HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Published in final edited form as:
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2016 April ; 204(4): 306–313. doi:10.1097/NMD.0000000000000448.
Agreement Between Self and Informant-Reported Ratings of
Personality Traits: The Moderating Effects of Major Depressive
and/or Panic Disorder
Lynne Lieberman, M.A.1, Stephanie M. Gorka, M.A.1, Ashley A. Huggins, B.A.1, Andrea C.
Katz, M.A.1, Casey Sarapas, M.A.1, and Stewart A. Shankman, Ph.D1
Author Manuscript
1
Abstract
Author Manuscript
Several personality traits are risk factors for psychopathology. As symptoms of psychopathology
may influence self-rated personality, informant-reports of personality are also sometimes
collected. However, little is known about self-informant agreement in individuals with anxiety
and/or depression. We investigated whether self-informant agreement on positive and negative
affectivity (PA and NA), and anxiety sensitivity differs for individuals with major depression
(MDD) and/or panic disorder (PD, total n=117). Informant- and self-reported PA was correlated
among those with MDD, but not those without MDD. Informant- and self-reported anxiety
sensitivity was correlated among those with PD, but not those without PD. Informant- and selfreported NA was correlated irrespective of diagnosis. Results indicate that the agreement of self
and informant-reported personality may vary as a function of depression and/or anxiety disorders.
Keywords
Self-informant agreement; Panic disorder; Major depressive disorder; informant-reported
personality
1. Introduction
Author Manuscript
Anxiety and depressive disorders are highly prevalent internalizing psychopathologies
associated with significant impairment across multiple domains of life (Byers et al., 2010;
Kessler et al., 2012). Comprehensive assessment of personality can aid in the identification
of individuals at risk for internalizing psychopathology, and provide valuable information
about prognosis (Bagby et al., 2008; Clark et al., 1997; Mulder, 2002). For example, high
negative affectivity (NA) during adolescence longitudinally predicts the development of
mood and anxiety pathology in adulthood (Kendler et al., 2006; Krueger, 1999; Wetter and
Hankin, 2009). Heightened anxiety sensitivity, or the tendency to experience distress in
response to benign bodily sensations associated with anxiety (e.g., heart racing or nausea),
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stewart A. Shankman, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 W.
Harrison St. (M/C 285), Chicago, IL, 60607. Phone: (312)-355-3812; stewarts@uic.edu.
Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Lieberman et al.
Page 2
Author Manuscript
may connote risk for panic disorder (PD; McNally, 2002; Schmidt et al., 1997), but not
depression (Schmidt et al., 1998). In contrast, reduced positive affectivity (PA) has been
implicated in the pathogenesis of depressive, but not certain anxiety disorders (Shankman
and Klein, 2003; Watson et al., 1988).
Author Manuscript
A common method of ascertaining information about personality and temperament is by
self-report interviews or questionnaires that require self-assessment of one’s own trait-like
tendencies or dispositions. However, self-ratings of personality traits obtained from
individuals with a current mood or anxiety disorder may not be indicative of their premorbid
personality (Griens et al., 2002; Ormel et al., 2004). Longitudinal studies have suggested
that changes in depressive symptoms are associated with mean-level changes in how
individuals rate themselves on personality measures over time (De Fruyt et al., 2006;
Hirschfeld et al.,1983; Jylha et al., 2009; Ormel et al., 2004), even when personality
assessments are administered only twelve weeks apart (Griens et al., 2002). Similarly, Reich
and colleagues (1983) found significant mean-level changes in self-reported personality
after just six weeks among PD patients who responded to alprazolam treatment.
Author Manuscript
Some have argued that such changes in self-reported personality occur because
psychopathology hinders an individual’s ability to objectively assess his or her own
personality (Klonsky, Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2002; Reich et al., 1986; Wetzler et al.,
1990). In an effort to obtain a more complete picture of an individual’s personality,
researchers sometimes have family members or close friends (i.e., informants) provide
personality trait ratings for the proband (i.e., the individual whose personality is of interest;
Clark, 2007; Klonsky et al., 2002; Zimmerman et al., 1986). High concordance between
self- and informant-reports of personality can be interpreted as evidence in support of the
validity of self-reported personality (Funder and West, 1993; Ready and Clark, 2002; Yang
et al., 1999). The practice of using self-informant agreement to evaluate accuracy is
grounded largely in the assumption that informant-reports of personality are less biased by
the proband’s psychopathology and social desirability, and thus more “objective” than selfreports of personality (Funder and West, 1993; Mosterman & Hendriks, 2011; Pilgrim and
Mann, 1990; Yang et al., 1999).
Author Manuscript
Others have argued that self-reported personality is not biased by psychopathology, and that
changes in self-ratings of personality traits may represent a lasting change in personality, or
“scar effect”, that occurs as a result of anxiety or depression (Bagby et al., 1998; Kendler et
al., 1993). Self-reported personality would therefore result in trait ratings that are indicative
of one’s post-morbid, but not premorbid personality. Thus, self- and informant-ratings of
personality obtained from those with internalizing psychopathology may each be valid, but
represent different aspects of an individual’s disposition. It is also important to note that,
although the absolute stability of self-reported personality might be influenced by anxiety
and depression, other forms of stability may remain intact (i.e., differential, individual-level,
and ipsative stability; De Fruyt et al., 2006), suggesting that self-reported personality is not
entirely unstable among those with internalizing psychopathology.
Indeed, when self- and informant-reports do not entirely correspond each report may have
incremental validity (Clifton et al., 2004; Galione and Oltmanns, 2013). For example, Klein
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 3
Author Manuscript
(2003) found that, among individuals with personality disorders, informant-reports of
personality added incremental validity to self-reports in predicting depressive symptoms and
global functioning at follow-up. Obtaining self- and informant-reports of personality may
therefore be particularly valuable when the two sources provide divergent information, as
each source may add to the predictive utility of personality assessment. Conversely, if selfinformant agreement is high, obtaining both reports may be unnecessary. Therefore,
determining whether self-informant concordance rates on personality measures are higher or
lower in certain populations may prove valuable for guiding clinicians and researchers as to
when gathering assessments from both sources may be most beneficial
Author Manuscript
In non-clinical samples, self-informant agreement on personality is typically modest but
significant (Connolly et al., 2007; Klonsky et al., 2002). Importantly, agreement has been
found to differ by trait, agreement higher for those traits that are more observable, such as
agreeableness or extraversion, relative to more ‘internal’ traits, such as neuroticism (Clifton
et al., 2004; Funder and Colvin, 1988; Funder and Dobroth, 1987). That is, traits associated
with visible behavioral manifestations tend to yield greater self-informant agreement than
those traits associated with more private or less outwardly expressed behavioral
manifestations. The self-other asymmetry model (SOKA; Vazire, 2010) theorizes about
these findings and postulates that agreement is poorer for internal traits because informants
may be less accurate than probands when assessing traits associated with fewer observable
behaviors.
