An Interpersonal Analysis of Pathological Personality Traits in DSM-5

Abstract

The proposed changes to the personality disorder section of the DSM-5 places an increased focus on interpersonal impairment as one of the defining features of personality psychopathology. In addition, a proposed trait model has been offered to provide a means of capturing phenotypic variation on the expression of personality disorder. In this study, we subject the proposed DSM-5 traits to interpersonal analysis using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems – Circumplex scales via the structural summary method for circumplex data. DSM-5 traits were consistently associated with generalized interpersonal dysfunction suggesting that they are maladaptive in nature, the majority of traits demonstrated discriminant validity with prototypical and differentiated interpersonal problem profiles, and conformed well to a priori hypothesized associations. These results are discussed in the context of the DSM-5 proposal and contemporary interpersonal theory, with a particular focus on potential areas for expansion of the DSM-5 trait model.

Interpersonal Problems Across Levels of the Psychopathology Hierarchy

“…SSM parameters were estimated in the current study using the ssm package for R (Zimmermann and Wright, 2017), which uses resampling methods to derive confidence intervals. Following previous work in this area (Zimmermann and Wright, 2017;Wright et al, 2012), we interpret prototypicality scores of .70 or higher as "adequate" and prototypicality scores of .80 or higher as "good;" we also interpret elevation and amplitude scores with absolute values less than .15 as "modest" and absolute values of .15 or higher as "marked. "…”

Distinct Facets of Impulsivity Exhibit Differential Associations with Substance Use Disorder Treatment Processes: A Cross-Sectional and Prospective Investigation Among Military Veterans

“…However, we expected that both immoderation and lack of planning would be linked to interpersonal problems, given past research indicating an association between impulsivity and interpersonal problems (Wright et al, 2012), and because in higher-order factor models of personality, traits akin to both immoderation (e.g., high neuroticism) and lack of planning (e.g., low conscientiousness) load together with traits related to interpersonal problems (e.g., low agreeableness; see Digman, 1997;Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005). In our sample, a significant link emerged only between lack of planning and interpersonal problems.…”

“…In line with the work of Whiteside and Lynam (2001) and Coskunpinar et al, (2013), we expect that lack of planning and immoderation will have differential relations with outcomes. Specifically, based on past research, lack of planning is hypothesized to demonstrate a negative relationship with active coping and a positive relationship with avoidant coping (Elliot & Thrash, 2002;Gagnon, Daelman, McDuff, & Kocka, 2013) and interpersonal problems (Wright et al, 2012). Indeed, implementation of active coping skills and suppression of avoidant coping tendencies requires forethought, planning and consideration of potential threats that may compromise a relapse prevention plan (e.g., Sharma, Markon, & Clark, 2014).…”

“…In addition, distress from interpersonal problems is expected to be positively associated with lack of planning as optimization of this treatment process domain requires developing and executing a plan of action to correct and override maladaptive interpersonal tendencies and behavioral scripts. As a proxy of urgency (a tendency to act rashly in the context of intense emotion), immoderation is hypothesized to demonstrate a positive relationship with avoidant coping (Cyders & Smith, 2008) and interpersonal problems (Wright et al, 2012) and a negative relationship with self-efficacy to abstain from substances as these particular struggles are usually encountered in more intense and emotionally-laden contexts (Sharma et al, 2014).…”

La evaluación de los trastornos de la personalidad según el DSM-5: Recursos y limitaciones

“…Sin embargo, si el 25% o menos de los ítems quedan sin respuesta para una faceta específica, se puede prorratear la puntuación de la faceta. Thomas et al, 2013;Bastiaansen et al, 2013), con el Inventario de Problemas Interpersonales (Wright et al, 2012), con el modelo HEXACO (Ashton et al, 2012) y con el PAI , entre otros.…”