The HEXACO Personality Space Before and After Re-Rotation to Approximate the Big Five Dimensions.

We re-oriented the HEXACO personality dimensions to approximate the Big Five, using two measures of the Big Five as targets in a derivation sample and then in cross-validation samples. The HEXACO approximations of Big Five Agreeableness represented blends of HEXACO Agreeableness, Emotionality, and Honesty-Humility. The HEXACO approximations of Big Five Neuroticism represented blends of Emotionality with low Agreeableness and low Extraversion. The residual sixth dimension, unrelated to the Big Five, contrasted Honesty-Humility with HEXACO Agreeableness. We then examined, in additional samples, some correlates of the original and re-rotated HEXACO dimensions. In the original HEXACO factor space, Honesty-Humility was the strongest correlate of unethical behaviors (selfishness and cheating), participant age, and "assumed similarity" to a friend or partner. Upon re-rotation of the HEXACO factors, associations involving these variables were divided between Big Five Agreeableness and the residual sixth dimension. Sex differences were mainly associated with Emotionality but after re-rotation of the HEXACO factors were divided between Big Five Agreeableness and Neuroticism. We discuss the relative merits of the original and Big Five-targeted HEXACO dimensions with reference to the practical utility of Big Five Agreeableness and Neuroticism and the simplicity and theoretical interpretability of the original HEXACO factors.

Interpersonal and personality disorders: Commentary on Wright et al. (2022).

Wright et al. (2022) propose to replace personality disorders with a new classification of interpersonal disorders. We suggest that the trait model addresses well the limitations of the personality disorder categorical syndromes and accommodates the dynamics asserted as strengths of the interpersonal model. We identify weaknesses of the interpersonal model that explain why it has never been officially adopted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The alternative model of personality disorder is inadequate for capturing obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

The alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD) included in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) reconceptualized personality pathology in terms of pathological traits and impairments in functioning. For example, the construct of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) was reconceptualized via the traits of rigid perfectionism as well as at least 2 of perseveration, intimacy avoidance, and restricted affectivity. We review the literature to summarize how effectively the legacy construct of OCPD is captured by the AMPD. We conclude that although the trait of rigid perfectionism is highly related to scores on OCPD measures, the AMPD as a whole fails to adequately account for the broader features of the legacy OCPD construct. Specifically, the AMPD trait model lacks a number of traits, such as workaholism, excessive deliberation, and moral scrupulousness, which are necessary for a fulsome dimensional trait system. These limitations in the inclusion of important traits stem from the AMPD's development process that left out crucial content. We outline how the AMPD could be improved in its ability to account for problems of overcontrolled behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The distinction between symptoms and traits in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP).

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.

Ratings of dimensional traits in clinical practice: Comparing therapist and client perspectives.

Research has repeatedly evidenced the structural validity of the five-factor model (FFM), but questions remain about the use of its dimensions in clinical practice. Samuel and colleagues (2018) found therapists reported their clients had lower levels of personality pathology compared with clients' own self-reports when using the unipolar Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) scale. The present study utilized the same sample of 54 client-therapist dyads to examine their use of the bipolar FFM Rating Form. When comparing the clinical ratings to expertly rated healthy profile ratings, clients rated themselves as more aligned with healthy than their therapists rated them. Alternatively, clients were up to 3.6 times more likely to use the extreme (i.e., theoretically pathological) ratings of the FFM Rating Form compared with their therapists. These results suggest that therapists and clients use these measures quite differently, and we cannot firmly conclude which source reports more pathology. Theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

HiTOP Assessment of Externalizing Antagonism and Disinhibition.

This article outlines the Phase 1 efforts of the HiTOP Measure Development group for externalizing constructs, which include disinhibited externalizing, antagonistic externalizing, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, substance use, and externalizing/maladaptive behaviors. We provide background on the constructs included and the process and issues involved in developing a measure for this diverse range of psychopathology symptoms, traits, and behaviors.