Author Manuscript
Given that that anxiety and depression are internalizing disorders, it is possible that
personality traits relevant to those diagnoses yield poor self-informant agreement. However,
this question remains relatively unexplored. In the broader literature, self-informant
agreement on personality disorder diagnoses in clinical samples have yielded correlations
ranging from .18 to .80 (Klonsky et al., 2002). Only two studies to date have examined selfinformant agreement on Big Five personality traits among those with depression. Bagby et
al. (1998) found self- and informant-ratings on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory to be
highly similar (r > .50) among a sample of individuals with unipolar depression, an
agreement that is comparable if not slightly higher than what has been found across some
non-clinical samples. Ready and Clark (2002) found that there were no differences in
agreement between individuals with a personality disorder with and without comorbid
depression on the Big Five Inventory (BFI) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive
Personality (SNAP). Interestingly, however, self-informant agreement on ratings of
openness was higher for those with depression than those without.
Author Manuscript
Taken together, the studies above suggest that concordance between self- and informantratings of personality among individuals with depression may be comparable to, if not
higher than, concordance among those without. However, to our knowledge no study to date
has compared self-informant concordance rates for those with depression, relative to those
without a history of psychopathology, within the same sample. More importantly, no study
has examined the impact of depression, and other internalizing disorders such as anxiety, on
the relationship between self- and informant-reports of traits known to connote risk for
internalizing disorder onset and maintenance – specifically, PA, NA and anxiety sensitivity.
Given that measures of personality are regularly collected in both research and clinical
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 4
Author Manuscript
settings, examining factors that could influence the relation between such reports is critical.
In sum, the present study investigated whether self-informant agreement on personality trait
ratings varies as a function of whether the individual has no history of psychopathology, a
diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), PD, or comorbid MDD and PD.
Author Manuscript
In order to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the tendencies to experience positive and
negative emotions (i.e., PA and NA), the present study used a battery of questionnaires that
have previously found to yield correlated indicators of these broader tendencies.
Specifically, (1) neuroticism, negative emotionality, anxiety sensitivity, and behavioral
inhibition have all been shown to correlate and be indicators of NA and (2) extraversion,
positive emotionality, reward sensitivity, and behavioral activation have all shown to
correlate and be indicators of PA (e.g., Carver & White, 1994; Hagopian & Ollendick, 1996;
Heubeck, Wilkinson & Cologon, 1998; Jorm et al., 1998; Smits & Boeck, 2006). Agreement
was therefore examined on factor analytically derived composites of PA and NA, so as to
reduce the potential impact of method variance on our analyses of self-informant agreement
(Elliott & Trash, 2002). Agreement on the measure of anxiety sensitivity was also examined
separately, given its relevance to PD (McNally, 2002; Schmidt et al., 1997). Mean-level
differences between self and informant-reports were also examined to evaluate for
systematic reporting biases (i.e., whether probands reported significantly lower or higher
levels of a given trait than their respective informants).
Author Manuscript
Based on findings to date, we expected informant-reports to be positively associated with
self-reports of personality across all participants. Due to the limited extant literature on the
potential moderating effects of anxiety on the concordance between self- and informantratings on questionnaire measures of personality, we did not have specific hypotheses as to
whether the relationship between self- and informant-reports would differ between
diagnostic groups (i.e., healthy controls, MDD, PD, or comorbid PD and MDD). It is
possible that individuals with MDD and/or PD could exhibit certain ‘internal’ traits (e.g.,
anxiety sensitivity or NA) more outwardly than those without that disorder, which could
result in superior self-informant agreement for those with that disorder (Carlson, Vazire &
Oltmanns, 2013; Clifton et al., 2004; Funder and Colvin, 1988; Funder and Dobroth, 1987;
Vazire, 2010). However, prior studies have suggested that mood and anxiety symptoms may
bias proband reports leading to poor agreement between self- and informants across all three
diagnostic groups (e.g., Zimmerman et al., 1988).
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
Author Manuscript
Data from the present study was collected as part of a larger investigation on laboratory
measures of emotional processing, for which the complete procedure can be found
elsewhere (Shankman et al., 2013). In brief, self-report measures of personality and
temperament were collected from four groups of individuals (i.e., probands; N = 208), those
with: (1) no history of Axis I psychopathology (i.e., healthy controls; n = 82), (2) current
MDD and no lifetime history of PD (i.e., MDD-only group; n = 40), (3) current PD and no
lifetime history of MDD (i.e., PD-only group; n = 28), (4) current PD and MDD (i.e.,
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 5
Author Manuscript
comorbid PD and MDD group; n = 58). Thus, the study was a 2 (MDD status: yes vs. no) X
2 (PD status: yes vs. no) design.
Diagnoses were made via the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID; First et al.,
1996). SCIDs were conducted by the last author and advanced clinical psychology doctoral
students. Diagnosticians were trained to criterion by viewing the SCID-101 training videos
(Biometrics Research Department, New York, NY), observing two or three joint SCID
interviews with the last author, and completing three SCID interviews (observed by the last
author or an advanced interviewer) in which diagnoses were in agreement with the observer.
Twenty SCIDs were audio re-corded and scored by a second rater blind to original
diagnoses to determine reliability of diagnoses. Inter-rater reliability indicated perfect
agreement for PD and MDD diagnoses (kappas = 1.00).
Author Manuscript
Participants were recruited from the community (via fliers, Internet postings, etc.) and area
mental health clinics. Participants in PD-only and comorbid groups were allowed to have
other current or past anxiety disorders, whereas participants in the MDD-only group were
not allowed to have a lifetime history of any anxiety disorders. In addition, due to the aims
of the larger study (and to reduce the heterogeneity of those with MDD), all individuals with
MDD had an early onset of dysthymia or MDD (i.e., prior to age 18). Participants were
excluded if they had a lifetime diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, or
dementia; were unable to read or write in English; had a history of head trauma with loss of
consciousness; or were left-handed (left-handedness was confirmed using the Edinburgh
Handedness Inventory; Oldfield, 1971).
