Search

Background Previous research suggests that there is a bidirectional relationship between incidental affect (i.e., how people feel in day-to-day life) and physical activity behavior. However, many inconsistencies exist in the body of work due to the lag interval between affect and physical activity measurements. Purpose Using a novel continuous-time analysis paradigm, we examined the temporal specificity underlying the dynamic relationship between positive and negative incidental affective states and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Methods A community sample of adults (n = 126, Mage = 27.71, 51.6% Male) completed a 14-day ambulatory assessment protocol measuring momentary positive and negative incidental affect six times a day while wearing a physical activity monitor (Fitbit). Hierarchical Bayesian continuous-time structural equation modeling was used to elucidate the underlying dynamics of the relationship between incidental affective states and MVPA. Results Based on the continuous-time cross-effects, positive and negative incidental affect predicted subsequent MVPA. Furthermore, engaging in MVPA predicted subsequent positive and negative incidental affect. Incidental affective states had a greater relative influence on predicting subsequent MVPA compared to the reciprocal relationship. Analysis of the discrete-time coefficients suggests that cross-lagged effects increase as the time interval between measurements increase, peaking at about 8 h between measurement occasions before beginning to dissipate. Conclusions The results provide support for a recursive relationship between incidental affective states and MVPA, which is particularly strong at 7–9 hr time intervals. Future research designs should consider these medium-term dynamics, for both theory development and intervention.

Research has challenged the assumption that personality pathology is “egoysyntonic” or perceived favorably and consistent with one’s self-image. The present study employed a community sample (n = 401) to examine relations between self-rated maladaptive personality and liking of maladaptive traits in self and others as well as meta-perception of personality pathology (i.e., how likable participants believe others find maladaptive traits). In general, individuals with higher self-rated maladaptive traits provided higher ratings of the likability of these traits in themselves and others. However, as hypothesized, comparison of liking ratings for high scorers and the rest of the sample revealed that individuals who score highly on most pathological personality traits do not “like” these traits (or rate others as “liking” them) but simply dislike them less. Results support a dimensional view of egosyntonicity.

The present study examines the structure of Disinhibition within existing models of personality traits and behaviors with the goal of identifying meaningful levels of Disinhibition that exist at various levels of the hierarchy.

The purpose of the present study is to synthesize results of the research literature examining associations between scores on the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick, 2004) and domains of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality. A broad approach to the FFM will be taken, collapsing across general and pathological trait models to assess relations of the ICU with five underlying trait domains. Potential moderators of observed associations (e.g., ICU version, trait domain measure, sample characteristics) will also be examined. Callous-unemotional (CU) traits were formally added to the diagnosis of conduct disorder (CD) in DSM-5 in the form of the “with limited prosocial emotions” (LPE) specifier. This inclusion implies a continuity from CD-LPE in adolescence (i.e., before age 18) to antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, or other forms of antagonistic personality pathology in adulthood. This meta-analysis will examine evidence for the construct validity of the ICU and thus inform its use in identifying a distinct LPE subgroup within youth diagnosed with CD.

Machiavellianism is a personality construct characterized by cynicism, callousness, and skillful manipulation of others to achieve personal gains. We review the Machiavellianism literature with a particular focus on its measurement alongside narcissism and psychopathy in the so-called "Dark Triad" (DT). We discuss criticisms of Machiavellianism on the grounds of insufficient construct validity as well as its virtual indistinguishability from psychopathy when assessed by commonly used instruments. As a response to these criticisms, we offer the super-short form of the Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI-SSF) as an alternative. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the FFMI-SSF in relation to psychopathy and basic personality traits (i.e., the Five Factor Model) and to compare it to widely used measures of the DT and psychopathy in a large undergraduate sample (n = 1004).

