Search

Objective: The present study examined the hierarchical structure of Conscientiousness across three large samples using item‐level analyses. Background: Conscientiousness is among the strongest predictors of individual differences in major life outcomes. Yet decades of work understanding the optimal lower‐order structure of Conscientiousness has not rectified the differences that remain among existing models and measures. To precisely measure its relations to major life outcomes, it is necessary to work toward a comprehensive, replicable conceptualization of the construct's structure. Methods: The present pre‐registered study used three samples (Ns = 446, 406, & 424) to explore the domain's latent structure with item‐level "bass‐ackward" factor analyses and evaluate the resulting structure's interpretability, parsimony, and replicability. Participants completed self‐report measures of Conscientiousness and criteria in its nomological network (e.g., FFM traits, externalizing behavior, disinhibitory traits; informant reports were collected as well). Results: The factor analyses identified five interpretable and replicable factors (i.e., deliberation, order, industriousness, self‐discipline, and dependability) using predominant measures of general personality. An additional factor (i.e., traditionalism) was introduced in the six‐factor solution when the item pool was expanded to include less widely used measures of general personality. Conclusion: The authors discuss the item composition of each factor, their relation to existing models and measures of the domain's structure, their association with relevant criteria, and the general implications of conceptualizing Conscientiousness using flexible, item‐level factor analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present study examined the hierarchical structure of self‐reported fearlessness and compared this structure to external criterion measures. Background: Fearlessness is often discussed in relation to clinical and personality research. However, there is a paucity of research focusing on its empirical structure, in particular with self‐report measures. Method: Using a preregistered analytical approach, we employed Goldberg's 2006 "bass‐ackward" factor analysis on self‐reported trait fear and fearlessness items to uncover the hierarchical structure of the construct. The final sample consisted of 619 participants and 562 informants. Results: By assessing fit statistics and interpretability of the factors, we found a six‐factor model fit the data best. The six‐factor solution emerged as comprehensive and included components labeled Assertiveness, Low Anxiety, Sociability, Recklessness, Openness to Action, and Adventurousness. Criterion variables measuring boldness, fear, anxiety, psychopathy, basic personality traits, and impulsivity, were correlated with the factor scores at each factor level of the model. Conclusions The findings from this study elucidate how trait fearlessness unfolds at varying levels and how these factors relate to and diverge from various outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study explores the associations among narcissistic traits, interpersonal behaviors, and aggression using repeated, situation‐based measurement. We examine narcissism's relations with aggression across three levels of its theorized hierarchy (level 1: narcissism; level 2: grandiose vs. vulnerable narcissism; level 3: antagonism, agentic extraversion, and narcissistic neuroticism). Methods: Using an experience‐sampling approach, the current study examined the effects of narcissism and its finer‐grained components on daily affective experiences and aggressive behaviors in the context of interpersonal interactions. Data were collected from 477 undergraduate students who were instructed to complete four prompts a day for ten consecutive days. Results: Narcissism at the global construct level positively predicted multiple indices of episodic aggression (i.e., aggressive temper, aggressive urge, verbal aggression). At the dual‐dimension level, grandiose narcissism specifically predicted aggression, and then at the trifurcated level, interpersonal antagonism predicted aggression by itself and in interaction with event‐level negative affect. Negative affect consistently exhibited both within‐ and between‐person effects on aggression. Conclusion: In real‐life social interactions, narcissism dimensions differentially affect the way individuals experience social interactions and process negative affect, and thus in both research and clinical practice, narcissism is best assessed as a heterogeneous, multidimensional construct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00571.x Byline: Eric T. Gaughan (1), Joshua D. Miller (1), Lauren R. Pryor (1), Donald R. Lynam (2) Abstract: ABSTRACT This study examined the interrelations between two measures of personality, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) and the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen & Waller, 2008), and their relations with psychopathy in a sample of undergraduates. Results revealed good convergence between conceptually related personality traits; however, the NEO PI-R facets accounted for more variance in the MPQ subscales (mean R.sup.2=.49) than did MPQ subscales in NEO PI-R facets (mean R.sup.2=.35). Both accounted for substantial proportions of variance in psychopathy scores, although the NEO PI-R accounted for larger proportions and manifested greater incremental validity when using the broader domains of each measure; the differences decreased when the narrower facets/subscales were used. The results suggest that, although both measures assess psychopathy-related traits, the NEO PI-R provides a more complete description because of its assessment of interpersonal antagonism and the central role of this construct in psychopathy. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Georgia (2)Purdue University Article note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013. E-mail: jdmiller@uga.edu.