Author Manuscript
Informant-reports were completed and returned for 117 (51%) of the 208 probands (PD-only
= 15), MDD-only = 21), comorbid PD and MDD = 28), controls = 53). Of the probands that
had informant data , 51.3% were Caucasian, 26.5% were African-American, 7.7% were
Hispanic, and 14.5% were Asian, and 65% were female. The mean age of this sample was
33.29 (SD = 12.71). 17.1% of participants in the present study were currently taking
psychotropic medication, and 13.7% were currently engaged in outpatient treatment. The
mean global assessment of functioning (GAF) score was 69.21 (SD = 18.04).
Author Manuscript
Probands with informant-reports returned to the laboratory did not differ from those without
in ethnicity, X2 (3, N = 208) = 4.70, ns, gender, X2 (1, N = 208) = .12, ns, depression status,
X2 (2, N = 208) = 2.94, ns, panic status, X2 (2, N = 208) = 2.33, ns, or age, F (1, 198) = .04,
ns. Likewise, there were no mean-level differences in NA, F (1, 198) = .00, ns, PA, F (1,
198) = .12 ns, or anxiety-sensitivity, F (1, 198) = 1.23, ns, between probands for whom
informant-reports of personality were obtained, relative to probands for whom informantreports were not obtained.
2.2 Procedure
After providing informed consent, proband participants were administered a battery of selfreport personality questionnaires. Participants were also asked to provide contact
information for a family member or close friend who could serve as an informant to
complete a packet of questionnaires about the proband’s “qualities and characteristics”. All
probands were compensated in cash for their time.
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 6
Author Manuscript
A laboratory member contacted informants by phone to determine their willingness to
participate. Both informants and probands were assured that their ratings would not be
viewed by the other. Informant-reports were identical to the self-report measures collected,
however, informant-report measures were reworded from first to third person either by the
developers of the scales or with permission from the developers. Informants who returned
the packets were paid $20 for their participation. Successfully contacting informants and
obtaining informant-reports of personality for a clinical sample was a challenging endeavor.
Consequently, there were an unintended number of days spanned between the administration
of self- and informant-reports. In particular, the numbers of days spanned between the
administration of self- and informant-reports was skewed with a mean of 318.15 (SD =
377.18), but a median of 243. All procedures were approved by the University of IllinoisChicago’s Institutional Review Board.
Author Manuscript
2.3 Measures
GTS and GTS-IR—The General Temperament Scale (GTS; Clark and Watson, 1990) is a
90-item true-false questionnaire that yields scores for negative and positive temperament.
Higher scores on the negative temperament subscale indicate a tendency to experience
negative emotions such as sadness or anger, whereas higher scores on the positive
temperament subscale indicate a tendency to experience positive emotions, such as
happiness or excitement. Cronbach’s alphas were .90 and .93 for self-reports of PE and NE,
and .88 and .91 for informant-reports of PE and NE, respectively.
Author Manuscript
EPQ-R and EPQ-R-IR—Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck, Eysenck &
Barrett, 1985) is a 100-item questionnaire with yes or no answer options. The EPQ yields
scores for neuroticism and extraversion. Cronbach’s alphas were .93 and .74 for self-reports
of neuroticism and extraversion, and .90 and .71 for informant-reports of neuroticism and
extraversion, respectively.
TEPS and TEPS-IR—The Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (TEPS; Gard et al.,
2006) is an 18-item questionnaire, which requires participants to indicate yes or no to each
item. The TEPS is designed to assess trait differences in ability to derive pleasure from the
anticipation and consummation of reward. Cronbach’s alphas were .87 and .83 for selfreports and informant-reports of reward processing, respectively.
Author Manuscript
ASI-R and ASI-R-IR—The Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R; Taylor and Cox,
1998) is 36-item revised version of the original ASI developed by Reiss et al (1986).
Statements are rated on a five-point scale ranging from “very little” to “very much.” The
ASI is designed to assess the extent to which an individual experiences fear or distress in
response to physiological indicators of anxiety, such as heart racing or nausea. Cronbach’s
alphas were .96 and .97 for self-reports and informant-reports of anxiety sensitivity,
respectively.
BIS/BAS Scale and BIS/BAS Scale-IR—The Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral
Activation System Scale (BIS/BAS Scale; Carver and White, 1994) includes 26-items rated
on a four-point scale ranging from “very true” to “very false.” The BIS/BAS has two
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 7
Author Manuscript
subscales: behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation. The BIS scale assesses the
tendency of individuals to experience negative affect or withdrawal behaviors in response to
stimuli. The BAS scale assesses the tendency of individuals to experience positive affect or
approach behaviors in response to stimuli. Cronbach’s alphas were .86 and .91 for selfreports of BIS and BAS, and .81 and .90 for informant-reports of BIS and BAS,
respectively.
2.4 Calculation of NA and PA Factor Scores
Author Manuscript
Missing questionnaire items were imputed using the participant’s own average response on
the missing item’s subscale. There were five probands for whom informants had returned
packets that were missing substantial numbers of items from specific questionnaires (i.e., the
entire backside of the EPQ-R). In order to avoid over-inferring an informant’s responses, we
chose not to interpolate item-level responses if more than 20% of a questionnaire’s items
were missing. However, we did calculate factor scores (see below) for these subjects using a
combination of the participant's available data and the average of their group (i.e., control,
PD, MDD). More specifically, missing subscale scores were imputed using the average zscore for that participant’s diagnostic group. Z-scores were then multiplied by the
appropriate factor loading and added together to generate a factor score.
Author Manuscript
As mentioned earlier, in order to reduce method variance for all analyses (Elliot and Thrash,
2002), we conducted principle component factor analyses using a varimax rotation,
independently for each self- and informant-reports. Factors with eigenvalues above one were
extracted from the factor analyses of self- and informant-measures (Ford, Macullum & Tait,
1986). We also examined the scree plots generated from our factor analyses to further ensure
that extracting two factors was indeed appropriate (i.e., the eigenvalues visibly dropped
substantially after two factors; Fabrigar et al., 1999). As predicted, factor analyses revealed
the same two-factor structure for self- and informant-reports of personality. Overall reward
processing (TEPS), positive emotionality (GTS), extraversion (EPQ), and behavioral
activation (BIS/BAS), loaded positively onto a PA factor. Anxiety sensitivity (ASI),
negative emotionality (GTS), neuroticism (EPQ), and behavioral inhibition (BIS/BAS)
loaded onto an NA factor (see Table 1).
