Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is heterogeneous and likely entails distinct phenotypes with varying etiologies. Identifying these subgroups may contribute to hypotheses about differential treatment responses. The present study aimed to discern subgroups among children with ASD and anxiety in context of the five-factor model of personality (FFM) and evaluate treatment response differences to two cognitive-behavioral therapy treatments. The present study is a secondary data analysis of children with ASD and anxiety (N=202; ages 7–13; 20.8% female) in a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) randomized controlled trial (Wood et al., 2020). Subgroups were identified via latent profile analysis of parent-reported FFM data. Treatment groups included standard-of-practice CBT (CC), designed for children with anxiety, and adapted CBT (BIACA), designed for children with ASD and comorbid anxiety. Five subgroups with distinct profiles were extracted. Analysis of covariance revealed CBT response was contingent on subgroup membership. Two subgroups responded better to BIACA on the primary outcome measure and a third responded better to BIACA on a peer-social adaptation measure, while a fourth subgroup responded better to CC on a school-related adaptation measure. These findings suggest that the FFM may be useful in empirically identifying subgroups of children with ASD, which could inform intervention selection decisions for children with ASD and anxiety.

The present work gives a short overview of central aspects of Jaak Panksepp’s Affective Neuroscience Theory (AN theory) and its relevance for modern personality neuroscience. In contrast to the widely used Big Five approach to studying and understanding human personality, AN theory provides researchers with a distinct roadmap to the biological basis of personality, including molecular and neuroanatomical candidates, to understand individual differences in human behavior. Such molecular and neuroanatomical brain candidates have been derived by means of electrical brain stimulation and pharmacological challenges, while investigating primary emotional systems anchored in the subcortical mammalian brain. Research results derived from the study of emotions in mammals are also of relevance for humans because ancient layers of our minds—those layers where primary emotions originate—have been homologously conserved across species. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense because primal emotions represent “built-in tools for survival” for all mammals. In this context, Montag and Panksepp recently illustrated a potential ancient neurobiological effect by carving out robust associations between individual differences in primary emotions (assessed via self-report) and the Big Five in a cross-cultural study with data from the United States, Germany, and China. These associations together with some ideas derived from MacLean’s Triune Brain concept highlighted (a) that primary emotions likely represent the phylogenetically oldest parts of human personality and (b) that primary emotions influence human personality in a bottom-up fashion given their localization in ancient subcortical brain regions. A comment on the work by Montag and Panksepp asked for insights on putative links between primary emotions and facets of the Big Five. Therefore, we provide some first insights into such associations from recent Germany data. In addition, the present work provides a new short version of the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales to assess individual differences in primary emotions.

Bullying and cyberbullying are highly prevalent in today’s society. However, the personality profiles of different roles involved in this phenomenon remain little known. This study aims (1) to examine the association between bullying and cyberbullying in adolescents; and (2) to analyze the relationship between bullying and cyberbullying in terms of the domains and facets of the five-factor model (FFM). A total of 910 adolescents aged 12 to 19 years old participated. They were administered self-report assessments of aggression and victimization in bullying and cyberbullying, as well as the JS-NEO-S questionnaire. The results provide evidence of co-occurrence between bullying and cyberbullying (p < .001). We observed higher neuroticism in victims and aggressor-victims, higher openness in victims, higher agreeableness in victims and non-aggressor non-victims and higher conscientiousness in non-aggressor non-victims as compared with the rest of the groups (p < .001). Comparison of the four cyberbullying groups showed that cybervictims score higher in neuroticism and openness, cybervictims and non-cybervictims non-cyberaggressors score higher in agreeableness and non-cybervictims non-cyberaggressors score higher in conscientiousness (p < .001) In conclusion, this study provides a broad, systematic view of the personality traits associated with different roles implicated in traditional bullying and cyberbullying.