Objective: Narcissism is a complex, hierarchical construct that can be studied at the one, two, or three factor levels with different components within each level having their own unique nomological networks. The manner in which narcissism—both broadly and narrowly construed—is linked to aggression is important to understand given longstanding clinical and empirical observations of a link between the two and the critical implications of aggression. Methods: The current preregistered meta‐analysis (k = 118) took a novel methodological approach in exploring the association between the three levels of narcissism (i.e., global construct level, dual‐dimension level, trifurcated level) and three indices of aggression (i.e., general, proactive, reactive). Results: Results revealed that the global construct of narcissism shows a moderate positive association with different indices of aggression. Vulnerable narcissism associated strongly and positively with reactive aggression and general aggression. At the trifurcated level, interpersonal antagonism associated positively with all indices of aggression, agentic extraversion associated negatively with all indices of aggression, and narcissistic neuroticism associates positively with general and reactive aggression. Conclusion: The study highlighted the importance of studying narcissism, and potentially other personality profiles, at a finer‐grained level to better understand crucial psychological processes associated with the construct of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is an empirically and quantitatively derived dimensional classification system designed to describe the features of psychopathology and, ultimately, to replace categorical nosologies. Among the constructs that HiTOP organizes are "symptom components" and "maladaptive traits," but past HiTOP publications have not fully explicated the distinction between symptoms and traits. We propose working definitions of symptoms and traits and explore challenges, exceptions, and remaining questions. Specifically, we propose that the only systematic difference between symptoms and traits in HiTOP is one of time frame. Maladaptive traits are dispositional constructs that describe persistent tendencies to manifest features of psychopathology, whereas symptoms are features of psychopathology as they are manifest during any specific time period (from moments to days to months). This has the consequence that almost every HiTOP dimension, at any level of the hierarchy, can be assessed as either a trait or a symptom dimension, by adjusting the framing of the assessment. We discuss the implications of these definitions for causal models of the relations between symptoms and traits and for distinctions between psychopathology, normal personality variation, and dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A growing research literature has focused on what have been termed "dark" personality traits/constructs. More recently, the "dark factor" of personality has been proposed as a unifying framework for this research. To date, little work has rigorously investigated whether the traits/constructs investigated in the context of the dark factor can be captured by existing models of normative personality, namely Agreeableness from the Five‐factor Model. Thus, the "dark factor" may be an instance of the "jangle" fallacy, where two constructs with different names are in fact the same construct. Method: We used a preregistered approach that made use of bass‐ackward factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and nomological network analysis to investigate the distinction between the D factor and Agreeableness. Results: Agreeableness and the D factor were similar in their coverage of antagonistic personality content, strongly negatively related (latent r = −.90), and showed near perfect profile dissimilarity (rICC = −.99). Conclusions: The results suggested that the D factor can be understood as the opposite pole of Agreeableness (i.e., antagonism) and not as a distinct construct. We discuss the implications for researchers interested in continuing to advance the study of antagonistic personality traits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Partialing procedures are frequently used in psychological research. The present study sought to further explore the consequences of partialing, focusing on the replicability of partialing-based results.Method: We used popular measures of the Dark Triad (DT; Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) to explore the replicability of partialing procedures. We examined whether the residual content of popular DT scales is similar to the residual content of DT scales derived from separate samples based on relations with individual items from the IPIP-NEO-120, allowing for a finer-grained analysis of residual variable content.Results: Profiles were compared using three sample sizes (Small N = 156-157, Moderate N = 313-314, Large N = 627-628) randomly drawn from a large MTurk sample (N = 1,255). There was low convergence between original and residual DT scales within samples. Additionally, results showed that the content of residual Dirty Dozen scales was not similar across samples. Comparable results were found for short Dark Triad-Machiavellianism, but only in the moderate and small samples.Conclusion: The results indicate that there are important issues that arise when using partialing procedures, including replicability issues surrounding residual variables. Reasons for the observed results are discussed and further research examining the replicability of residual-based results is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined Widiger and Lynam's (1998) hypothesis that psychopathy can be represented using the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Participants in the study consisted of 481 21-22-year-old men and women who are part of an ongoing longitudinal study. Psychopathy was assessed by the degree of similarity between an individual's NEO-PI-R and an expert-generated FFM psychopathy prototype. The expert-based prototype supported the account of Widiger and Lynam (1998), as did the correlations between the NEO-PI-R Psychopathy Resemblance Index (PRI) and the individual personality dimensions. The PRI was also related in predicted ways to measures of antisocial behavior, drug use, and psychopathology. The results support the contention that psychopathy can be understood as an extreme variant of common dimensions of personality, and underscore the utility of a dimensional model of personality disorders.