Author Manuscript
Gender and age of the proband, and number of days spanned in between completion of the
self-and informant-report were included as covariates for all analyses described below. All
continuous variables were mean-centered. Diagnostic variables included in the analyses
were MDD (yes/no) and PD (yes/no). This 2x2 between subjects design is ideal for the
present purpose. Studies that do not have the fully crossed design (e.g., only three of the
cells) attempt to examine the separate effects of depression or anxiety by “covarying out”
the effects of one or the other, an approach that is not ideal (see Miller and Chapman, 2001
for a full description of the flaws of this approach). In other words, the present 2 X 2 design
allows for the examination of the main effects of PD and MDD without confounding those
effects.
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 8
2.5 Data Analysis Plan
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
2.5.1 Rank-order Agreement—We conducted three hierarchical regression analyses to
examine the concordance between self- and informant-reports of NA, PA and ASI. Scores
on informant-reports were included as an independent variable, and scores on self-reports as
the dependent variable for each regression. MDD and PD were included as separate
moderators. For the analysis of self-informant agreement on each measure, covariates were
entered in block one, and the main effects PD, MDD, and informant-rated personality were
entered in block two. The two-way interactions of informant-rated personality x MDD, and
informant-rated personality x PD status were entered in block three. This is the key step in
the model as it examines whether diagnosis moderates the association of self and informant
ratings. Finally, the three-way interaction of MDD x PD x informant-rated personality were
entered in block four. However, the 3-way interaction term was subsequently removed from
the model because there was no effect of comorbidity on rank-order agreement for any of
the traits examined. Significant interactions of diagnosis by self-reported personality were
followed up by examining the simple slopes (Aiken and West, 1991) of informant-rated
personality for individuals with and without the diagnosis.
Author Manuscript
2.5.2 Mean-level Differences—We conducted three, three-way mixed effects ANOVAs
to examine whether informants rated probands at different average levels on NA, PA, and
ASI than proband’s rated themselves and whether this difference was moderated by
diagnosis. Source of personality ratings (self- vs. informant-reported) were entered as
within-subjects factors, and MDD status and PD status as between-subjects factors. Source
by diagnoses interactions were followed-up to evaluate the directionality of the effect for
that diagnostic group. Finally, analogous to the rank-order analyses, because there was no
three-way interaction on mean-levels of NA, PA, or ASI-R, this interaction term was
subsequently removed from mean-level analyses.
3. Results
3.1 Self-Informant Agreement on Positive Affectivity
Author Manuscript
There was a significant positive relationship between self- and informant-reported PA when
collapsed across diagnostic groups. There was also a main effect of MDD on self-reported
PA, such that PA was lower among those with MDD, relative to those without. However,
there was no main effect of PD on self-reported PA and the relationship between self- and
informant-reports of PA was not moderated by PD (see Table 2). Most importantly, MDD
moderated the relationship between self- and informant-reported PA. Follow-up analyses
indicated that informant-reports positively predicted self-reports among those with MDD, β
= .63, t(116) = 3.50, p < .05, but not among those without, β = .19, t(116) = 1.62, ns (see
Figure 1).
There were no mean-level differences between self- and informant-reports of PA when
collapsed across diagnostic groups, F (1, 111) = .34, ns, ηp2 = .00. Likewise, there was no
two-way interaction of PD status x source of personality report, F (1, 111) = .00, ns, ηp2 = .
00, or MDD status x source of personality report, F (1, 111) = .72, ns, ηp2 = .01, on PA.
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 9
3.2 Self-Informant Agreement on Negative Affectivity
Author Manuscript
There was a significant positive relationship between self- and informant-reported NA.
There was also a main effect of PD on self-reported NA, and MDD on self-reported NA,
such that NA was higher among those with PD and MDD, relative to those without. The
association between self- and informant-reported NA was not moderated by MDD status or
PD status (see Table 3). There were also no mean-level differences between self- and
informant-reports of NA when collapsed across diagnostic groups, F (1, 111) = .46, ns, ηp2
= .01. In addition, there was no PD status x source of personality report interaction, F (1,
111) = 3.07, ns, ηp2 = .03, or MDD status x source of personality report on NA, F (1, 111)
= .28, ns, ηp2 = .00.
3.3 Self-Informant Agreement on Anxiety Sensitivity
Author Manuscript
There was a significant positive relationship between informant- and self-reported anxiety
sensitivity, and a main effect of PD on self-reported anxiety sensitivity. Individuals with PD
reported higher levels of anxiety sensitivity than those without. Likewise, there was a main
effect of MDD on self-reported anxiety sensitivity, such that individuals with MDD reported
higher levels of anxiety sensitivity than those without. The relation between self- and
informant-reported was moderated by PD status (see Table 4). Follow-up analysis indicated
that informant-reports positively predicted self-reports of anxiety sensitivity among those
with PD, β = .52, t(114) = 4.60, p < .05, but not among those without, β = .26, t(114) = .66,
ns (see Figure 2). Agreement on anxiety sensitivity was not moderated by MDD, β = .05, ns.
Author Manuscript
Finally, there were no mean-level differences between self- and informant-reports of anxiety
sensitivity when collapsed across diagnostic groups, F (1, 109) = 1.67, ns, ηp2 = .02. There
was also no two-way interaction of MDD status x source of personality report, F (1, 109) = .
10, ns, ηp2 = .00. However, there was an interaction of PD status x source of personality
report, F (1, 109) = 4.54, p < .05, ηp2 = .04. Follow-up comparisons revealed mean-level
differences between self- and informant-reported anxiety sensitivity among those without
PD, F (1, 73) = 14.70, p < .05, ηp2 = .17, such that informant-ratings of anxiety sensitivity
were higher (M = 47.13, SD = 29.76) than self-ratings of anxiety sensitivity among those
without PD (M = 32.72, SD = 21.04). There were no mean-level differences between selfand informant-reports of anxiety sensitivity among those with PD, F (1, 40) = .10, ns, ηp2 = .
00 (see Figure 2).
4. Discussion
Author Manuscript
The present study investigated the relationship between self- and informant-ratings of NA,
PA, and AS, and whether this relationship differed as a function of whether the proband had
a diagnosis of PD and/or MDD. Results overall suggest that self-informant agreement on
NA, PA, and AS among those with PD and/or MDD is comparable to, and for some traits
better than, agreement among healthy controls. In particular, across all participants, self- and
informant-reports of NA were moderately positively correlated. However, for PA and AS,
diagnosis moderated self-informant agreement. Below we discuss the results for each of the
personality domains.
