了解更广泛的社会对人格特质标签的科学准确性和耻辱的看法。

Kasey Stanton, Lindsay Gillikin, Liana Willis, Ricardo Woods-Gonzalez, Warner Myntti, Caroline Paige, Holly F Levin-Aspenson, Christina G McDonnell, Noah N Emery
{"title":"了解更广泛的社会对人格特质标签的科学准确性和耻辱的看法。","authors":"Kasey Stanton, Lindsay Gillikin, Liana Willis, Ricardo Woods-Gonzalez, Warner Myntti, Caroline Paige, Holly F Levin-Aspenson, Christina G McDonnell, Noah N Emery","doi":"10.1037/per0000656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many labels are used within and across subfields to describe personality disorder (PD) and interpersonally-oriented trait dimensions. For example, \"interpersonal disorders\" is a suggested alternative label to \"personality disorders\" in clinical research. Other \"dark trait\" terms, though not proposed as formal labels for PDs, also are used in different research areas for describing externalizing traits. Terminology changes have been proposed both due to concerns about different descriptors' validity and their usage potentially being stigmatizing. Improving terminology consensus can also unify research and clinical assessment efforts, and we recruited participants from a range of sources who provided their views on terminology used in PD research toward this goal. This included data from 362 undergraduates, 408 adults recruited online, and 161 adults recruited from the community, and we used targeted recruitment strategies to ensure that individuals with a range of mental health histories were represented in our study. All participants completed questionnaires assessing their personalities and symptoms, and a subset of participants also completed structured clinical interviews. Results indicated that traditional \"personality disorders\" terminology were viewed favorably compared to other terms both in regard to scientific accuracy and stigma. Additionally, \"interpersonal disorders\" terminology was also viewed more favorably overall than many other terms, whereas \"dark trait\" terminology was viewed negatively. Participants' characteristics (e.g., personality, age) were mostly unrelated to their terminology views. These results provide insight into how various descriptors are viewed by the broader community and provide a foundation for future research investigating how different terms are perceived across contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":"16 1","pages":"91-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding broader community perspectives on the scientific accuracy and stigma of personality trait labels.\",\"authors\":\"Kasey Stanton, Lindsay Gillikin, Liana Willis, Ricardo Woods-Gonzalez, Warner Myntti, Caroline Paige, Holly F Levin-Aspenson, Christina G McDonnell, Noah N Emery\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Many labels are used within and across subfields to describe personality disorder (PD) and interpersonally-oriented trait dimensions. For example, \\\"interpersonal disorders\\\" is a suggested alternative label to \\\"personality disorders\\\" in clinical research. Other \\\"dark trait\\\" terms, though not proposed as formal labels for PDs, also are used in different research areas for describing externalizing traits. Terminology changes have been proposed both due to concerns about different descriptors' validity and their usage potentially being stigmatizing. Improving terminology consensus can also unify research and clinical assessment efforts, and we recruited participants from a range of sources who provided their views on terminology used in PD research toward this goal. This included data from 362 undergraduates, 408 adults recruited online, and 161 adults recruited from the community, and we used targeted recruitment strategies to ensure that individuals with a range of mental health histories were represented in our study. All participants completed questionnaires assessing their personalities and symptoms, and a subset of participants also completed structured clinical interviews. Results indicated that traditional \\\"personality disorders\\\" terminology were viewed favorably compared to other terms both in regard to scientific accuracy and stigma. Additionally, \\\"interpersonal disorders\\\" terminology was also viewed more favorably overall than many other terms, whereas \\\"dark trait\\\" terminology was viewed negatively. Participants' characteristics (e.g., personality, age) were mostly unrelated to their terminology views. These results provide insight into how various descriptors are viewed by the broader community and provide a foundation for future research investigating how different terms are perceived across contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"91-102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000656\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000656","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多标签在子领域内和跨领域被用来描述人格障碍(PD)和人际导向的特征维度。例如,在临床研究中,“人际障碍”是“人格障碍”的建议替代标签。其他“黑暗特质”术语虽然没有被提议作为pd的正式标签,但也在不同的研究领域用于描述外化特征。由于担心不同描述符的有效性和它们的使用可能被污名化,已经提出了术语变更。提高术语共识还可以统一研究和临床评估工作,为此我们从各种来源招募了参与者,他们提供了对PD研究中使用的术语的看法。这包括来自362名本科生、408名在线招募的成年人和161名从社区招募的成年人的数据,我们采用了有针对性的招募策略,以确保具有一系列心理健康史的个体在我们的研究中得到代表。所有参与者都完成了评估其个性和症状的问卷调查,一部分参与者还完成了结构化的临床访谈。结果表明,与其他术语相比,传统的“人格障碍”术语在科学准确性和耻辱感方面都被看好。此外,“人际关系障碍”术语总体上也比许多其他术语更受欢迎,而“黑暗特质”术语则被视为负面的。参与者的特征(如个性、年龄)大多与他们的术语观点无关。这些结果为更广泛的社区如何看待各种描述符提供了见解,并为未来研究如何在不同的上下文中感知不同的术语提供了基础。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding broader community perspectives on the scientific accuracy and stigma of personality trait labels.

Many labels are used within and across subfields to describe personality disorder (PD) and interpersonally-oriented trait dimensions. For example, "interpersonal disorders" is a suggested alternative label to "personality disorders" in clinical research. Other "dark trait" terms, though not proposed as formal labels for PDs, also are used in different research areas for describing externalizing traits. Terminology changes have been proposed both due to concerns about different descriptors' validity and their usage potentially being stigmatizing. Improving terminology consensus can also unify research and clinical assessment efforts, and we recruited participants from a range of sources who provided their views on terminology used in PD research toward this goal. This included data from 362 undergraduates, 408 adults recruited online, and 161 adults recruited from the community, and we used targeted recruitment strategies to ensure that individuals with a range of mental health histories were represented in our study. All participants completed questionnaires assessing their personalities and symptoms, and a subset of participants also completed structured clinical interviews. Results indicated that traditional "personality disorders" terminology were viewed favorably compared to other terms both in regard to scientific accuracy and stigma. Additionally, "interpersonal disorders" terminology was also viewed more favorably overall than many other terms, whereas "dark trait" terminology was viewed negatively. Participants' characteristics (e.g., personality, age) were mostly unrelated to their terminology views. These results provide insight into how various descriptors are viewed by the broader community and provide a foundation for future research investigating how different terms are perceived across contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信