Defining the p-factor: An empirical test of five leading theories

Background Despite statistical evidence of a general factor of psychopathology (i.e., p-factor), there is little agreement about what the p-factor represents. Researchers have proposed five theories: dispositional negative emotionality (neuroticism), impulsive responsivity to emotions (impulsivity), thought dysfunction, low cognitive functioning, and impairment. These theories have primarily been inferred from patterns of loadings of diagnoses on p-factors with different sets of diagnoses included in different studies. Researchers who have directly examined these theories of p have examined a subset of the theories in any single sample, limiting the ability to compare the size of their associations with a p-factor. Methods In a sample of adults (N = 1833, Mage = 34.20, 54.4% female, 53.3% white) who completed diagnostic assessments, self-report measures, and cognitive tests, we evaluated statistical p-factor structures across modeling approaches and compared the strength of associations among the p-factor and indicators of each of these five theories. Results We found consistent evidence of the p-factor's unidimensionality across one-factor and bifactor models. The p-factor was most strongly and similarly associated with neuroticism (r =.88), impairment (r =.88), and impulsivity (r =.87), χ2(1)s <.15, ps >.70, and less strongly associated with thought dysfunction (r =.78), χ2(1)s > 3.92, ps <.05, and cognitive functioning (r = -.25), χ2(1)s > 189.56, ps <.01. Conclusions We discuss a tripartite definition of p that involves the transaction of impulsive responses to frequent negative emotions leading to impairment that extends and synthesizes previous theories of psychopathology.