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 10
4.1. Positive Affectivity
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
The present study found that depression moderated self-informant agreement on PA, such
that informant-reports were not associated with self-reports among those without MDD, but
were positively associated for those with MDD. Importantly, we found no evidence of
reporting biases in individuals with MDD as there were no mean-level differences between
self- and informant- reports of PA. It is therefore possible that the moderating effect of
depression may reflect that deficits in PA are especially noticeable or salient to informants
of probands with MDD. In other words, because individuals with MDD have overall lower
PA (consistent with many prior studies: Clark and Watson, 1991; Shankman and Klein,
2003; Shankman et al., 2013; Watson et al., 1988), this trait may be a more noticeable
characteristic of their personality than among those without MDD. Consistent with this
hypothesis, previous studies have found that the behavioral correlates of PA are visible
social behaviors, such as laughing and being talkative in the presence of others (Funder and
Colvin, 1988; Funder and Dobroth, 1987; Watson et al., 2000). Thus, it may be that the
failure or absence of these social behaviors captures the attention of others, as it is atypical.
This enhanced recognition may translate into greater self-informant agreement (Vazire,
2010).
Author Manuscript
Alternatively, the moderating effect of MDD on self-informant agreement may be due to
differences in the consistency of PA exhibited by those with MDD, relative to those without
a history of MDD. It has been suggested that self-informant agreement is superior for those
traits self-rated as highly consistent across situations and time, relative to those self-rated as
highly inconsistent (Bem and Allen, 1974; Funder and Dobroth, 1987). Individuals without a
history of MDD may exhibit more variability in PA throughout life (and in their interactions
with informants) than those with MDD. This tendency to exhibit greater fluctuations in PA
over the lifespan could lead to inconsistent reporting by informants. Conversely, individuals
with MDD may exhibit consistently low PA, which may enhance the ratability and interrater reliability of PA for those MDD.
4.2 Anxiety Sensitivity
Author Manuscript
Interestingly, the anxiety sensitivity findings were akin to the PA/MDD findings. PD
moderated the relationship between self- and informant-reports of anxiety sensitivity, a trait
that is particularly relevant to the development of PD (McNally, 2002; Schmidt et al., 1997;
Schmidt et al., 1998). More specifically, there was a positive relationship between self- and
informant-reports of anxiety sensitivity among those with PD, whereas this relationship was
not significant for those without PD. Comparable to PA among those with MDD, anxiety
sensitivity may be a more stable trait among those with PD than among those without. As
mentioned above, this consistency may have yielded greater self-informant agreement (Bem
and Allen, 1974; Funder and Dobroth, 1987).
Alternatively, given that anxiety sensitivity was higher among those with PD, relative to
those without, anxiety sensitivity may be a trait that is highly perceptible to others when
heightened. Traits have been found to vary in perceived visibility to informants based on
how often there are opportunities to perceive trait confirming or disconfirming behaviors
(Funder and Colvin, 1988; Funder and Dobroth, 1987). According to Vazire’s SOKA model
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 11
Author Manuscript
(2010), informants may therefore be less accurate than probands when rating ‘internal’
traits. Vazire suggests that this may be in part due to probands having privileged access to
their own physiological states (Carlson, Vazire & Oltmanns, 2013). Given that anxiety
sensitivity is associated with physiological sensations and cognitions about those sensations,
individuals may in fact have privileged access to information necessary for judging this trait.
Author Manuscript
However, among those with PD, there may be more frequent opportunities to observe the
behavioral correlates of anxiety sensitivity. For example, an individual with PD may
verbally or physically express to others distress over their bodily sensations (e.g., concern
that heart racing). In contrast, individuals without PD are not likely to express this level of
distress about benign physical symptoms, leaving informants of those without PD, unaware
of their respective proband’s level of anxiety sensitivity. That is, anxiety sensitivity may
“not come up” for non-PD participants leaving the informant unsure as to the proband’s
levels of the trait.
Indeed, in the current study, informant-ratings of anxiety sensitivity were significantly
higher than self-ratings of anxiety sensitivity on average among those without PD, and there
were no mean-level differences between self- and informant-reports among those with PD.
This discrepancy may suggest that informants of those without PD may have overestimated
the proband’s AS due to excessive speculation.
4.3 Negative Affectivity
Author Manuscript
Unlike PA and anxiety sensitivity, self-informant agreement on NA was not moderated by
diagnosis, although there was a significant positive association between self- and informantreports of NA across the entire sample. Self-reported NA was higher among those with
either PD or MDD, than healthy controls, and there were no mean-level differences between
self- and informant-reports of NA across diagnostic groups, again suggesting that there was
no systematic reporting bias among individuals with PD or MDD. Thus, despite the role of
heightened NA in the development of anxiety and depression (Kendler et al., 2006; Krueger,
1999; Wetter and Hankin, 2009), the agreement between self- and informant-reports of NA
may not differ for those with internalizing psychopathology (or at least MDD and PD),
relative to those without. Although speculative, it is possible that NA is not relatively more
noticeable to informants of those with internalizing psychopathology, because of the
heterogeneous nature of the behavioral correlates of NA. That is, NA manifests in a variety
of ways (e.g., crying, yelling, avoidance, rumination) and this variation may be consistent
across all diagnostic groups.
4.4 Comorbidity and Agreement
Author Manuscript
Finally, there was no interactive effect of PD and MDD on self-informant agreement for
NA, PA or anxiety sensitivity. There are several possible explanations for this lack of effect
of comorbidity. First, the present study may not have had adequate power to detect this
higher order (PD x MDD) interaction (although there was adequate power to detect the 2way effects for rank-order agreement and mean-level analyses: power > .85). Second, this
may suggest that noticeability of a trait to informants is not influenced by the degree or
severity of the internalizing symptoms experienced by the proband. That is, although anxiety
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 12
5. Conclusions and Implications
Author Manuscript
As mentioned earlier, there is a growing literature to suggest that self- and informant-reports
may each independently contribute to the predictive utility of personality assessment when
reports do not entirely converge (Klein, 2003). It may therefore be beneficial to collect selfand informant-reports when agreement is low, and potentially redundant to collect both
reports if agreement is high. Being that self-informant agreement for all traits among those
with a diagnosis was moderate at best, even when statistically significant, self- and
informant-reports were not capturing entirely redundant information. Thus, it may be
valuable to obtain informant-reports of personality among those with an anxiety or mood
disorder when possible. However, the degree of concordance between self- and informantreports reports of personality among those with a diagnosis indicates that it may not be
necessary to obtain both reports among those with anxiety or depression (i.e., they are not
providing entirely disparate information). Given the differential agreement exhibited across
groups, this may be a particularly important factor to consider when conducting betweengroups research designs in which PA or anxiety sensitivity are used as predictor variables.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
sensitivity could be more salient to informants of those with PD, the co-occurrence of
depressive symptoms with PD symptoms may not necessarily enhance this effect. Likewise,
the presence of PD symptoms may not improve self-informant agreement on PA for those
with comorbid PD and MDD.
