Neuroticism and Psychosis: Trait Associations and Diagnostic Boundaries
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Neuroticism and psychosis are related in research, but they are not the same psychological construct and one cannot be used as a substitute for the other. Neuroticism is a dimensional personality trait describing relatively stable differences in negative emotionality, stress sensitivity, worry, self-consciousness, irritability, and related tendencies. Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms involving altered reality testing, such as delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized thinking. Higher neuroticism is found, on average, in many groups with psychotic disorders and has prospectively predicted later psychotic symptoms in some cohorts, but a high neuroticism score does not diagnose psychosis or schizophrenia.
The strongest current evidence supports a group-level association rather than an individual diagnostic rule. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of early-stage psychosis found higher neuroticism in studies reporting standardized T-scores and similar directional effects in studies reporting raw scores, although the raw-score meta-analysis was not statistically significant. The authors also emphasized the need for longitudinal work to clarify prognosis and causality (Scala et al., 2026).
This article owns one narrow question: what the research says about neuroticism in relation to psychotic symptoms and psychotic disorders. It does not provide diagnostic criteria or treatment guidance for schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. For the broader Big Five construct, see Neuroticism: What It Is in the Big Five Personality Model. For the wider transdiagnostic mental-health relationship, see Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor.
Neuroticism and psychosis in one sentence
Higher neuroticism is associated with psychosis-related outcomes at the population and patient-group level, but the association is nonspecific, probabilistic, partly entangled with current emotional symptoms and other liabilities, and far too weak and broad to function as a diagnostic marker.
That distinction matters because the words can sound more closely related than the science supports. Neuroticism is a personality-science construct. Psychosis is a clinical phenomenon. Schizophrenia is a psychiatric disorder that can involve psychosis. Eysenck’s psychoticism is a separate personality dimension again. Schizotypy is another distinct construct concerned with psychosis-like traits and experiences. Treating these terms as synonyms creates both scientific and clinical errors.
What neuroticism means in modern personality science
In the Big Five and Five-Factor Model, neuroticism refers to stable individual differences in the tendency to experience negative emotion and distress. It is continuous: people vary by degree rather than falling into a normal-versus-abnormal category. Many contemporary measures assess the same broad domain under somewhat different labels. The BFI-2, for example, calls the domain Negative Emotionality and represents it through Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets (Soto & John, 2017).
A neuroticism score therefore has meaning only in relation to a specific instrument, scoring system, and normative population. A raw NEO-FFI score, a NEO-derived T-score, a BFI-2 Negative Emotionality score, and an Eysenck Neuroticism score are not interchangeable numbers. The psychosis literature itself illustrates this problem: the recent early-psychosis meta-analysis analyzed T-scores and raw scores separately rather than pooling them as though they were the same metric (Scala et al., 2026).
What psychosis means
The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health describes psychosis as a collection of symptoms in which there is some loss of contact with reality. Core manifestations can include delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech or behavior (NIMH, Understanding Psychosis). Psychosis can occur in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, substance- or medication-related states, neurological or medical conditions, and other contexts. A psychotic episode therefore does not automatically mean schizophrenia.
The World Health Organization likewise describes schizophrenia as a disorder characterized by significant impairments in perception and behavior that can include persistent delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking and behavior, negative symptoms, and cognitive difficulties (WHO, Schizophrenia). These clinical phenomena are conceptually different from being high on a negative-emotionality personality dimension.
What meta-analyses show about neuroticism in psychosis
The clearest finding is that people with psychotic disorders tend, as a group, to report higher neuroticism than comparison groups or normative samples. In a meta-analysis restricted to studies using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, Ohi and colleagues pooled data from 460 people with schizophrenia and 486 healthy participants. The schizophrenia groups scored higher on neuroticism and lower on extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, with moderate-to-large differences across the five domains (Ohi et al., 2016).
A newer systematic review focused on early-stage psychosis identified 18 eligible studies, eight of which entered the meta-analysis, for a total meta-analytic sample of 1,109. In studies reporting T-scores, early-stage psychosis was associated with higher neuroticism and lower extraversion and conscientiousness relative to normative data. Raw-score analyses pointed in the same direction but were not statistically significant, which is a useful reminder that measurement format and available study sets affect the pooled result (Scala et al., 2026).