Mapping a hierarchical dimensional structure of high experiential permeability: A bass-ackward approach to linking positive schizotypy and openness to experience.

Research on dimensional models of personality pathology has achieved a good deal of consensus on the 5 broad constructs that span adaptive and maladaptive personality traits. Nonetheless, connections between the 5th domain, typically called openness to experience within general personality measures and psychoticism or schizotypy on maladaptive measures, have proven more challenging to integrate. Using experiential permeability as a guiding framework, the current study seeks to develop a hierarchical, empirically derived lower order structure with these concepts. Using a top-down "Bass-Ackward" approach, we examined the item-level structure of adaptive and maladaptive components of high experiential permeability. Results showed support for a hierarchical model with a 6-component solution including mystical beliefs/experiences, oddity, intellect, openness to aesthetics, openness to ideas, and introspection. These components from items drawn from general and maladaptive measures related to one another within and across levels, specifically oddity and openness to aesthetics. Findings also highlight the importance of using lower level analyses when examining larger, heterogeneous constructs such as schizotypal thinking and perception and openness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Les progrès dans la réalisation de la classification quantitative de la psychopathologie.

Shortcomings of approaches to classifying psychopathology based on expert consensus have given rise to contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology quantitatively. In this paper, we review progress in achieving a quantitative and empirical classification of psychopathology. A substantial empirical literature indicates that psychopathology is generally more dimensional than categorical. When the discreteness versus continuity of psychopathology is treated as a research question, as opposed to being decided as a matter of tradition, the evidence clearly supports the hypothesis of continuity. In addition, a related body of literature shows how psychopathology dimensions can be arranged in a hierarchy, ranging from very broad "spectrum level" dimensions, to specific and narrow clusters of symptoms. In this way, a quantitative approach solves the "problem of comorbidity" by explicitly modeling patterns of co-occurrence among signs and symptoms within a detailed and variegated hierarchy of dimensional concepts with direct clinical utility. Indeed, extensive evidence pertaining to the dimensional and hierarchical structure of psychopathology has led to the formation of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Consortium. This is a group of 70 investigators working together to study empirical classification of psychopathology. In this paper, we describe the aims and current foci of the HiTOP Consortium. These aims pertain to continued research on the empirical organization of psychopathology; the connection between personality and psychopathology; the utility of empirically based psychopathology constructs in both research and the clinic; and the development of novel and comprehensive models and corresponding assessment instruments for psychopathology constructs derived from an empirical approach.

Three recommendations based on a comparison of the reliability and validity of the predominant models used in research on the empirical structure of psychopathology.

The present study compared the primary models used in research on the structure of psychopathology (i.e., correlated factor, higher-order, and bifactor models) in terms of structural validity (model fit and factor reliability), longitudinal measurement invariance, concurrent and prospective predictive validity in relation to important outcomes, and longitudinal consistency in individuals' factor score profiles. Two simpler operationalizations of a general factor of psychopathology were also examined-a single-factor model and a count of diagnoses. Models were estimated based on structured clinical interview diagnoses in two longitudinal waves of nationally representative data from the United States (n = 43,093 and n = 34,653). Models that included narrower factors (fear, distress, and externalizing) were needed to capture the observed multidimensionality of the data. In the correlated factor and higher-order models these narrower factors were reliable, largely invariant over time, had consistent associations with indicators of adaptive functioning, and had moderate stability within individuals over time. By contrast, the fear- and distress-specific factors in the bifactor model did not show good reliability or validity throughout the analyses. Notably, the general factor of psychopathology (p factor) performed similarly well across tests of reliability and validity regardless of whether the higher-order or bifactor model was used; the simplest (single factor) model was also comparable across most tests, with the exception of model fit. Given the limitations of categorical diagnoses, it will be important to repeat these analyses using dimensional measures. We conclude that when aiming to understand the structure and correlates of psychopathology it is important to (a) look beyond model fit indices to choose between different models, (b) examine the reliability of latent variables directly, and (c) be cautious when isolating and interpreting the unique effects of specific psychopathology factors, regardless of which model is used. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Error-monitoring across social and affective processing contexts.