It is also important to acknowledge that reliability of ratings does not necessarily indicate
validity (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955). Therefore, agreement between self- and informantreports of personality could indicate that both sources are biased by the psychopathology of
the proband. Although some have argued that informant-reports of personality are more
objective and reliable than self-reports of personality among those with psychopathology
(Funder and West, 2003; Pilgrim and Mann, 1990; Yang, 1999), there is evidence to suggest
that informant-reports may also be influenced by current mood and anxiety disorder
symptoms of the proband. For example, an investigation by Case et al. (2007) found that
self- and informant-reports of personality pathology changed after recovery from a
depressive episode. Therefore, it may be that neither the self- nor informant-reports are
indicative of the proband’s premorbid personality.
Author Manuscript
Finally, factor loadings of specific traits (e.g., neuroticism or extraversion) onto their
respective factors (i.e., NA and PA) were all above .71. This strong covariation within PA
and NA factors that clinicians may select any of the specific trait measures utilized in the
present study if they intend for our agreement results to inform their clinical practice..
However, given that the GTS, EPQ-R, and BIS/BAS each assess negative and positive
emotional propensities, these personality measures may be a more efficient means of
assessment than the ASI-R or TEPS.
The present study had several limitations worth considering. First, information was not
obtained about the relationship of the informant to the proband, the informants’ history of
psychopathology, or demographic information. Any of the aforementioned factors could
have potentially influenced self-informant agreement. Second, as discussed above, a small
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 13
Author Manuscript
sample size in each of the four diagnostic groups may have made it difficult to detect the
interactive effect of PD and MDD on self-informant agreement (although not the above PD
x anxiety sensitivity or MDD x PA effects). Third, the average time lapsed between the
collection of self- and informant-reports varied greatly across participants. We controlled for
the number of days spanned in between the administration of self- and informant-reports,
and the pattern of results did not change when this covariate [or any of the other covariates]
were removed from our models. There was also no main effect of days spanned on self- or
informant-reported personality; nor was there an interaction of days spanned x diagnosis on
self- or informant-reports of personality (p’s > .11). Fourth, the informant-report measures
utilized in the present study have not been previously validated, and therefore may have had
different psychometric properties than the self-report measures.
Author Manuscript
The current investigation had several methodological strengths, such as a clinical sample, a
design that allows for an independent examination of anxiety and depression (to conditions
which co-occur at extremely high rates), and the lack of reliance on a single indicator of PA
and NA (but rather latent factors which would reduce measurement noise [Elliot and Thrash,
2002]).
Author Manuscript
In conclusion, results from this investigation have important implications for future studies
that use personality traits to predict an individual’s risk for anxiety and/or depression, or
prognosis among those with internalizing psychopathology. Given the differential selfinformant agreement across diagnostic groups, future investigations should examine whether
the incremental utility of self- and informant-reports of personality also varies by diagnostic
group. In particular, studies are needed to evaluate whether the association between an
external criterion (e.g., behaviors measured in the laboratory) and self- and informantreports differs by diagnosis.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health under Grants R21 MH080689 and R01 MH098093
awarded to Dr. Stewart Shankman.
References
Author Manuscript
Aiken, LS.; West, SG. Multiple regression. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1991.
Bagby RM, Rector NA, Bindseil K, Dickens SE, Levitan RD, Kennedy SH. Self-report ratings and
informants' ratings of personalities of depressed outpatients. Am J Psychiat. 1998; 155:437–438.
[PubMed: 9501762]
Bagby RM, Quilty LC, Ryder AC. Personality and depression. Can J Psychiat. 2008; 53:14–25.
Bem DJ, Allen A. On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational
consistencies in behavior. Psychol Rev. 1974; 81:506–520.
Bruce TJ, Spiegel DA, Gregg SF, Nuzzarello A. Predictors of alprazolam discontinuation with and
without cognitive behavior therapy in panic disorder. Am J Psychiat. 1995; 152:1156–1160.
[PubMed: 7625463]
Byers AL, Yaffe K, Covinsky KE, Friedman MB, Bruce ML. High occurrence of mood and anxiety
disorders among older adults: The National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiat.
2010; 67:489–496. [PubMed: 20439830]
Carlson EN, Vazire S, Oltmanns TF. Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetries in Personality Pathology. J
Pers. 2013; 81:155–170. [PubMed: 22583054]
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Carver CS, White TL. Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to
impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994; 67:319–333.
Case BG, Biel MG, Peselow ED, Guardino M. Reliability of personality disorder diagnosis during
depression: The contribution of collateral informant reports. Acta Psychiat Scand. 2007; 115:487–
491. [PubMed: 17498161]
Clark, LA. Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press; 1993.
Clark LA. Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an emerging
reconceptualization. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007; 58:227–257. [PubMed: 16903806]
Clark, LA.; Watson, D. Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. In: Pervin, L.; John, O.,
editors. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 2. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. p.
399-423.
Clifton A, Turkheimer E, Oltmanns TF. Contrasting perspectives on personality problems:
Descriptions from the self and others. Pers Indiv Differences. 2004; 36:1499–1514.
Colvin CR, Funder DC. Predicting personality and behavior: A boundary on the acquaintanceship
effect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991; 60:884–894. [PubMed: 1865326]
Costa, PT.; McCrae, RR. The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). In: Boyle, GJ.;
Matthews, G.; Saklofske, DH., editors. The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment.
Vol. 2. 2008. p. 179-198.
Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. Four ways five factors are basic. Pers Indiv Differ. 1992; 13:653–665.
Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955; 52:281–302.
[PubMed: 13245896]
De Fruyt F, Van Leeuwen K, Bagby RM, Rolland JP, Rouillon F. Assessing and interpreting
personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychol Assessment.
2006; 18:71–80.
Elliot AJ, Thrash TM. Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance
temperaments and goals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 82:804–818. [PubMed: 12003479]
Eysenck SB, Eysenck HJ, Barrett P. A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Pers Indiv Differ.
1985; 6:21–29.
Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor
analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999; 4:272–299.
First, MB.; Spitzer, RL.; Gibbon, M.; Williams, JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis
I Disorders, Clinician Version. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1996.
Ford KJ, MacCallum RC, Tait M. The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied
psychology: A critical review and analysis. Pers Psychol. 1986; 986:291–314.
