Measures Of Maladaptive Personality Traits Research Articles

We Don't Choose Whom We Love: Predictors for Romantic Attraction to Villains.

IntroductionWhy are women (not) romantically attracted to dark personalities or villains, which might be a risk factor for intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization? In the current study, it is opted to investigate how adult attachment, maladaptive personality traits, and acceptance of couple violence in women predict romantic attraction to heroic/villainous characters using structural equation modeling (SEM).MethodFirst, a pilot study was conducted in 122 heterosexual women (aged 16–25) to select male TV characters. This resulted in the selection of six villains and 10 heroes for the main study, in which 194 other heterosexual women (aged 16–25) were asked to rate the pictures of TV characters through an online questionnaire. This was combined with self-report measures of maladaptive personality traits, acceptance of couple violence, and adult attachment. These variables were entered into a SEM model to assess model fit.ResultsOverall, women rated heroes higher on physical appearance (pilot study) and romantic attraction (main study) compared to villains. We found different direct effects of avoidant (negative) and anxious (positive) attachment styles on romantic attraction to heroes. Moreover, maladaptive personality traits fully mediated the positive effect of avoidant attachment style on romantic attraction to villains.DiscussionDespite the limitations of the study design (e.g., low N, low notoriety of the TV characters), this study emphasizes that women are generally more romantically attracted to heroes (vs. villains). Besides, there are different predictors of romantic attraction to heroes and villains, which requires further investigation, especially in the context of IPV.

A self-report measure for the ICD-11 dimensional trait model proposal: The personality inventory for ICD-11.

Proposed for the 11th edition of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is a dimensional trait model for the classification of personality disorder (Tyrer, Reed, & Crawford, 2015). The ICD-11 proposal consists of 5 broad domains: negative affective, detachment, dissocial, disinhibition, and anankastic (Mulder, Horwood, Tyrer, Carter, & Joyce, 2016). Several field trials have examined this proposal, yet none has included a direct measure of the trait model. The purpose of the current study was to develop and provide initial validation for the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), a self-report measure of this proposed 5-domain maladaptive trait model. Item selection and scale construction proceeded through 3 initial data collections assessing potential item performance. Two subsequent studies were conducted for scale validation. In Study 1, the PiCD was evaluated in a sample of 259 MTurk participants (who were or had been receiving mental health treatment) with respect to 2 measures of general personality structure: The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised and the 5-Dimensional Personality Test. In Study 2, the PiCD was evaluated in an additional sample of 285 participants with respect to 2 measures of maladaptive personality traits: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and the Computerized Adaptive Test for Personality Disorders. Study 3 provides an item-level exploratory structural equation model with the combined samples from Studies 1 and 2. The results are discussed with respect to the validity of the measure and the potential benefits for future research in having a direct, self-report measure of the ICD-11 trait proposal. (PsycINFO Database Record

Do DSM-5 Section II personality disorders and Section III personality trait domains reflect the same genetic and environmental risk factors?

DSM-5 includes two conceptualizations of personality disorders (PDs). The classification in Section II is identical to the one found in DSM-IV, and includes 10 categorical PDs. The Alternative Model (Section III) includes criteria for dimensional measures of maladaptive personality traits organized into five domains. The degree to which the two conceptualizations reflect the same etiological factors is not known. We use data from a large population-based sample of adult twins from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Twin Panel on interview-based DSM-IV PDs and a short self-report inventory that indexes the five domains of the DSM-5 Alternative Model plus a domain explicitly targeting compulsivity. Schizotypal, Paranoid, Antisocial, Borderline, Avoidant, and Obsessive-compulsive PDs were assessed at the same time as the maladaptive personality traits and 10 years previously. Schizoid, Histrionic, Narcissistic, and Dependent PDs were only assessed at the first interview. Biometric models were used to estimate overlap in genetic and environmental risk factors. When measured concurrently, there was 100% genetic overlap between the maladaptive trait domains and Paranoid, Schizotypal, Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs. For OCPD, 43% of the genetic variance was shared with the domains. Genetic correlations between the individual domains and PDs ranged from +0.21 to +0.91. The pathological personality trait domains, which are part of the Alternative Model for classification of PDs in DSM-5 Section III, appears to tap, at an aggregate level, the same genetic risk factors as the DSM-5 Section II classification for most of the PDs.

Convergent and discriminant validity of alternative measures of maladaptive personality traits.

The purpose of the current study was to test empirically the convergent and discriminant validity of 3 recently developed, alternative measures of maladaptive personality traits: the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5, PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012), the Computerized Adaptive Test-Personality Disorder Static Form (CAT-PD-SF; Simms et al., 2011), and Five Factor Model Personality Disorder scales (FFMPD; Widiger, Lynam, Miller, & Oltmanns, 2012). These measures were constructed with different rationales and methods, yet the result was highly congruent. The PID-5 and CAT-PD-SF were administered to 286 community adults with current or a history of mental health treatment; the CAT-PD-SF and FFMPD scales to 262 such adults; and the PID-5 and FFMPD scales to 266. The results indicated good to excellent internal consistency, as well as good to excellent convergent and discriminant validity for most scales with a few notable exceptions. Suggestions for future research are provided, including the potential benefits of scales that are unique to a respective instrument, replication of a dependency factor, and exploration as to the basis for instances of questionable convergent or discriminant validity. (PsycINFO Database Record

Supplemental Material for Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Alternative Measures of Maladaptive Personality Traits

Supplemental Material for Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Alternative Measures of Maladaptive Personality Traits

A Comparison of the Construct Validity of Two Alternative Approaches to the Assessment of Psychopathy in the Community

This study compared the validity of 2 different self-report approaches to the assessment of psychopathy in nonforensic samples: the Psychopathy Resemblance Index (PRI), derived from a measure of normal personality functioning, and the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP), developed specifically to assess the maladaptive traits associated with psychopathy. In 2 adult samples (n 1 = 260, n2 = 250), the PRI and the SRP were positively correlated with each other and with measures of maladaptive personality traits related to Machiavellianism and narcissism. However, unlike the SRP, the PRI was independent of trait empathy and general psychopathology and was positively associated with trait emotional intelligence. These results suggest that the PRI captures a more adaptive variant of psychopathy than does the SRP.