ArticlePersonality and mental health2026
Assumptions and Consequences of Different Conceptualizations of Personality Functioning.
Article in Personality and mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychoanalytic Theories Do Not Support a Unidimensional View of Personality Functioning.Personality and mental health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personality functioning (PF) is the defining criterion for personality disorder in contemporary diagnosis and a popular topic in research. However, research and dialogue on PF has been uneven and often ideologically driven, in part because semantic differences are often conflated with substantive differences in the way PF is conceptualized. Here, I distinguish four ways to conceptualize PF: a psychodynamic developmental dimension, a descriptive summary of whatever all personality disorders or maladaptive traits have in common, a multidimensional model of traits, and a multidimensional model of adaptive capacities distinct from traits. I articulate the underlying assumptions and consequences for research and practice of each of these four approaches. I argue that conflating these assumptions has led to miscommunication about PF in the literature and describe how these models can be distinguished to provide more rigorous tests of the existence, nature, and utility of PF for personality theory and clinical assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.