A broad 2023 systematic review of 65 studies across stages of psychotic illness reached a compatible but more clinically nuanced conclusion. Higher neuroticism and higher harm avoidance were associated with greater symptom levels, more passive coping, greater self-stigma, and lower quality of life. The review did not find consistent evidence for every outcome, including trauma, service use, and duration of untreated illness (Scholte-Stalenhoef et al., 2023).
Association does not make neuroticism a psychosis marker
The same trait that is elevated in psychosis is also strongly associated with anxiety, depression, nonspecific distress, and other forms of psychopathology. This is precisely why neuroticism is described as a transdiagnostic vulnerability rather than a psychosis-specific sign. In a meta-analysis of 59 longitudinal and prospective studies with 443,313 participants, neuroticism predicted multiple later mental-health outcomes. Associations with thought disorders such as psychosis and schizophrenia were substantially smaller than those seen for common internalizing problems (Jeronimus et al., 2016).
A useful way to interpret this is through specificity. A variable may be statistically associated with psychosis and still be poor at identifying who has or will develop psychosis because the same variable is common in many people who never develop psychosis and in many people experiencing very different forms of distress. Neuroticism fits that pattern. It contributes information about broad vulnerability, not a disorder-specific fingerprint.
For that reason, a high neuroticism score should never be read as a hidden schizophrenia score. It is equally incorrect to infer that low neuroticism rules psychosis out. Clinical assessment of psychosis depends on the nature, timing, persistence, context, and consequences of psychotic symptoms, together with differential diagnosis and medical or substance-related considerations—not on where someone falls on a Big Five trait.
Can neuroticism predict later psychotic symptoms?
Several prospective studies suggest that neuroticism can precede later psychotic symptoms. In a Dutch population sample of 3,929 people without lifetime psychosis at baseline, higher baseline neuroticism predicted first-ever psychotic or psychosis-like symptoms three years later. The association remained after adjustment for anxiety, depression, and self-esteem (Krabbendam et al., 2002). That study used the Groningen Neuroticism Scale, so its odds ratio belongs to that instrument and sample; it should not be translated into a universal risk increase per point on other measures.
A New Zealand birth-cohort study assessed neuroticism at age 14 and predominantly subclinical psychotic symptoms at ages 18 and 21. Adolescents in the highest neuroticism quartile had higher later symptom rates; adjustment for childhood adversity and comorbid mental disorders reduced the association but did not eliminate it (Goodwin, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2003). The authors also noted a key alternative explanation: some apparent prediction may reflect overlap between neuroticism items and early or prodromal features.
A much larger Finnish conscript cohort adds evidence that premorbid personality can carry prospective information. Among 213,443 initially healthy young men, higher neuroticism predicted later hospital-diagnosed schizophrenia and other psychoses over long follow-up, even after adjustment for intellectual performance (Lönnqvist et al., 2009). The population was male military conscripts, so the result is informative about prospective association but does not automatically generalize in magnitude to women, older adults, other countries, or other assessment instruments.
Does neuroticism cause psychosis?
Current evidence supports the possibility that neuroticism contributes to vulnerability, but it does not justify a simple statement that neuroticism causes psychosis. Longitudinal prediction is stronger evidence than a cross-sectional correlation, yet it can still reflect confounding, shared causes, measurement overlap, early illness effects, or bidirectional processes.
Genetic causal-inference research adds another layer. A 2020 Mendelian randomization study reported evidence consistent with an effect of genetic liability to neuroticism on schizophrenia risk, while also finding evidence for pathways from schizophrenia liability to anxiety-related phenotypes (Jones et al., 2020). Mendelian randomization depends on assumptions about genetic instruments, pleiotropy, ancestry, and model specification. It strengthens the causal conversation but does not convert a personality score into a causal diagnosis or individual forecast.
The best synthesis is therefore layered. Cross-sectional studies show that neuroticism is elevated in psychosis. Prospective cohorts show that higher neuroticism can precede later psychotic symptoms or diagnoses. Genetic and causal-inference studies suggest partly shared and potentially directional liabilities. None of those findings establishes that neuroticism alone is sufficient, necessary, or diagnostically specific for psychosis.
Neuroticism is a transdiagnostic vulnerability, not a psychosis-specific trait
The broader mental-health literature places neuroticism near the center of internalizing vulnerability. It is strongly related to anxiety, depressive symptoms, and general distress and also shows smaller or more variable associations with other forms of psychopathology. The Hub’s broader evidence review explains this architecture in Neuroticism and Mental Health: Why the Trait Is a Transdiagnostic Risk Factor.