Funder DC, Colvin CR. Friends and strangers: acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of
personality judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 55:149–158. [PubMed: 3418488]
Funder DC, Dobroth KM. Differences between traits: properties associated with interjudge agreement.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987; 52:409–418. [PubMed: 3559898]
Funder DC, West SG. Consensus, self-other agreement, and accuracy in personality judgment: An
introduction. J Pers. 1993; 61:457–476. [PubMed: 8151499]
Galione JN, Oltmanns TF. Identifying personality pathology associated with major depressive
episodes: Incremental validity of informant reports. J Pers Assess. 2013; 95:625–632. [PubMed:
24004355]
Gard DE, Gard MG, Kring AM, John OP. Anticipatory and consummatory components of experience
of pleasure: A scale development study. J Res Pers. 2006; 40:1086–1102.
Griens AMGF, Jonker K, Spinhoven P, Blom MBJ. The influence of depressive state features on trait
measurement. J Affect Disorders. 2002; 70:95–99. [PubMed: 12113925]
Harkness AR, Lilienfeld SO. Individual differences science for treatment planning: Personality traits.
Psychol Assessmen. 1997; 9:349–360.
Heubeck BG, Wilkinson RB, Cologon J. A second look at Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales.
Pers Indiv Differences. 1998; 25:785–800.
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 15
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Hirschfeld RM, Klerman GL, Clayton PJ, Keller MB. Personality and depression: Empirical findings.
Arch Gen Psychiat. 1983; 40:993–998. [PubMed: 6615162]
Ho M, Auerbach R, Jun H, Abela J, Zhu X, Yao S. Understanding anxiety sensitivity in the
development of anxious and depressive symptoms. Cognitive Ther Res. 2009; 34:232–240.
Hagopian LP, Ollendick TH. Behavioral inhibition and anxiety sensitivity: A reanalysis. Pers Indiv
Differences. 1996; 21:247–252.
Hong RY. Neuroticism, anxiety sensitivity thoughts, and anxiety symptomatology: Insights from an
experience-sampling approach. Cognitive Ther Res. 2010; 34:254–262.
Jylhä P, Melartin T, Rytsälä H, Isometsä E. Neuroticism, introversion, and major depressive disorder
—traits, states, or scars? Depress Anxiety. 2009; 26:325–334. [PubMed: 19263467]
Jorm AF, Christensen H, Henderson AS, Jacomb PA, Korten AE, Rodgers B. Using the BIS/BAS
scales to measure behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation: Factor structure, validity and
norms in a large community sample. Pers Indiv Differences. 1998; 26:49–58.
Kendler KS, Gatz M, Gardner CO, Pedersen NL. Personality and major depression: A Swedish
longitudinal, population-based twin study. Arch Gen Psychiat. 2006; 63:1113–1120. [PubMed:
17015813]
Kendler KS, Neale MC, Kessler RC, Heath AC, Eaves LJ. A longitudinal twin study of personality
and major depression in women. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993; 50:853– 62. [PubMed: 8215811]
Kessler RC, Petukhova M, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Wittchen HU. Twelve-month and lifetime
prevalence and lifetime morbid risk of anxiety and mood disorders in the United States. Int J Meth
Psych. 2012; 21:169–184.
Klein DN. Patients' versus informants' reports of personality disorders in predicting 7 1/2-year
outcome in outpatients with depressive disorders. Psychol Assessment. 2003; 15:216–222.
Klonsky ED, Oltmanns TF, Turkheimer E. Informant-reports of personality disorder: Relation to selfreports and future research directions. Clin Psychol-Sci Pr. 2002; 9:300–311.
Krueger RF. Personality traits in late adolescence predict mental disorders in early adulthood: A
prospective-epidemiological study. J Pers. 1999; 67:39–65. [PubMed: 10030020]
Longley SL, Watson D, Noyes R Jr, Yoder K. Panic and phobic anxiety: Associations among
neuroticism, physiological hyperarousal, anxiety sensitivity, and three phobias. J Anxiety Disord.
2006; 20:718–739. [PubMed: 16332429]
McNally RJ. Anxiety sensitivity and panic disorder. Biol Psychiat. 2002; 52:938–946. [PubMed:
12437935]
Miller GA, Chapman JP. Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. J Abnorm Psychol. 2001; 110:40–
48. [PubMed: 11261398]
Mosterman RM, Hendriks AAJ. Self–other disagreement in personality assessment: significance and
prognostic value. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2011; 2:159–171. [PubMed: 21110408]
Mulder RT. Personality pathology and treatment outcome in major depression: A review. Am J
Psychiat. 2002; 159:359–371. [PubMed: 11869996]
Nelson BD, McGowan SK, Sarapas C, Robison-Andrew EJ, Altman SE, Campbell ML, Gorka SM,
Katz AC, Shankman SA. Biomarkers of threat and reward sensitivity demonstrate unique
associations with risk for psychopathology. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013; 122:662–671. [PubMed:
24016008]
Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia.
1971; 9:97–113. [PubMed: 5146491]
Ormel J, Oldehinkel AJ, Vollebergh W. Vulnerability before, during, and after a major depressive
episode: A 3-wave population-based study. Arch Gen Psychiat. 2004; 61:990–996. [PubMed:
15466672]
Peselow ED, Sanfilipo MP, Fieve RR. Patients' and informants' reports of personality traits during and
after major depression. J Abnorm Psychol. 1994; 103:819–824. [PubMed: 7822585]
Piedmont RL, McCrae RR, Riemann R, Angleitner A. On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence
from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78:582–
593. [PubMed: 10743882]
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Pilgrim J, Mann A. Use of the ICD-10 version of the Standardized Assessment of Personality to
determine the prevalence of personality disorder in psychiatric in patients. Psychol Med. 1990;
20:985–992. [PubMed: 2284406]
Ready RE, Clark LA. Correspondence of psychiatric patient and informant ratings of personality traits,
temperament, and interpersonal problems. Psychol Assessment. 2002; 14:39–49.
Reich J, Noyes R, Coryell W, O'Gorman TW. The effect of state anxiety on personality measurement.
