RESUMEN
Background: Past studies associating personality with psychosis have been limited by small nonclinical samples and a focus on general symptom burden. This study uses a large clinical sample to examine personality's relationship with psychosis-specific features and compare personality dimensions across clinically and neurobiologically defined categories of psychoses. Methods: A total of 1352 participants with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar with psychosis, as well as 623 healthy controls (HC), drawn from the Bipolar-Schizophrenia Network for Intermediate Phenotypes (BSNIP-2) study, were included. Three biomarker-derived biotypes were used to separately categorize the probands. Mean personality factors (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) were compared between HC and proband subgroups using independent sample t-tests. A robust linear regression was utilized to determine personality differences across biotypes and diagnostic subgroups. Associations between personality factors and cognition were determined through Pearson's correlation. A canonical correlation was run between the personality factors and general functioning, positive symptoms, and negative symptoms to delineate the relationship between personality and clinical outcomes of psychosis. Results: There were significant personality differences between the proband and HC groups across all five personality factors. Overall, the probands had higher neuroticism and lower extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Openness showed the greatest difference across the diagnostic subgroups and biotypes, and greatest correlation with cognition. Openness, agreeableness, and extraversion had the strongest associations with symptom severity. Conclusions: Individuals with psychosis have different personality profiles compared to HC. In particular, openness may be relevant in distinguishing psychosis-specific phenotypes and experiences, and associated with biological underpinnings of psychosis, including cognition. Further studies should identify potential causal factors and mediators of this relationship.
RESUMEN
Idiopathic psychosis shows considerable biological heterogeneity across cases. B-SNIP used psychosis-relevant biomarkers to identity psychosis Biotypes, which will aid etiological and targeted treatment investigations. Psychosis probands from the B-SNIP consortium (n = 1907), their first-degree biological relatives (n = 705), and healthy participants (n = 895) completed a biomarker battery composed of cognition, saccades, and auditory EEG measurements. ERP quantifications were substantially modified from previous iterations of this approach. Multivariate integration reduced multiple biomarker outcomes to 11 "bio-factors". Twenty-four different approaches indicated bio-factor data among probands were best distributed as three subgroups. Numerical taxonomy with k-means constructed psychosis Biotypes, and rand indices evaluated consistency of Biotype assignments. Psychosis subgroups, their non-psychotic first-degree relatives, and healthy individuals were compared across bio-factors. The three psychosis Biotypes differed significantly on all 11 bio-factors, especially prominent for general cognition, antisaccades, ERP magnitude, and intrinsic neural activity. Rand indices showed excellent consistency of clustering membership when samples included at least 1100 subjects. Canonical discriminant analysis described composite bio-factors that simplified group comparisons and captured neural dysregulation, neural vigor, and stimulus salience variates. Neural dysregulation captured Biotype-2, low neural vigor captured Biotype-1, and deviations of stimulus salience captured Biotype-3. First-degree relatives showed similar patterns as their Biotyped proband relatives on general cognition, antisaccades, ERP magnitudes, and intrinsic brain activity. Results extend previous efforts by the B-SNIP consortium to characterize biologically distinct psychosis Biotypes. They also show that at least 1100 observations are necessary to achieve consistent outcomes. First-degree relative data implicate specific bio-factor deviations to the subtype of their proband and may inform studies of genetic risk.
RESUMEN
Anthropogenic climate change threatens the structure and function of ecosystems throughout the globe, but many people are still skeptical of its existence. Traditional "knowledge deficit model" thinking has suggested that providing the public with more facts about climate change will assuage skepticism. However, presenting evidence contrary to prior beliefs can have the opposite effect and result in a strengthening of previously held beliefs, a phenomenon known as biased assimilation or a backfire effect. Given this, strategies for effectively communicating about socioscientific issues that are politically controversial need to be thoroughly investigated. We randomly assigned 184 undergraduates from an environmental science class to one of three experimental conditions in which we exposed them to short videos that employed different messaging strategies: (a) an engaging science lecture, (b) consensus messaging, and (c) elite cues. We measured changes in student perceptions of climate change across five constructs (content knowledge, acceptance of scientific consensus, perceived risk, support for action, and climate identity) before and after viewing videos. Consensus messaging outperformed the other two conditions in increasing student acceptance of the scientific consensus, perceived risk of climate change, and climate identity, suggesting this may be an effective strategy for communicating the gravity of anthropogenic climate change. Elite cues outperformed the engaging science lecture condition in increasing student support for action on climate, with politically conservative students driving this relationship, suggesting that the messenger is more important than the message if changing opinions about the necessity of action on climate change is the desired outcome. Relative to the other conditions, the engaging science lecture did not support change in students' perceptions on climate, but appealing to student respect for authority produced positive results. Notably, we observed no decline in students' acceptance of climate science, indicating that none of the conditions induced a backfire effect.