The Dark Triad (DT) refers to three socially aversive personality constructs: psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. In response to concerns with existing self-report questionnaires measuring these constructs, we created the Five Factor Model Antagonistic Triad Measure (FFM ATM), which uses 46 items to assess multidimensional, faceted versions of the three DT constructs. The current pre-registered study used two large samples (

Interpersonal theory organizes social behavior along dominant (vs. submissive) and warm (vs. cold) dimensions. There is a growing interest in assessing these behaviors in naturalistic settings to maximize ecological validity and to study dynamic social processes. Studies that have assessed interpersonal behavior in daily life have primarily relied on behavioral checklists. Although checklists have advantages, they are discrepant with techniques used to capture constructs typically assessed alongside warmth and dominance, such as affect, which typically rely on adjective descriptors. Further, these checklists are distinct from the methodologies used at the dispositional level, such as personality inventories, which rarely rely on behavioral checklists. The current study evaluates the psychometric performance of interpersonal adjectives presented on a visual analogue scale in five different samples. Validity of the visual interpersonal analogue scale (VIAS) approach to momentary assessment was evaluated by comparing its performance with an interpersonal behavior checklist and by examining associations among the VIAS warmth and dominance scales and other momentary and dispositional constructs. Results were generally consistent with an existing interpersonal behavior checklist at the within-person level but diverged somewhat at the dispositional level. Across the five samples, the VIAS generally performed as hypothesized at both the within- and between-person levels.

The backbone of any field of science is quality data. In personality disorder (PD) science and the broader field of clinical psychology, researchers must consider whether participants were attentive to, understood, and responded honestly and with sufficient effort to self-report questionnaires. We review literature regarding the prevalence of invalid (i.e., careless, low effort, inattentive, or inaccurate) responding, its impact on analysis and interpretation, and available methods of detection. We also present the results of a systematic review of 251 empirical articles across three major journals to characterize the current state of questionable data detection in PD science both in absolute terms and as compared to practices in the larger field of clinical science. In response to the disconcertingly low prevalence rate of self-report validity checks (approximately 22% of PD studies), we conclude by providing practical recommendations for improving data validity in PD science at the points of study design, data analysis, and reporting of results.

Personality researchers have posited multiple ways in which the relations between personality traits and life outcomes may be moderated by other traits, but there are well-known difficulties in reliable detection of such trait-by-trait interaction effects. Estimating the prevalence and magnitude base-rates of trait-by-trait interactions would help to assess whether a given study is suited to detect interaction effects. We used the Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project dataset to estimate the prevalence, nature, and magnitude of trait-by-trait interactions across 81 self-reported life outcomes (n ≥ 1,350 per outcome). Outcome samples were divided into two halves to examine the replicability of observed interaction effects using both traditional and machine-learning indices. The study was adequately powered (1 − β ≥ .80) to detect the smallest interaction effects of interest (interactions accounting for a ΔR2 of approximately .01) for 78 of the 81 (96%) outcomes in each of the partitioned samples. Results showed that only 40 interactions (5.33% of the original 750 tests) showed evidence of strong replicability through robustness checks (i.e., demographic covariates, Tobit regression, ordinal regression). Interactions were also uniformly small in magnitude. Future directions for research on trait-by-trait interactions are discussed.

Insults convey information about the speaker’s perception of the target’s personality. Previous research has found that several commonly used insults (“asshole,” “dick,” “bitch”) are uniformly associated with self- and other-reported antagonism (or low Agreeableness). We aimed to replicate and extend these findings by focusing on the insult “asshole,” a common insult used to refer to both men and women. In the present study, participants (n = 397) described the “biggest assholes” in their lives using a measure of the Five-Factor Model of personality. “Assholes” described by participants were typically middle-aged, predominantly male, and included romantic partners, coworkers, bosses, family members, and friends. Results showed that “assholes” were perceived to be characterized by interpersonally relevant traits (i.e., low Agreeableness, high Anger). The consensus Five Factor Model profile for target “assholes” was similar to expert profiles of psychopathic, antisocial, and narcissistic personality disorders. Exploratory analyses conducted on open-ended descriptions of nominated bothersome “asshole-related” behaviors revealed common themes including manipulation, aggression, irresponsibility, and entitlement.

Insults convey information about the speaker’s perception of the target’s personality. Previous research has found that several commonly used insults (“asshole,” “dick,” “bitch”) are uniformly associated with self- and other-reported antagonism (or low Agreeableness). We aimed to replicate and extend these findings by focusing on “asshole,” a common insult used to refer to both men and women. In the present study, participants (n = 397) described the “biggest assholes” in their lives using a measure of the Five-Factor Model of personality. “Assholes” described by participants were typically middle-aged, predominantly male, and included romantic partners, coworkers, bosses, family members, and friends. Results showed that “assholes” were perceived to be characterized by interpersonally relevant traits (i.e., low Agreeableness, high Anger). The consensus Five-Factor Model profile for target “assholes” was similar to expert profiles of psychopathic, antisocial, and narcissistic personality disorders. Exploratory analyses conducted on open-ended descriptions of nominated bothersome “asshole-related” behaviors revealed common themes including manipulation, aggression, irresponsibility, and entitlement.