Am J Psychiat. 1986; 143:760–763. [PubMed: 3717400]
Scott J, Williams JMG, Brittlebank A, Ferrier IN. The relationship between premorbid neuroticism,
cognitive dysfunction and persistence of depression: A 1-year follow-up. J Affect Disord. 1995;
33:167–172. [PubMed: 7790668]
Schmidt NB, Lerew DR, Joiner TE Jr. Anxiety sensitivity and the pathogenesis of anxiety and
depression: Evidence for symptom specificity. Behav Res Ther. 1998; 36:165–177. [PubMed:
9613023]
Shankman SA, Klein DN. The relation between depression and anxiety: an evaluation of the tripartite,
approach-withdrawal and valence-arousal models. Clin Psychol Rev. 2003; 23:605–637. [PubMed:
12788112]
Shankman SA, Klein DN, Tenke CE, Bruder GE. Reward sensitivity in depression: A biobehavioral
study. J Abnorm Psychol. 2007; 116:95–104. [PubMed: 17324020]
Sherdell L, Waugh CE, Gotlib IH. Anticipatory pleasure predicts motivation for reward in major
depression. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012; 121:51–60. [PubMed: 21842963]
Smits DM, Boeck PD. From BIS/BAS to the big five. Eur J Personality. 2006; 20:255–270.
Taylor S, Zvolensky MJ, Cox BJ, Deacon B, Heimberg RG, Ledley DR, Abramowitz JS, Holaway
RM, Sandin B, Stewart SH, Coles M, Eng W, Daly ES, Arrindell WA, Bouvard M, Cardenas SJ.
Robust dimensions of anxiety sensitivity: development and initial validation of the Anxiety
Sensitivity Index-3. Psychol Assessment. 2007; 19:176–188.
Vazire S. Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J
Pers Soc Psychol. 2010; 98:281–300. [PubMed: 20085401]
Watson D, Clark LA, Carey G. Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and
depressive disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 1988; 97:346–353. [PubMed: 3192830]
Watson D, Hubbard B, Wiese D. Self–other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of
acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78:546–558.
[PubMed: 10743880]
Wetter EK, Hankin BL. Mediational pathways through which positive and negative emotionality
contribute to anhedonic symptoms of depression: A prospective study of adolescents. J Abnorm
Child Psych. 2009; 37:507–520.
Wetzler S, Kahn RS, Cahn W, Van Praag HM, Asnis GM. Psychological test characteristics of
depressed and panic patients. Psychiat Res. 1990; 31:179–192.
Yang J, McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr, Dai X, Yao S, Cai T, Gao B. Cross cultural personality assessment
in psychiatric populations: The NEO-PI—R in the People's Republic of China. Psychol
Assessment. 1999; 11:359–368.
Zimmerman M. Diagnosing personality disorders: A review of issues and research methods. Arch Gen
Psychiat. 1994; 51:225–245. [PubMed: 8122959]
Zimmerman M, Pfohl B, Stangl D, Corenthal C. Assessment of DSM-III personality disorders: The
importance of interviewing an informant. J Clin Psychiat. 1986; 47:261–263.
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 17
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 1.
The moderating effect of major depressive disorder on PA agreement.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 18
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 2.
The moderating effect of panic disorder on anxiety sensitivity agreement.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 19
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figure 3.
The moderating effect of panic disorder on mean-level differences between self- and
informant-reports of anxiety sensitivity.
*p < .05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 20
Table 1
Author Manuscript
Results of the Principle Component Factor Analysis of the GTS, EPQ, ASI-R, BIS/BAS, and TEPS
Self-report Factor 1 (NA)
Self-report Factor 2 (PA)
GTS Negative Emotionality
.91
−.22
EPQ Neuroticism
.90
−.22
BIS/BAS Behavioral Inhibition
.79
−.01
ASI-R Anxiety Sensitivity
.80
−.10
TEPS Reward Processing
−.12
.81
BIS/BAS Behavioral Activation
.14
.72
GTS Positive Emotionality
−.41
.79
EPQ Extraversion
−.30
.82
Informant-report Factor 1 (NA)
Informant-report Factor 2 (PA)
Author Manuscript
GTS Negative Emotionality
.90
−.11
EPQ Neuroticism
.90
−.17
BIS/BAS Behavioral Inhibition
.71
−.19
ASI-R Anxiety Sensitivity
.75
.00
TEPS Reward Processing
.00
.74
BIS/BAS Behavioral Activation
.03
.87
GTS Positive Emotionality
−.32
.76
EPQ Extraversion
−.27
.73
Note. Factor loadings > .70 are in boldface
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 21
Table 2
Author Manuscript
Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses Examining Rank-Order Agreement between Self- and InformantReports of PA
β
t
Step 1
Age
−.17
−1.87
Gender
.21*
2.35
Days Spanned
.01
.09
Step 2
Author Manuscript
PA Inf
.28*
PD
−.01
−.09
MDD
−.34*
−3.89
PD X PA Inf
−.18
−1.48
MDD X PA Inf
.31*
2.24
R
∆R2
.27
.07*
.57
.26*
.60
.03
3.39
Step 3
Note. PD = panic disorder; MDD = major depressive disorder; PA = positive affectivity;
PA Inf = informant-reported PA; Days spanned = number of days spanned in between the administration of self- and informant-reports.
*
p < .05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 22
Table 3
Author Manuscript
Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses Examining Rank-Order Agreement between Self- and InformantReports of NA
β
t
Step 1
Age
.00
.04
Gender
−.06
−.65
Days Spanned
.15
1.56
Step 2
Author Manuscript
NA Inf
.35*
4.42
PD
.30*
3.88
MDD
.28*
3.50
PD X NA Inf
.09
.76
MDD X NA Inf
−.14
−1.15
Step 3
R
∆R2
.16
.03
.69
.46*
.70
.01
Note. PD = panic disorder; MDD = major depressive disorder; NA = negative affectivity;
NA Inf = informant-reported NA; Days spanned = number of days spanned in between the administration of self- and informant-reports.
*
p < .05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.
Lieberman et al.
Page 23
Table 4
Author Manuscript
Hierarchical Linear Regression Analyses Examining Rank-Order Agreement between Self- and InformantReports of ASI-R
β
t
Step 1
Age
.21*
2.26
Gender
−.10
−1.06
Days Spanned
.14
1.48
Step 2
ASI-R Inf
.26*
3.29
PD
.41*
5.02
MDD
.17*
2.07
Author Manuscript
Step 3
PD X ASI-R Inf
.27*
2.12
MDD X ASI-R Inf
.05
.38
R
∆R2
.27
.07*
.65
.35*
.68
.05*
Note. PD = panic disorder; MDD = major depressive disorder; ASI-R = Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised; ASI-R Inf = Informant-reported ASI-R;
Days spanned = number of days spanned in between the administration of self- and informant-reports.
*
p < .05.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
J Nerv Ment Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.