The error-related negativity (ERN) is one of the most researched event-related potentials in the study of cognitive control, and it is thought to capture preconscious error-monitoring. ERN amplitude is known to be modulated by trait and state differences in affect, yet most ERN studies use 'cold' cognitive tasks that do not directly target affective processes involved in cognitive control. For example, speeded response-time tasks that elicit the ERN typically use neutral stimuli (e.g., letters, arrows), yet these paradigms are also flexible enough such that affective or social stimuli can readily be incorporated to target the role of affect in error-monitoring. In this project, the commonly-used arrow flanker task was modified to examine whether the expected behavioral and psychophysiological indices of error-monitoring would be observed using affective and social stimuli. Specifically, four different flanker tasks were administered using a within-subjects design with the following stimuli: arrows, neutral faces, unpleasant images, and pleasant images. Analyses indicated that the flanker tasks using arrows and faces elicited expected behavioral patterns (e.g., lower accuracy and slower reaction time on incongruent versus congruent trials) and ERN modulation by error versus correct trials. Although flanker tasks using unpleasant and pleasant stimuli also modulated the ERN, flanker effects on behavioral performance were not as consistent as the other tasks. Further, within incongruent trials, the ERN was larger when affective stimuli needed to be suppressed for a correct response. The correlations of the ERN and behavioral measures across tasks indicated some consistent individual differences in the ERN across tasks as well as substantial task-specific variances. This project lays the foundation for modifying classic error-monitoring tasks in a manner that may better target social and affective constructs that are of interest to clinical researchers.

Measurement Invariance of the Five Factor Model of Personality: Facet-Level Analyses Among Euro and Asian Americans.

Relative to broad Big Five domains, personality facets provide incremental value in predicting life outcomes. Valid between-group comparisons of means and correlates of facet scores are contingent upon measurement invariance of personality measures. Research on culture and Big Five personality has been largely limited to cross-national comparisons of domains, without assessing measurement invariance across ethnoracial groups within the same country. Using the NEO Inventories, we tested facet-level measurement invariance between Euro (N = 418, 63.2% women, Mage = 18.43) and Asian Americans (N = 429, 56.6% women, Mage = 18.00). Multigroup exploratory factor analysis within a confirmatory factor analysis framework showed partial strong invariance. Assertiveness and activity did not load onto extraversion as strongly for Asian Americans. Self-consciousness showed a stronger cross-loading onto extraversion among Asian Americans than Euro Americans. Achievement striving, competence, warmth, tender-mindedness, and excitement seeking showed noninvariant intercepts across groups. Collectivistic values emphasizing interpersonal harmony and modesty should be considered when examining narrow and broad traits among Asian Americans.

The healthy personality from a basic trait perspective.

What basic personality traits characterize the psychologically healthy individual? The purpose of this article was to address this question by generating an expert-consensus model of the healthy person in the context of the 30 facets (and 5 domains) of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) system of traits. In a first set of studies, we found that the healthy personality can be described, with a high level of agreement, in terms of the 30 facets of the NEO-PI-R. High levels of openness to feelings, positive emotions, and straightforwardness, together with low levels on facets of neuroticism, were particularly indicative of healthy personality functioning. The expert-generated healthy personality profile was negatively correlated with profiles of pathological personality functioning and positively correlated with normative personality functioning. In a second set of studies, we matched the NEO-PI-R profiles of over 3,000 individuals from 7 different samples with the expert-generated healthy prototype to yield a healthy personality index. This index was characterized by good retest reliability and cross-rater agreement, high rank-order stability, and substantial heritability. Individuals with high scores on the healthy personality index were psychologically well-adjusted, had high self-esteem, good self-regulatory skills, an optimistic outlook on the world, and a clear and stable self-view. These individuals were low in aggression and meanness, unlikely to exploit others, and were relatively immune to stress and self-sufficient. We discuss the results in the light of their implications for both research and theory on healthy personality functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A meta-analytic review of personality traits and their associations with mental health treatment outcomes.