This broadness is clinically important. If a person with high neuroticism reports fear, suspiciousness, unusual experiences, insomnia, or social withdrawal, the trait itself cannot tell which process is operating. Similar distress may occur with anxiety, depression, trauma-related states, sleep deprivation, substance effects, emerging psychosis, or combinations of these. Differential assessment depends on symptom form and context, not merely on intensity of negative emotion.
State effects and the problem of trait measurement during illness
A personality questionnaire administered during acute illness does not measure personality in a vacuum. Current depression, anxiety, stress, hospitalization, medication effects, cognitive burden, and self-appraisal can influence responses. This is the state–trait problem: how much of a score reflects a relatively enduring disposition and how much reflects the person’s present clinical state?
Longitudinal evidence suggests that Five-Factor traits retain meaningful stability in psychotic disorders. In a three-year study of 91 patients with non-affective psychotic disorders and 32 controls, rank-order stability was moderate to strong, although weaker for neuroticism among patients. Apparent links between changes in negative symptoms and changes in neuroticism disappeared after depressive symptoms were considered, leading the authors to warn against state–trait confusion between depression and neuroticism (Boyette et al., 2015).
That finding cuts both ways. It argues against treating neuroticism in psychosis as nothing more than a momentary symptom state, because trait rankings show stability. It also argues against interpreting every elevated score as pure premorbid personality, because depressive and other emotional states can shift self-report. Strong research designs therefore use repeated measurement, symptom covariates, informant data, or premorbid assessments where possible.
Measurement matters: NEO-FFI, NEO PI-R, BFI-2, and other scales
The psychosis literature has relied heavily on NEO instruments. The NEO-FFI is a 60-item measure of the Five-Factor Model, with 12 items per domain, and it was the common instrument in the Ohi meta-analysis and the quantitative portion of the recent early-psychosis review (Ohi et al., 2016; Scala et al., 2026).
The NEO PI-R is longer and includes six neuroticism facets: Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability. The BFI-2 uses a different organization, naming the broad domain Negative Emotionality and dividing it into Anxiety, Depression, and Emotional Volatility facets. Eysenck measures define Neuroticism within the PEN model rather than the Big Five. IPIP instruments can operationalize Big Five neuroticism using public-domain item pools. These measures overlap substantially but are not numerically interchangeable.
Accordingly, phrases such as “a neuroticism score of 35 means psychosis risk” are scientifically meaningless without the instrument, scale range, scoring rules, age and population norms, and purpose of assessment. Even standardized percentiles describe relative trait standing in a reference sample; they are not clinical cutoffs for psychosis.
Neuroticism versus psychotic symptoms
Neuroticism
Neuroticism concerns proneness to negative emotional reactions: worry, distress, sadness, irritability, threat sensitivity, self-consciousness, and feeling overwhelmed. These experiences can be intense while reality testing remains intact.
Psychotic symptoms
Psychotic symptoms concern altered perception, belief, thought organization, or reality testing. Hallucinations and delusions are canonical examples, and disorganized speech or behavior can also occur. Anxiety and emotional disruption may accompany psychosis, but they are not what defines psychosis (NIMH, Understanding Psychosis).
Someone can therefore be highly neurotic without ever experiencing psychosis, and someone experiencing psychosis need not be exceptionally high on every neuroticism measure. The constructs can covary without collapsing into each other.
Neuroticism versus Eysenck psychoticism
Psychoticism is especially easy to misread because its name resembles psychosis. In Eysenck’s PEN model, Psychoticism is a personality dimension separate from Neuroticism and Extraversion. It historically captured tendencies related to tough-mindedness, impulsivity, nonconformity, aggression, and related characteristics. It is not a schizophrenia test and it is not the same thing as having psychotic symptoms.
Modern dimensional psychopathology research often uses the word psychoticism differently again, for a spectrum closer to unusual beliefs, perceptual dysregulation, and reality-distortion traits. A study jointly modeling normal personality, schizotypy, and schizophrenia symptoms found positive schizotypy and mistrust aligning with a psychoticism dimension, while neuroticism remained a distinct factor (Kotov et al., 2019). The label therefore has to be interpreted within its specific model.
