Despite a well-documented association between personality disorders (PDs) and violence, the relationship between them is complicated by the high comorbidity of mental disorders, the heterogeneity of violence (particularly in regard to its motivation), and differing views regarding the way PDs are conceptualised and measured. In particular, it remains unclear whether there is a causal relationship between PDs and violence, and what the psychological mechanisms might be that mediate such a relationship. Here, a perspective on PD and violence is offered that views the relationship between them through the lenses of the Five Factor Model of personality and a quadripartite typology of violence. Evidence is reviewed suggesting that emotion dysregulation/impulsiveness, psychopathy, and delusional ideation conjointly contribute to the increased risk of violence shown by people with PD, and do so by contributing to a broad severity dimension of personality dysfunction. This view is consistent with the abandonment of personality disorder categories in the forthcoming eleventh edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), where severity of personality disorder is defined in terms of the degree of harm to self and others.
Below: The quadripartite (2×2) violence typology. The intersection of impulsiveness (vs. control/premeditation) and affect (positive vs. negative) yields 4 distinct types of violence characterised by motives of excitement seeking and greed (both associated with positive affect) and revenge and self-defence (both associated with negative affect)
Below: A schematic overview of the suggested relationship between personality disorder (PD) and violence. General psychopathology (p) is subsumed by 3 factors, Externalizing, Internalizing and Thought Disorder but, as reported in [7], p is associated most strongly with Thought Disorder (indicated by a heavy arrow in the figure). Externalizing subsumes traits associated with both psychopathy and emotional impulsiveness, both of which contribute to severe PD and increase the risk for violence, particularly appetitive violence. Thought Disorder is shown as contributing independently to the risk of violence, and particularly of aversive violence. Also shown are contextual factors such as alcohol use that operate as proximal causal risk factors for violence in concert with distal personality factors
Read more at: http://ht.ly/SHz3S
By: Richard Howard
Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham Innovation Park, Jubilee Campus, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU UK
The notion of 'bizarre delusion' has come into question in contemporary anglophone psychopathology. In DSM-5, it no longer serves as a special criterion for diagnosing schizophrenia nor as an exclusion criterion for delusional disorder. Empirical studies influencing this development have, however, been relatively sparse and subject to methodological criticism.
Major reviews have concluded that current conceptualizations of bizarre delusions may require rethinking and refinement. Defining bizarreness entails a return to Jaspers, whose influential views on the supposed incomprehensibility of bizarre delusions and schizophrenic experience are more nuanced than is generally recognized. Jaspers insisted we must 'get behind' three 'external characteristics' (extraordinary conviction, imperviousness, impossible content) in order to acknowledge a 'primary experience traceable to the illness' in the 'delusions proper' of schizophrenia. He also denied that one could empathize with or otherwise 'understand' this basis.
Here, we focus on three features of bizarre delusions that Jaspers foregrounded as illustrating schizophrenic incomprehensibility: disturbance of the cogito, certitude combined with inconsequentiality, delusional mood. We link these with the contemporary ipseity disturbance model of schizophrenia, arguing that Jaspers' examples of incomprehensibility can be understood as manifestations of the three complementary aspects of ipseity-disturbance: diminished self-presence, hyperreflexivity and disturbed grip/hold. We follow Jaspers' lead in acknowledging a distinctive strangeness that defies ready comprehension, but we challenge the absolutism of Jaspers' skepticism by offering a phenomenological account that comprehends bizarreness in two ways: rendering it psychologically understandable, and fitting the various instances of bizarreness into a comprehensive explanatory framework.
Via: http://ht.ly/S3WLF
By: Sass LA1, Byrom G.
1Department of Clinical Psychology, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., USA
Below: The three positive symptoms derived as a breakdown of the linguistic frame of thought
We hypothesize that linguistic (dis-)organization in the schizophrenic brain plays a more central role in the pathogenesis of this disease than commonly supposed. Against the standard view, that schizophrenia is a disturbance of thought or selfhood, we argue that the origins of the relevant forms of thought and selfhood at least partially depend on language. The view that they do not is premised by a theoretical conception of language that we here identify as ‘Cartesian’ and contrast with a recent ‘un-Cartesian’ model. This linguistic model empirically argues for both (i) a one-to-one correlation between human-specific thought or meaning and forms of grammatical organization, and (ii) an integrative and co-dependent view of linguistic cognition and its sensory-motor dimensions. Core dimensions of meaning mediated by grammar on this model specifically concern forms of referential and propositional meaning. A breakdown of these is virtually definitional of core symptoms. Within this model the three main positive symptoms of schizophrenia fall into place as failures in language-mediated forms of meaning, manifest either as a disorder of speech perception (Auditory Verbal Hallucinations), abnormal speech production running without feedback control (Formal Thought Disorder), or production of abnormal linguistic content (Delusions). Our hypothesis makes testable predictions for the language profile of schizophrenia across symptoms; it simplifies the cognitive neuropsychology of schizophrenia while not being inconsistent with a pattern of neurocognitive deficits and their correlations with symptoms; and it predicts persistent findings on disturbances of language-related circuitry in the schizophrenic brain.
Read at: http://ht.ly/Qz2Ao HT @durham_uni
