Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
J Pers Assess. 2011 Jul;93(4):370-9. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2011.577477.
The categorical-dimensional debate has catalyzed a wealth of empirical advances in the study of personality pathology. However, this debate is merely one articulation of a broader conceptual question regarding whether to define and describe psychopathology as a quantitatively extreme expression of normal functioning or as qualitatively distinct in its process. In this article I argue that dynamic models of personality (e.g., object relations, cognitive-affective processing system) offer the conceptual scaffolding to reconcile these seemingly incompatible approaches to characterizing the relationship between normal and pathological personality. I propose that advances in personality assessment that sample behavior and experiences intensively provide the empirical techniques, whereas interpersonal theory offers an integrative theoretical framework, for accomplishing this goal.
范畴-维度之争推动了人格病理学研究的大量实证进展。然而，这场争论只是一个更广泛的概念问题的一种表达，即是否将心理病理学定义和描述为正常功能的定量极端表达，还是其过程在质上有所不同。在本文中，我认为人格的动态模型（例如，客体关系、认知情感加工系统）提供了概念框架，可以调和这些描述正常人格和病理人格之间关系的看似不兼容的方法。我提出，深入采样行为和经验的人格评估进展提供了实现这一目标的实证技术，而人际理论则提供了一个综合的理论框架。