Neuroticism versus schizotypy
Schizotypy refers to dimensional traits and experiences related to the schizophrenia spectrum, often including positive or unusual perceptual and ideational experiences, negative/interpersonal features, and disorganization. Neuroticism is broader negative emotionality. The two constructs correlate, but they do not measure the same psychological content.
A twin study of 3,349 participants found a phenotypic correlation of .37 between neuroticism and perceptual/ideational schizotypy, with about half of that covariance attributed to shared genetic influences in the study’s model (Macare et al., 2012). This is evidence for partial shared liability, not evidence that neuroticism is disguised schizotypy.
Daily-life and factor-analytic work also supports differentiation. Positive schizotypy and psychosis-like experiences track unusual perceptions, beliefs, and mistrust more directly, whereas neuroticism is more centrally tied to negative affect and distress. The distinction is important when someone asks whether worrying, emotional sensitivity, or a high Big Five score is itself a sign of psychosis: by itself, it is not.
Neuroticism, subclinical psychotic experiences, and familial risk
Psychotic-like experiences occur dimensionally in the population and are not equivalent to a psychotic disorder. In a study of 217 patients with psychotic disorders, 281 siblings, and 176 controls, patients showed the highest neuroticism, siblings were intermediate, and controls were lowest. Higher neuroticism and higher openness were associated with more self-reported subclinical psychotic experiences across groups, with stronger associations in patients (Boyette et al., 2013).
This pattern is compatible with graded liability, but it cannot tell us whether neuroticism is a cause, a correlated familial marker, a consequence of distressing experiences, or some combination. Family designs improve inference about shared vulnerability, yet they still require genetic, developmental, and longitudinal evidence to separate mechanisms.
Neuroticism and clinical course after psychosis begins
Once psychosis is present, personality may relate to how people experience and manage illness. The 2023 systematic review found higher neuroticism associated with higher symptom levels, more passive coping, greater self-stigma, and poorer quality of life across the literature it reviewed (Scholte-Stalenhoef et al., 2023). These are associations, not evidence that changing neuroticism alone would necessarily change the course of psychosis.
Individual studies show why broad summaries need restraint. A first-episode psychosis study using the NEO-FFI found several personality domains related to duration of untreated psychosis, functioning, or symptom severity, but the strongest independent symptom associations involved agreeableness and extraversion rather than neuroticism (Compton et al., 2015). Personality may matter to the clinical picture without a single trait explaining it.
Genetics: shared liability is not a genetic diagnosis
Neuroticism is substantially polygenic. A large genome-wide association meta-analysis of 449,484 participants identified many associated loci and showed genetic overlap between neuroticism and several psychiatric traits, including schizophrenia-related liability (Nagel et al., 2018). A polygenic association means many genetic variants each contribute very small probabilistic effects; it is not a “neuroticism gene” and it does not establish a biological diagnosis.
Shared genetic architecture can help explain why neuroticism and psychosis-related phenotypes correlate, but genetic correlation does not specify the pathway. The same variants can influence multiple traits through pleiotropy; one phenotype can mediate another; or both can reflect broader developmental systems. Even when Mendelian randomization supports a directional effect, the result remains a population-level causal estimate under model assumptions, not a clinical prediction for a person.
Why mechanisms are plausible but not singular
Several mechanisms could connect neuroticism to psychosis-related outcomes. Higher neuroticism is associated with stronger negative emotional reactions to stress, more threat-focused appraisal, worry and rumination, and greater sensitivity to interpersonal adversity. In some people, these processes may amplify the distress attached to anomalous experiences, increase suspicious interpretations under stress, or worsen sleep and coping. They may also increase help-seeking or symptom reporting, which can affect observed associations.
Other pathways run in the opposite direction. Emerging psychotic experiences can be frightening, confusing, socially disruptive, and stigmatizing; living with those experiences may increase negative affect and self-reported neuroticism. Depression is common in psychotic disorders and can inflate neuroticism scores. Shared genetic and environmental vulnerabilities can influence both. The observed association is therefore better understood as a network of pathways than as a single cause-and-effect chain.
Can a neuroticism test tell whether someone has psychosis?
No. Big Five tests and neuroticism scales are personality measures, not psychosis diagnostic instruments. A high result can indicate that a person tends to experience more negative emotionality relative to a reference group, depending on the measure. It cannot determine whether unusual beliefs are delusional, whether a perceptual experience is hallucinatory, whether reality testing is impaired, or whether symptoms arise from a psychiatric, substance-related, neurological, medical, or sleep-related cause.