Meanness (i.e., callousness/unemotionality, antagonism) and disinhibition (e.g., impulsivity, antisocial behavior) are the consensus traits that undergird psychopathy. Significant debate exists regarding a proposed third dimension of boldness or fearless dominance, characterized by particularly high levels of both extraversion and emotional stability. The present study is a preregistered direct replication of the work of Gatner and colleagues (2016) regarding the importance of boldness in psychopathy. Specifically, in a large undergraduate sample (n = 1,015), which more than doubled the original study sample size, we examined whether boldness exhibited curvilinear relations to antisocial and prosocial outcomes, provided incremental predictive utility, and interacted with meanness and disinhibition. Consistent with Gatner and colleagues' findings, incremental, interactive, or curvilinear effects of boldness did not account for more than a small amount of variance in outcomes beyond the main effects of meanness and disinhibition. We discuss both process and results in the context of promoting a culture of reproducibility as well as transparent and open practices in clinical science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Recent personality neuroscience research in large samples suggests that personality traits tend to bear null-to-small relations to morphometric (i.e., brain structure) regions of interest (ROIs). In this preregistered, two-part study using Human Connectome Project data (N = 1,105), we address the possibility that these null-to-small relations are due, in part, to the "level" (i.e., hierarchical placement) of personality and/or morphometry examined. We used a Five-Factor Model framework and operationalized personality in terms of meta-traits, domains, facets, and items; we operationalized morphometry in terms of omnibus measures (e.g., total brain volume), and cortical thickness and area in the ROIs of the Desikan and Destrieux atlases. First, we compared the patterns of effect sizes observed between these levels using mixed effects modeling. Second, we used a machine learning framework for estimating out-of-sample predictability. Results highlight that personality-morphometry relations are generally null-to-small no matter how they are operationalized. Relatively, the largest mean effect sizes were observed at the domain level of personality, but the largest individual effect sizes were observed at the facet and item level, particularly for the Ideas facet of Openness and its constituent items. The largest effect sizes observed were at the omnibus level of morphometry, and predictive models containing only omnibus variables were comparably predictive to models including both omnibus variable and ROIs. We conclude by encouraging researchers to search across levels of analysis when investigating relations between personality and morphometry and consider prioritizing omnibus measures, which appear to yield the largest and most consistent effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Machiavellianism is a personality construct characterized by cynicism, callousness, and skillful manipulation of others to achieve personal gains. We review the Machiavellianism literature with a particular focus on its measurement alongside narcissism and psychopathy in the so-called “Dark Triad” (DT). We discuss criticisms of Machiavellianism on the grounds of insufficient construct validity as well as its virtual indistinguishability from psychopathy when assessed by commonly used instruments. As a response to these criticisms, we offer the super-short form of the Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI-SSF) as an alternative. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the FFMI-SSF in relation to psychopathy and basic personality traits (i.e., the Five Factor Model) and to compare it to widely used measures of the DT and psychopathy in a large undergraduate sample (n = 1,004).

Meanness (i.e., callousness/unemotionality, antagonism) and disinhibition (e.g., impulsivity, antisocial behavior) are the consensus traits which undergird psychopathy. Significant debate exists regarding a proposed third dimension of boldness or fearless dominance, characterized by particularly high levels of both extraversion and emotional stability. The present study is a pre-registered direct replication of the work of Gatner and colleagues (2016) regarding the importance of boldness in psychopathy. Specifically, in a large undergraduate sample (n = 1,015) which more than doubled the original study sample size, we examined whether boldness exhibited curvilinear relations to antisocial and prosocial outcomes, provided incremental predictive utility, and interacted with meanness and disinhibition. Consistent with Gatner and colleagues’ findings, neither incremental, interactive, nor curvilinear effects of boldness accounted for more than a small amount of variance in outcomes beyond the main effects of meanness and disinhibition. We discuss both process and results in the context of promoting a culture of reproducibility, as well as transparent and open practices in clinical science.

