Daniel Leising

THE STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF SELF- REPORTED DSM- 5 MALADAPTIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS: FINDINGS FROM TWO GERMAN- SPEAKING SAMPLES

The authors investigated the structure and correlates of DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits in two samples of 577 students and 212 inpatients using the German self-report form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. They found that (a) the factor structure of DSM-5 trait facets is largely in line with the proposed trait domains of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism; (b) all DSM-5 trait domains except Psychoticism are highly related to the respective domains of the Five-Factor Model of personality; (c) the trait facets are positively associated with a self-report measure of general personality dysfunction; and (d) the DSM-5 trait facets show differential associations with a range of self-reported DSM-IV Axis I disorders. These findings give further support to the new DSM-5 trait model and suggest that it may generalize to other languages and cultures.

Assessing DSM–5 Level of Personality Functioning From Videotaped Clinical Interviews: A Pilot Study With Untrained and Clinically Inexperienced Students

Several authors have raised the concern that the DSM–5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) is relatively complex and theory laden, and thus might put high requirements on raters. We addressed this concern by having 22 untrained and clinically inexperienced students assess the personality functioning of 10 female psychotherapy inpatients from videotaped clinical interviews, using a multi-item version of the LPFS. Individual raters’ LPFS total scores showed acceptable interrater reliability, and were significantly associated with 2 distinct expert-rated measures of the severity of personality pathology. These findings suggest that, contrary to the previously mentioned concerns, successfully applying the LPFS to clinical cases might require neither extensive clinical experience nor training.

The latent structure of personality functioning: Investigating criterion a from the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM-5.

The alternative model for the classification of personality disorders (PD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) Section III comprises 2 major components: impairments in personality functioning (Criterion A) and maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B). In this study, we investigated the latent structure of Criterion A (a) within subdomains, (b) across subdomains, and (c) in conjunction with the Criterion B trait facets. Data were gathered as part of an online study that collected other-ratings by 515 laypersons and 145 therapists. Laypersons were asked to assess 1 of their personal acquaintances, whereas therapists were asked to assess 1 of their patients, using 135 items that captured features of Criteria A and B. We were able to show that (a) the structure within the Criterion A subdomains can be appropriately modeled using generalized graded unfolding models, with results suggesting that the items are indeed related to common underlying constructs but often deviate from their theoretically expected severity level; (b) the structure across subdomains is broadly in line with a model comprising 2 strongly correlated factors of self- and interpersonal functioning, with some notable deviations from the theoretical model; and (c) the joint structure of the Criterion A subdomains and the Criterion B facets broadly resembles the expected model of 2 plus 5 factors, albeit the loading pattern suggests that the distinction between Criteria A and B is somewhat blurry. Our findings provide support for several major assumptions of the alternative DSM-5 model for PD but also highlight aspects of the model that need to be further refined.

An integrative conceptual framework for assessing personality and personality pathology.

As a contribution to the ongoing debate over the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5, we present a framework for jointly conceptualizing personality and personality pathology. The key element is an explicit distinction between personality description (which is the realm of basic personality psychology) and personality evaluation (which is the realm of clinical personality psychology). Previous diagnostic systems did not acknowledge this crucial distinction. We created a sample diagnostic system, to illustrate how a practical application of our conceptual framework may look like. The system comprises two ingredients: First, a list of personality dispositions that may become problematic. These are described at a “basic level” of abstraction (i.e., the level at which patients and clinicians intuitively communicate about personality problems). Second, a list of negative consequences that are used to evaluate the extent to which a patients personality pattern is “problematic.” A sample of therapists used the system for describing actual patients and found it to be better than the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 and DSM–IV. Based on our conceptual deliberations, we analyze the DSM-5 proposal for personality and personality disorders. The proposal contains three different sets of “higher-order concepts” (personality traits, personality types, and levels of personality functioning). Only the first of these is sufficiently supported by empirical evidence, including analyses of our own set of personality dispositions.

More May Be Better but There May Be Too Much : Optimal Trait Level and Self-Enhancement Bias

Although one extreme is more desirable than the opposite extreme on most trait dimensions, neither extreme reflects the most favorable level of the trait. Rather, extreme trait levels are usually considered to be less than optimal. Using a round-robin design, 76 groups of 4 persons each described themselves and each other on 30 trait dimensions and indicated the optimal level on each dimension. Moreover, personality inventories and measures of socially desirable responding were administered to the participants for self- and peer descriptions. Associations between trait level and trait level desirability comprised linear as well as curvilinear components. Participants preferred the optimal level in describing themselves, but trait levels beyond the optimal level in describing peers. A new measure of self-enhancement bias is suggested.

Judging the Behavior of People We Know Objective Assessment, Confirmation of Preexisting Views, or Both?