There is also no universal “psychosis-risk percentile” for neuroticism. Clinical high-risk services use specialized interviews and criteria focused on attenuated psychotic symptoms, functional change, family history, and other clinical information. Neuroticism may be included in research models, but it does not replace those assessments.
The same principle applies to online personality quizzes. A result labeled “very high neuroticism” may be psychologically informative within a validated scale and appropriate norms, but it remains a trait estimate. The Hub’s diagnostic-boundary pages explain the same distinction more broadly: Is Neuroticism a Mental Illness? Why a Personality Trait Is Not a Diagnosis and Is Neuroticism a Disorder? DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and Personality Science.
What high neuroticism does and does not mean for an individual
At the individual level, high neuroticism means that a person scored relatively high on a negative-emotionality trait as operationalized by a particular measure. It can be associated with greater average vulnerability to distress, stronger stress reactivity, and multiple mental-health outcomes. It does not mean that psychosis is developing, that schizophrenia is present, or that a psychotic disorder is inevitable.
Risk is multicausal. Psychosis-related outcomes reflect combinations of genetic liability, neurodevelopment, environmental exposures, stress, trauma, sleep disruption, substance use, medical factors, social context, and other individual differences. Neuroticism is one statistical piece of that system. Its value is greatest for understanding broad patterns of vulnerability and individual differences, not for assigning a categorical future.
When symptoms deserve clinical assessment
A personality score is rarely the reason to seek psychosis assessment. The relevant reason is the presence of concerning experiences themselves: persistent hallucinations, fixed beliefs that appear detached from shared reality, marked confusion or disorganization, rapidly worsening suspiciousness, substantial decline in functioning, or difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy. NIMH recommends contacting a health care provider when such changes intensify or do not go away (NIMH, Understanding Psychosis).
If symptoms create immediate danger, inability to care for basic needs, or risk of harm, urgent local emergency or crisis services are appropriate. The goal is timely assessment of the symptoms and their possible causes. A Big Five score should neither delay that assessment nor create alarm in the absence of psychotic symptoms.
What the evidence supports
The evidence supports five conclusions. First, higher neuroticism is common on average in schizophrenia and early psychosis samples. Second, higher neuroticism can prospectively precede later psychotic symptoms or psychotic-disorder diagnoses in some cohorts. Third, the relationship is nonspecific because neuroticism is a much broader transdiagnostic liability. Fourth, current symptoms—especially depression and distress—can influence personality self-report and must be considered in measurement. Fifth, neither neuroticism scores nor their genetic correlates have the specificity required to diagnose psychosis or predict an individual future with certainty.
The most useful scientific framing is therefore dimensional and probabilistic: neuroticism can be one component of vulnerability and clinical variation around psychosis while remaining a distinct personality construct. That framing preserves both findings at once—the association is real, and the diagnostic boundary is equally real.
Frequently asked questions
Is neuroticism a sign of psychosis?
No. Neuroticism is a broad personality trait. Higher average neuroticism is observed in many psychosis samples, but the trait is not a psychotic symptom and has low diagnostic specificity.
Does high neuroticism mean schizophrenia risk is high?
Higher neuroticism is associated with increased group-level risk in some prospective studies, but it cannot determine an individual’s schizophrenia risk on its own. The absolute meaning depends on many other genetic, developmental, environmental, and clinical factors.
Can neuroticism cause hallucinations or delusions?
Research does not support a simple direct rule that high neuroticism causes hallucinations or delusions. Neuroticism may contribute to broader vulnerability and to emotional responses around unusual experiences, but causal pathways are multifactorial and may be bidirectional.
Is neuroticism the same as psychoticism?
No. Neuroticism and psychoticism are different dimensions. Eysenck’s Psychoticism is also not equivalent to psychosis itself. The word psychoticism has additional meanings in newer dimensional psychopathology models, so the model and instrument must always be specified.
Is neuroticism the same as schizotypy?
No. Schizotypy concerns dimensional psychosis-spectrum traits and experiences; neuroticism concerns negative emotionality. They overlap statistically and may share some genetic influences, but they remain distinguishable constructs.
Why do people with schizophrenia often score higher on neuroticism?