Jonason and Luoto (2021) examined group differences in Dark Triad (DT) traits across sexual orientations and interpreted their results as indicative of higher levels of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism among sexual minority individuals. We address three ways in which this work lacks methodological rigor: (1) analytic decisions, (2) measurement invalidity, and (3) sampling approach. We conclude by raising concerns regarding cultural sensitivity, including a (4) lack of attention to sociocultural context as an explanatory factor and (5) inconsistency with guidelines from the APA for inclusive language.

Personality researchers have posited multiple ways in which the relations between personality traits and life outcomes may be moderated by other traits, but there are well-known difficulties in reliable detection of such trait-by-trait interaction effects. Estimating the prevalence and magnitude base rates of trait-by-trait interactions would help to assess whether a given study is suited to detect interaction effects. We used the Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project dataset to estimate the prevalence, nature, and magnitude of trait-by-trait interactions across 81 self-reported life outcomes ( n ≥ 1350 per outcome). Outcome samples were divided into two halves to examine the replicability of observed interaction effects using both traditional and machine learning indices. The study was adequately powered (1 − β ≥ .80) to detect the smallest interaction effects of interest (interactions accounting for a Δ R2 of approximately .01) for 78 of the 81 (96%) outcomes in each of the partitioned samples. Results showed that only 40 interactions (5.33% of the original 750 tests) showed evidence of strong replicability through robustness checks (i.e., demographic covariates, Tobit regression, and ordinal regression). Interactions were also uniformly small in magnitude. Future directions for research on trait-by-trait interactions are discussed.

Studying the interface between personality and psychopathology has generated significant insight into the nature of individual differences. Because personality disorders are the clearest point of convergence, much of this literature originates from contention surrounding how to define personality pathology. Shifts in how personality disorders are conceptualized, diagnosed, and treated illuminate fundamental issues for psychological science such as how to bridge theory and research, the importance of matching measurement to construct, and how to integrate diverse intellectual traditions. In this chapter, we contextualize these issues in historical and ongoing efforts to understand personality pathology. We emphasize how pathological personality processes have been simultaneously inextricable and elusive throughout these efforts; clinical theories have emphasized dysfunctional, within-person dynamics but lack scientific operationalization, and formal taxonomies have focused on describing between-person differences that obscure the underlying processes. We suggest a comprehensive model that mechanistically links nomothetic structure to contextualized processes is necessary for advancing our understanding of personality and psychopathology.

Using multilevel structural equation modeling, the authors examined within- and between-person predictors of daily impulsivity, with a particular focus on testing a cascade model of affect and daily stress in a 100-day daily diary study of 101 psychiatric patients with personality disorder diagnoses. On average (i.e., fixed effect), within-person increases in daily stress were associated with increased daily impulsivity, both independently and as accounted for by positive associations with increased negative and positive affect. Higher Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) Impulsivity scores were associated with amplified within-person links between impulsivity and daily stress and negative affect, but not the links between daily stress and either positive or negative affect. The results of this cascade model are consistent with the hypothesized links between daily affect and stress and daily impulsivity while providing further evidence for the validity of the PID-5 Impulsivity scale and its ability to predict daily impulsivity above and beyond fluctuations in affect and stress.

There is growing interest in understanding the fluctuations in narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability over time. Momentary data collection is vital in facilitating this new area of inquiry. Two narcissism adjective scales, the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale and the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale, have recently been developed for this purpose. In the present study, the validity of these two scales was examined across three different samples. Results indicate that these measures perform well psychometrically at both the momentary and trait-level. In particular, results from the multilevel exploratory factor analyses reveal a clear two-factor structure at both the within- and between-person level. Additional results examining the relationship between these scales and other momentary scales (e.g., the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) reflect associations in line with contemporary literature. Finally, both of these scales tended to correlate with other dispositional measures at the between-person level in the expected manner, with particularly strong associations with existing narcissism measures (e.g., The Pathological Narcissism Inventory and The Five Factor Narcissism Inventory). Future studies wishing to examine fluctuations in grandiosity and vulnerability should consider using these scales for momentary narcissism assessment.