. S, Rusticini, A, & DeYoung, C. 6. (2016), White mater conrelates of psychosislinked tits support con- tinuitybeswoen personality and psychopathology. Journal of Abworma Paychology. 125, 1138-1145. htpz/éx.do.or/10.1037/aba0000176 Gna, S.A. & Samuel, D.B. (2014). A closer look at we lower-order structure ofthe Personality Inveniry for DSBS: Comparison with the Five-Faclor Model, Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 406812. hp#8x.d.0F/ 10.109 7/peeOOHT+ Gross, G. M, Silvia, P- 1, Baranes Vidal, N, & Kwapil TR. (2012), Paychometrc properties and vaidity of short forms of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales in two large samples. Schizophrenia Research, 1, 267-272 phx. do.orp/10. 1016 schres.2011-11.082 Guigeor,F., Val, Peri J. ML, Casviz, M, & Garrido, J. M. (2014). A hicrarchical model of normal and abnormal personality up 10 seven Factors. Comprehensive Payeiatry, 38, 326-335, hupufds.dokorg/10 1016)

    You might also like