Objective: Impulsivity appears to be best conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. For example, the UPPS-P model posits that there are five underlying facets of impulsivity. The present study examined the expression of the UPPS-P facets in daily life using experience sampling methodology. A specific goal of the study was to examine positive urgency, a facet added to the original UPPS model, and its convergence and divergence from the negative urgency facet.Method: A large nonclinical sample of young adults (n = 294) completed the UPPS-P scale and was signaled to complete questionnaires assessing daily affect, cognitions, sense of self, and impulsive behaviors eight times a day for 7 days.Results: Results indicated that the UPPS-P facets are associated with disruptions in affect, cognitions, and behavior in daily life. Furthermore, all of the UPPS-P facets were associated with impulsivity in daily life. Contrary to expectation, positive urgency was associated with negative affect rather than positive affect and had a profile indistinguishable from negative urgency.Conclusions: These results generally support a four-factor model of multidimensional impulsivity with a general overall urgency factor instead of separate positive and negative urgency facets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although there are several models of the lower-order structure of Agreeableness, empirically derived descriptions of this domain are largely nonexistent. We examined the factor structure of Agreeableness items from multiple scales in order to empirically determine the facet-level structure of the domain.Method: Participants (N = 1,205; 73% female; 84% White; Mage  = 35.5, SD = 17.26) completed 131 items from 22 scales measuring Agreeableness.Results: A series of factor analyses was conducted on 104 items to identify factor emergence of the domain from a single factor to increasingly more specific factors. A five-factor solution consisting of facets labeled Compassion, Morality, Trust, Affability, and Modesty was identified as most appropriate. Factors from all levels of the construct were compared to current measures of the domain as well as a number of criterion variables. The patterns of association with criterion variables at the lower level of the Agreeableness domain showed significant divergence.Conclusions: The current results highlight how specific Agreeableness traits unfold from broader to more specific facets and how these traits are represented in existing measures of this important domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Theoretical conceptions of narcissism have long been characterized by two seemingly opposing poles: grandiosity and vulnerability. The goal of the current study was to investigate the extent to which traits associated with one profile are perceived to co-occur with the other within an individual.Method: Lay raters (N = 862; 56% female; 80% Caucasian; Mage  = 37) recruited from Amazon's MTurk were assigned to one of four conditions in which they rated how often a series of narcissistic traits were displayed by a prototypical grandiose narcissist, a vulnerable narcissist, a close friend, or themselves. Vulnerable narcissism items were specifically worded to assess internalizing- versus externalizing-based emotional responses.Results: Results suggest that grandiosely narcissistic individuals are seen as responding angrily to ego-threatening situations, whereas vulnerably narcissistic individuals are seen as responding with a broader array of negative emotions, including anger, sadness, and shame. In contrast, vulnerably narcissistic individuals were not rated as consistently demonstrating behaviors, attitudes, or cognitions associated with grandiose narcissism.Conclusions: Grandiose and vulnerable narcissistic individuals both exhibit anger in response to ego threat, but sadness/shame responses are more characteristic of vulnerable narcissism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Increasing attention has been paid to the distinction between the dimensions of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability. We examine the degree to which basic traits underlie vulnerable narcissism, with a particular emphasis on the importance of Neuroticism and Agreeableness.Method: Across four samples (undergraduate, online community, clinical-community), we conduct dominance analyses to partition the variance predicted in vulnerable narcissism by the Five-Factor Model personality domains, as well as compare the empirical profiles generated by vulnerable narcissism and Neuroticism.Results: These analyses demonstrate that the lion's share of variance is explained by Neuroticism (65%) and Agreeableness (19%). Similarity analyses were also conducted in which the extent to which vulnerable narcissism and Neuroticism share similar empirical networks was tested using an array of criteria, including self-, informant, and thin slice ratings of personality; interview-based ratings of personality disorder and pathological traits; and self-ratings of adverse events and functional outcomes. The empirical correlates of vulnerable narcissism and Neuroticism were nearly identical (MrICC  = .94). Partial analyses demonstrated that the variance in vulnerable narcissism not shared with Neuroticism is largely specific to disagreeableness-related traits such as distrustfulness and grandiosity.Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the parsimony of using basic personality to study personality pathology and have implications for how vulnerable narcissism might be approached clinically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A robust literature has emerged on the Dark Triad (DT) of personality-Machiavellianism (MACH), psychopathy, and narcissism. Questions remain as to whether MACH and psychopathy are distinguishable and whether MACH's empirical and theoretical networks are consistent. In Study 1 (N = 393; MTurk research participants), factor analyses were used to compare two-factor (MACH and psychopathy combined + narcissism) and three-factor models, with both fitting the data equally well. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 341; undergraduate research participants), DT scores were examined in relation to a variety of external criteria, including self- and informant ratings of personality, adverse developmental experiences, and psychopathological symptoms/behaviors. In both studies, MACH and psychopathy manifested nearly identical empirical profiles and both were significantly related to disinhibitory traits thought to be antithetical to MACH. In Study 3 (N = 36; expert raters), expert ratings of the Five-Factor Model traits prototypical of MACH were collected and compared with empirically derived profiles. Measures of MACH yielded profiles that were inconsistent with the prototypical expert-rated profile due to their positive relations with a broad spectrum of impulsivity-related traits. Ultimately, measures of psychopathy and MACH appear to be measuring the same construct, and MACH assessments fail to capture the construct as articulated in theoretical descriptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article argues that psychopathy is best understood as a collection of traits from the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM). We demonstrate that specific FFM traits involved in psychopathy are well delineated; the same personality profile emerges across methods. We review research demonstrating that this FFM profile can be used to assess psychopathy, including the development of a psychopathy-specific FFM assessment that appears to do an even better job of assessing psychopathy than the NEO PI-R while remaining true to the basic structural model. We demonstrate the advantages to understanding psychopathy in this way. The FFM provides an assay of extant inventories, accounts for the epidemiology of psychopathy, and explains the factor structure of various inventories. The elemental view of psychopathy allows psychopathy to be built from the ground up, trait by trait. Perhaps most importantly, the FFM is unique in providing a connection to basic research in personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]