No abstract

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.

In most studies using informant reports of personality, the informants are recruited by the targets. Such informants may tend to like the targets and thus portray them in specific ways (e.g., too positively). Study 1 (N = 403) demonstrated the necessity to distinguish between "liking" and "knowing" in studying the relationships between informants and targets. Informants who liked their targets better described them more positively (i.e., as being more extraverted, agreeable, open, conscientious, and less neurotic). The association between personality ratings and liking was moderated by item evaluativeness. Liked targets were also described as being more similar to each other (range restriction), which would lower correlations of informant ratings of personality with external variables. Study 2 (N = 90) used a within-subjects design to disentangle actual personality differences between targets (substance) from the informants' specific views on the targets (style). Ninety informants were asked to nominate targets they did not like. These targets then nominated informants of their own choice. Target-nominated informants liked the targets very much and described the targets' personalities very positively and in ways that were highly redundant with the average target's self-rating. There was evidence that lower liking may be associated with better accuracy. Higher subjective levels of knowing were not associated with better interrater agreement but with a greater willingness to describe targets negatively. Implications for the field of recruiting are discussed. Where possible, the choice of informants and referees should be made independent of the targets' preferences.

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 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.

No abstract

No abstract

When judging others’ personalities, perceivers differ in their general judgment tendencies. These perceiver effects partly reflect a response bias but are also stable and psychologically important individual differences. However, current insights into the basic structure of perceiver effects are ambiguous with previous research pointing to either a unidimensional structure (i.e., people see others as globally positive vs. negative) or a multidimensional structure (i.e., people see others as high or low on specific traits). Here we provide a large scale investigation of the structure of perceiver effects that spans more than 100,000 personality judgments across 10 studies in which a total of N = 2,199 perceivers judged others on several trait domains (i.e., the Big Five, agency & communion) and in different judgment contexts (i.e., level of involvement with targets, level of exposure to targets). Results suggest that perceiver effects are hierarchically structured such that they reflect both a global tendency to view others positively versus negativity and specific tendencies to view others as high or low with respect to trait content. The relative importance of these components varied considerably across trait domains and judgment contexts: Perceiver effects were more specific for traits higher in observability and lower in evaluativeness and in context with less personal involvement and higher exposure to targets. Overall, results provide strong evidence for the hierarchical structure of perceiver effects and suggest that their meaning systematically varies depending on trait domain and possibly the judgment context. Implications for theory and assessment are discussed.