Investigating primary emotional systems and the Big Five of Personality including their relations in patients with major depression and healthy control persons

Q3 Psychology Neuropsychoanalysis Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI:10.1080/15294145.2022.2140694
C. Montag, Simon Sanwald, Katharina Widenhorn-Müller, M. Kiefer
{"title":"Investigating primary emotional systems and the Big Five of Personality including their relations in patients with major depression and healthy control persons","authors":"C. Montag, Simon Sanwald, Katharina Widenhorn-Müller, M. Kiefer","doi":"10.1080/15294145.2022.2140694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n This study investigates two concurrent personality theories in the context of depression: Pankseppian affective neuroscience theory (ANT) describes primary emotional systems related to depression, whereas in the five-factor model (FFM), neuroticism is most robustly related with depression. Of note, ANT has been established via neuroscientific cross-mammalian-research, while the FFM belongs to the realm of Big Five personality theory, which has been established by a lexical approach. This study aimed to investigate whether the previously suggested systems or factors in depression within each of these approaches would correspond with depression, and with each other across factors/systems, in a single large sample of patients with major depression (n = 184) and age- and gender-matched healthy controls (n = 183). Subjects filled in the NEO-FFI and the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (ANPS) along with Beck’s Depression Inventory-II. In line with the literature, depressed patients demonstrated higher FEAR/SADNESS and lower SEEKING/PLAY scores when applying ANT. Also consistent with the literature, higher neuroticism scores could be observed in the depressed sample compared to the control sample. Against the background of ANT, we suggest that Panksepp’s FEAR/SADNESS might be the “bottom-up” drivers of the personality trait neuroticism. The present study shows that the observed differences in SEEKING, FEAR, and SADNESS between depressed and healthy control participants are in line with the literature and therefore can be seen as robust. The same is true for the differences in neuroticism between both samples. Finally, we discuss the applicability of the NEO-FFI and ANPS in depression research.","PeriodicalId":39493,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychoanalysis","volume":"24 1","pages":"149 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychoanalysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15294145.2022.2140694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study investigates two concurrent personality theories in the context of depression: Pankseppian affective neuroscience theory (ANT) describes primary emotional systems related to depression, whereas in the five-factor model (FFM), neuroticism is most robustly related with depression. Of note, ANT has been established via neuroscientific cross-mammalian-research, while the FFM belongs to the realm of Big Five personality theory, which has been established by a lexical approach. This study aimed to investigate whether the previously suggested systems or factors in depression within each of these approaches would correspond with depression, and with each other across factors/systems, in a single large sample of patients with major depression (n = 184) and age- and gender-matched healthy controls (n = 183). Subjects filled in the NEO-FFI and the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (ANPS) along with Beck’s Depression Inventory-II. In line with the literature, depressed patients demonstrated higher FEAR/SADNESS and lower SEEKING/PLAY scores when applying ANT. Also consistent with the literature, higher neuroticism scores could be observed in the depressed sample compared to the control sample. Against the background of ANT, we suggest that Panksepp’s FEAR/SADNESS might be the “bottom-up” drivers of the personality trait neuroticism. The present study shows that the observed differences in SEEKING, FEAR, and SADNESS between depressed and healthy control participants are in line with the literature and therefore can be seen as robust. The same is true for the differences in neuroticism between both samples. Finally, we discuss the applicability of the NEO-FFI and ANPS in depression research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查重度抑郁症患者和健康对照者的主要情绪系统和大五人格及其关系
摘要本研究调查了抑郁症背景下两种同时存在的人格理论:Pankseppian情感神经科学理论(ANT)描述了与抑郁症相关的主要情绪系统,而在五因素模型(FFM)中,神经质与抑郁症的关系最为密切。值得注意的是,ANT是通过神经科学跨哺乳动物研究建立的,而FFM属于五大人格理论的范畴,该理论是通过词汇方法建立的。本研究旨在调查在一个大样本的重度抑郁症患者(n = 184)和年龄和性别匹配的健康对照组(n = 183)。受试者填写了NEO-FFI和情感神经科学人格量表(ANPS)以及Beck抑郁量表II。与文献一致,抑郁症患者在使用ANT时表现出更高的恐惧/悲伤和更低的寻找/玩耍得分。同样与文献一致的是,与对照样本相比,抑郁样本的神经质得分更高。在ANT的背景下,我们认为Panksepp的恐惧/悲伤可能是人格特质神经质的“自下而上”驱动因素。本研究表明,抑郁和健康对照组参与者在寻找、恐惧和悲伤方面观察到的差异符合文献,因此可以被视为稳健的。两个样本之间的神经质差异也是如此。最后,我们讨论了NEO-FFI和ANPS在抑郁症研究中的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychoanalysis
Neuropsychoanalysis Psychology-Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A psychological “how-possibly” model of repression Celebration of the 25th anniversary of Neuropsychoanalysis : Saturday, December 2, 2023 Reply to commentaries – the separation distress hypothesis of depression – an update and systematic review Freudian concepts in the twenty-first century: a neuropsychoanalytic update and discussion Abstracts from the 2023 NPSA Congress
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1