Personality traits have been hypothesized to be clinically useful for diagnosis, client conceptualization, treatment planning, as well as for predicting treatment outcomes. Although several studies examined the relation between personality traits and specific therapy outcomes, this literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the relations between personality traits and various therapeutic outcomes. Traits were organized via the domains of the five-factor model to provide a common framework for interpreting effects. Across 99 studies (N = 107, 206), overall findings indicated that traits were systematically related to outcomes, with many specific relations congruent with theorized predictions. Generally, lower levels of neuroticism and higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness were associated with more favorable outcomes. More specifically, agreeableness had positive associations with therapeutic alliance and conscientiousness was positively related to abstinence from substances suggesting these traits are likely a beneficial factor to consider at the outset of services. Personality traits also related to various outcomes differently based on moderators. For example, duration of treatment moderated links between traits and outcomes suggesting these effects are amplified over longer services. Overall results suggest that personality assessment can aid with case conceptualization by suggesting potential strengths as well as barriers to treatment.

A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology Can Transform Mental Health Research.

For more than a century, research on psychopathology has focused on categorical diagnoses. Although this work has produced major discoveries, growing evidence points to the superiority of a dimensional approach to the science of mental illness. Here we outline one such dimensional system-the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP)-that is based on empirical patterns of co-occurrence among psychological symptoms. We highlight key ways in which this framework can advance mental-health research, and we provide some heuristics for using HiTOP to test theories of psychopathology. We then review emerging evidence that supports the value of a hierarchical, dimensional model of mental illness across diverse research areas in psychological science. These new data suggest that the HiTOP system has the potential to accelerate and improve research on mental-health problems as well as efforts to more effectively assess, prevent, and treat mental illness.

Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP.

The categorical model of personality disorder classification in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) is highly and fundamentally problematic. Proposed for DSM-5 and provided within Section III (for Emerging Measures and Models) was the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) classification, consisting of Criterion A (self-interpersonal deficits) and Criterion B (maladaptive personality traits). A proposed alternative to the DSM-5 more generally is an empirically based dimensional organization of psychopathology identified as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP; Kotov et al., 2017 ). HiTOP currently includes, at the highest level, a general factor of psychopathology. Further down are the five domains of detachment, antagonistic externalizing, disinhibited externalizing, thought disorder, and internalizing (along with a provisional sixth somatoform dimension) that align with Criterion B. The purpose of this article is to discuss the potential inclusion and placement of the self-interpersonal deficits of the DSM-5 Section III Criterion A within HiTOP.

Bringing the brain into personality assessment: Is there a place for event-related potentials?

Advances in technology have provided opportunities to assess physiological correlates and further our understanding of a number of constructs, including personality traits. Event-related potentials (ERPs), scalp-recorded measures of brain activity with millisecond temporal resolution, show properties that make them potential candidates for integrating neurophysiological methods into personality research. Several commonly used ERPs have trait-like properties including test-retest stability approaching .8 over two weeks. Additionally, ERP methods are relatively inexpensive and tolerable compared to other neurophysiological methods (e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI]) making them easier to obtain sample sizes required for individual differences research. Finally, the tasks that elicit ERPs are flexible enough to allow researchers to customize the tasks to the psychological constructs of interest. These factors suggest that ERPs could potentially be useful in the study of personality and individual differences. A baseline approach to this line of inquiry is to examine the properties of ERPs as neurophysiological individual differences markers and probe their links to personality traits as assessed by self-report questionnaires. This article does this for three well-studied ERPs. Techniques commonly used in personality assessment research-but rarely in ERP research-were applied to these candidate ERPs to examine their psychometric properties and personality correlates. Overall, although ERPs show promising properties as neurophysiological indicators of individual differences, they were only marginally related with existing personality traits. Further research clarifying the ERPs measurement properties and potential links with known personality processes is needed. Finally, we list some strategies to further integrate these two areas of research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).