The structure of psychopathological symptoms and the associations with DSM-diagnoses in treatment seeking individuals

BACKGROUND: Research on comorbidity of psychiatric disorders identifies broad superordinate dimensions as underlying structure of psychopathology. While a syndrome-level approach informs diagnostic systems, a symptom-level approach is more likely to represent the dimensional components within existing diagnostic categories. It may capture general emotional, cognitive or physiological processes as underlying liabilities of different disorders and thus further develop dimensional-spectrum models of psychopathology. METHODS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine the structure of psychopathological symptoms assessed with the Brief Symptom Inventory in two outpatient samples (n=3171), including several correlated-factors and bifactor models. The preferred models were correlated with DSM-diagnoses. RESULTS: A model containing eight correlated factors for depressed mood, phobic fear, aggression, suicidal ideation, nervous tension, somatic symptoms, information processing deficits, and interpersonal insecurity, as well a bifactor model fit the data best. Distinct patterns of correlations with DSM-diagnoses identified a) distress-related disorders, i.e., mood disorders, PTSD, and personality disorders, which were associated with all correlated factors as well as the underlying general distress factor; b) anxiety disorders with more specific patterns of correlations; and c) disorders defined by behavioural or somatic dysfunctions, which were characterised by non-significant or negative correlations with most factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified emotional, somatic, cognitive, and interpersonal components of psychopathology as transdiagnostic psychopathological liabilities. These components can contribute to a more accurate description and taxonomy of psychopathology, may serve as phenotypic constructs for further aetiological research, and can inform the development of tailored general and specific interventions to treat mental disorders.

Mapping Emotion Terms into Affective Space: Further Evidence for a Four-Dimensional Structure

Recent empirical work on the semantics of emotion terms across many different cultures and languages, using a theoretical componential approach, suggested that four dimensions are needed to parsimoniously describe the semantic space of the emotion domain as reflected in emotion terms (Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch, & Ellsworth, 2007; Fontaine, Scherer, & Soriano, 2013). In addition to valence, power, and arousal, a novelty dimension was discovered that mostly differentiated surprise from other emotions. Here, we further explore the existence and nature of the fourth dimension in semantic emotion space using a much larger and much more representative set of emotion terms. A group of 156 participants each rated 10 out of a set of 80 French emotion terms with respect to semantic meaning. The meaning of an emotion term was evaluated with respect to 68 emotion features representing the appraisal, action tendency, bodily reaction, expression, and feeling components of the emotion process. A principal component analysis confirmed the four-dimensional valence, power, arousal, and novelty structure. Moreover, this larger and much more representative set of emotion terms revealed that the novelty dimension not only differentiates surprise terms from other emotion terms, but also identifies substantial variation within the fear and joy emotion families.