Trait concepts are used extensively in psychopathoiogy research, but much of this research has failed to consider recent advances in the dimensional structure of personality. Many investigators have discounted the importance of this structural research, arguing that (a) little progress has been made in this area, (b) structural models have little direct relevance for psychopathoiogy research, and (c) the principal methodological tool of structural research-factor analysis-is too subjective to yield psychologically meaningful results. We dispute each of these objections. Specifically, we offer an integrative hierarchical model-composed of four higher order traits-that is congruent with each of the major structural subtraditions within personality. We also discuss the implications of this integrative scheme for basic trait research, for the conceptualization and assessment of psychopathoiogy, and for the etiology of disorder.

We greatly appreciate the MMPI-2 restandardization committee allowing us to use the normative sample.

Psychologists interested in such diverse areas as scientific reasoning, attribution theory, depression, and judgment have central tp their theories the ability of people to judge the degree of covariation between two variables. We performed seven experiments to help determine what heuristics people use in estimating the contingency between two dichotomous variables. Assume that the two variables are Factor 1 and Factor 2, each of which may be present or absent. In Experiment 1 we hypothesized that people assess

Evolving ethical, legal, and financial demands require a plan before treatment begins. The authors argue that individual differences research requires the inclusion of personality trait assessment for the construction and implementation of any treatment plan that would lay claim to scientific status.A primer of personality individual differences for treatment planning is presented, including an introduction to constructive realism and major research findings from trait psychology and behavior genetics bearing on treatment planning. The authors present 4 important gains for treatment planning that can be realized from the science of individual differences in personality: (a) knowing where to focus change efforts, (b) realistic expectations, (c) matching treatment to personality, and (d) development of the self.Gone are the days when a therapist could delay planning and simply allow therapy to unfold. Instead, evolving ethical demands (e.g., informed consent), legal demands (e.g., liability management, mandated record keeping), and financial demands (e.g., third-party preapproval) require a plan before treatment begins. In this article, we show that science makes demands as well. The last 40 years of individual differences research require the inclusion of personality trait assessment for the construction and implementation of any treatment plan that would lay claim to scientific status. Science Should Guide Treatment Planning The Fundamental Rule of Treatment PlanningHow should a treatment plan be constructed? What information should it use, and what procedures should it prescribe? We offer a simple and perhaps obvious formula and co-opt Freud's terminology to label it. OUT fundamental rule of treatment planning states that the plan should be based on the best science available.Ethics and laws provide boundaries for the treatment plan, but within those boundaries, science should determine the treatment. In fact, both ethical and legal guidelines converge in placing science in the driver's seat. The American Psychological Association's (1992) Ethical Standard 1.05 demands that psychologists keep up to date on scientific and professional information, and Standard 1.06 requires that psychologists "rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making scientific or professional judgments" (p. 1600).

No abstract