The present study investigates the relative extent to which judgments of people’s behavior are influenced by “truth” (as measured by averaged observer-judgments) and by systematic bias (i.e., perceivers’ preexisting views of target persons). Using data from online questionnaires and laboratory sessions (N = 155), we demonstrate that self- and peer-judgments of people’s actual behavior in specific situations are somewhat accurate but are also affected by what perceivers thought of the targets before observing their behavior. The latter effect comprises a general evaluative component (generally positive or negative views of targets) and a content-specific component (views of targets in terms of specific characteristics, for example, “restrained”). We also found that friends, but not targets themselves, tend to judge targets’ behaviors more positively than unacquainted observers do. The relevance of these findings for person perception in everyday life and in research contexts is discussed.

Positive Self‐regard and Claim to Leadership: Two Fundamental Forms of Self‐evaluation

The present article examines the common factor structure of various self–evaluative personality constructs. Consistent with previous research, we found considerable redundancy between constructs. Two basic forms of self–evaluation could be distinguished: Positive Self–regard (PSR) reflects peoples contentedness with themselves in comparison with their own standards. Constructs such as depression, self–esteem and neuroticism have very high loadings on this factor. In contrast, Claim to Leadership (CTL) reflects the subjective conviction that one is called to take charge and lead others. This conviction is often called ‘narcissism’. PSR mainly reflects an intra–personal kind of self–evaluation, whereas CTL reflects an inter–personal kind. Both forms of self–evaluation independently predict intellectual self–enhancement, but only one of them (PSR) also predicts self–reported mental health. Moreover, the two forms of self–evaluation are differentially associated with self–reported and peer–reported inter–personal traits (Dominance and Affiliation). Finally, the concepts of ‘Grandiosity’ and ‘Vulnerability’ from narcissism research may easily be reframed in terms of CTL and PSR. The two–dimensional framework may help overcome the conceptual confusion that exists around different forms of self–evaluation and streamline the field for future research. Copyright

The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis

Author(s): Hopwood, Christopher J; Kotov, Roman; Krueger, Robert F; Watson, David; Widiger, Thomas A; Althoff, Robert R; Ansell, Emily B; Bach, Bo; Michael Bagby, R; Blais, Mark A; Bornovalova, Marina A; Chmielewski, Michael; Cicero, David C; Conway, Christopher; De Clercq, Barbara; De Fruyt, Filip; Docherty, Anna R; Eaton, Nicholas R; Edens, John F; Forbes, Miriam K; Forbush, Kelsie T; Hengartner, Michael P; Ivanova, Masha Y; Leising, Daniel; John Livesley, W; Lukowitsky, Mark R; Lynam, Donald R; Markon, Kristian E; Miller, Joshua D; Morey, Leslie C; Mullins-Sweatt, Stephanie N; Hans Ormel, J; Patrick, Christopher J; Pincus, Aaron L; Ruggero, Camilo; Samuel, Douglas B; Sellbom, Martin; Slade, Tim; Tackett, Jennifer L; Thomas, Katherine M; Trull, Timothy J; Vachon, David D; Waldman, Irwin D; Waszczuk, Monika A; Waugh, Mark H; Wright, Aidan GC; Yalch, Mathew M; Zald, David H; Zimmermann, Johannes

''Are We Talking About the Same Person Here?'': Interrater Agreement in Judgments of Personality Varies Dramatically With How Much the Perceivers Like the Targets

We investigated how interrater agreement in personality judgment is affected by the perceivers’ affection or dislike regarding the targets. A total of 209 perceivers judged the personalities of 15 targets by means of 30 adjectives. The targets were public figures (e.g., the Pope), which enabled gathering a large number of ratings by perceivers differing in liking. Shared liking was associated with strong increases, and large liking differences were associated with strong decreases, in profile correlations. Shared antipathy was also associated with lower agreement. The greater agreement between judgments of liked targets was largely due to the perceivers characterizing targets positively, whereas judgments of disliked targets were not affected by (shared) negativity to the same extent. The perceivers’ attitudes toward the targets constitute an important factor in person perception and need to be taken into account more systematically in research studies.

The Undisordered Personality: Normative Assumptions Underlying Personality Disorder Diagnoses

Clinical diagnoses are impossible without referring to normative assumptions about what is desirable functioning. In this paper, the authors explicate the implicit normative assumptions that seem to have guided the formulation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV) personality disorder (PD) criteria. Then the authors discuss various conceptual reference frames in which such assumptions may be grounded: (1) a given diagnosticians personal value system, (2) the expectations of the culture in which a person currently lives, (3) the expectations of the culture in which a person was raised, (4) models of “natural” personality functioning that are rooted in evolution theory, and (5) the presence of distress and/or impairment. In accordance with Wakefield (1992a, 2006), the authors argue that PD diagnoses necessarily involve both an evolutionary and a cultural component. If PDs were defined completely in cultural terms, investigating their biological underpinnings would be nonsensical. In addition, the values of any specific culture should not be given too much weight, because cultural expectations may themselves be harmful. Future editions of DSM should define personality pathology in less culture-relative terms, and address the inevitable issue of values more explicitly.