Several processes may contribute: premorbid vulnerability, shared genetic liability, stronger stress sensitivity, depressive or anxiety symptoms, the emotional burden of psychosis, treatment and social experiences, and measurement effects. Current evidence supports a mixture of pathways rather than one universal explanation.
Can a NEO-FFI or Big Five test screen for psychosis?
No. The NEO-FFI and other Big Five measures assess personality domains. They are not psychosis screening or diagnostic instruments. Research associations between NEO neuroticism scores and psychosis do not create a clinical cutoff.
Can psychosis temporarily raise a neuroticism score?
It can influence self-report indirectly through distress, depression, anxiety, sleep disruption, or other state factors. Longitudinal studies also show meaningful trait stability, so the best interpretation separates enduring disposition from current state rather than assuming either one explains the entire score.
What matters more than neuroticism if psychosis is suspected?
The form and course of the experiences themselves: hallucinations, delusional conviction, disorganization, reality testing, functional change, medical or substance factors, sleep, mood symptoms, and clinical history. Those features require condition-specific assessment.
Related Articles
References
Boyette, L.-L., Korver-Nieberg, N., Verweij, K., Meijer, C., Dingemans, P., Cahn, W., de Haan, L., & GROUP. (2013). Associations between the Five-Factor Model personality traits and psychotic experiences in patients with psychotic disorders, their siblings and controls. Psychiatry Research, 210(2), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.040
Boyette, L.-L., Nederlof, J., Meijer, C., de Boer, F., de Haan, L., & GROUP. (2015). Three year stability of Five-Factor Model personality traits in relation to changes in symptom levels in patients with schizophrenia or related disorders. Psychiatry Research, 229(1–2), 539–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.05.057
Compton, M. T., Bakeman, R., Alolayan, Y., et al. (2015). Personality domains, duration of untreated psychosis, functioning, and symptom severity in first-episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 168(1–2), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2015.06.028
Goodwin, R. D., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2003). Neuroticism in adolescence and psychotic symptoms in adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 33(6), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291703007888
Jeronimus, B. F., Kotov, R., Riese, H., & Ormel, J. (2016). Neuroticism’s prospective association with mental disorders halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays with time: A meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443,313 participants. Psychological Medicine, 46(14), 2883–2906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716001653
Jones, H. J., Martin, D., Lewis, S. J., Davey Smith, G., O’Donovan, M. C., Owen, M. J., Walters, J. T. R., & Zammit, S. (2020). A Mendelian randomization study of the causal association between anxiety phenotypes and schizophrenia. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 183(6), 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.32808
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., et al. (2019). Common taxonomy of traits and symptoms: Linking schizophrenia symptoms, schizotypy, and normal personality. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 45(6), 1336–1348. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30753725/
Krabbendam, L., Janssen, I., Bak, M., Bijl, R. V., de Graaf, R., & van Os, J. (2002). Neuroticism and low self-esteem as risk factors for psychosis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s127-002-8207-y
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Haukka, J., et al. (2009). Premorbid personality factors in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: Results from a large cohort study of male conscripts. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118(2), 418–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015127
Macare, C., Bates, T. C., Heath, A. C., Martin, N. G., & Ettinger, U. (2012). Substantial genetic overlap between schizotypy and neuroticism: A twin study. Behavior Genetics, 42, 732–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-012-9558-6
Nagel, M., Jansen, P. R., Stringer, S., et al. (2018). Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for neuroticism in 449,484 individuals identifies novel genetic loci and pathways. Nature Genetics, 50, 920–927. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0151-7
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Understanding psychosis. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis
Ohi, K., Shimada, T., Nitta, Y., et al. (2016). The Five-Factor Model personality traits in schizophrenia: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 240, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.04.004
Scala, M., Gori, D., Roca, P., Fabbri, C., Arroyo Iturra, R., Calvo García, S. F., Fanelli, G., & Serretti, A. (2026). Personality domains in early stages of psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 276, 1111–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-025-02127-4
Scholte-Stalenhoef, A. N., Pijnenborg, G. H. M., Hasson-Ohayon, I., & Boyette, L.-L. (2023). Personality traits in psychotic illness and their clinical correlates: A systematic review. Schizophrenia Research, 252, 348–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2023.01.001
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
World Health Organization. (2025). Schizophrenia. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/schizophrenia