Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders

Abstract

Clinical and basic personality psychologists interact less than they should, given their similar interests. In clinical personality psychology, available evidence supports a transition from the current categorical system to a hierarchical trait scheme for diagnosing the stable features of personality disorder. However, trait models do not capture the dynamic aspects of personality disorders as they have been described in the clinical literature, and thus miss a clinically critical feature of personality pathology. In contrast, basic personality psychologists have coalesced around a consensual structure of individual differences and become increasingly interested in the dynamic processes that underlie and contextualize traits. But trait psychology models are not sufficiently specific to characterize dynamic personality processes. In this paper, I filter clinical descriptions of personality disorders through the lens of interpersonal theory to specify a recursive within‐situation interpersonal pattern of motives, affects, behaviours, and perceptions that could contribute to the stable between‐situation patterns of maladaptive behaviour of historical interest to both basic and clinical personality psychologists. I suggest that this interpersonal model adds specificity to recent proposals regarding processes in the basic personality literature and has significant potential to advance research on personality dynamics. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Dynamics among borderline personality and anxiety features in psychotherapy outpatients: An exploration of nomothetic and idiographic patterns.

“…In general, if individuals do not exhibit the same pathological processes, clinicians should pay attention to each client's particular symptom dynamics rather than relying on nomothetically derived models of pathology (Hopwood et al, 2016), as treatments based on these general models are unlikely to be relevant for some people. The current findings thus bolster the perspective of researchers who have advocated for a person-specific approach to diagnosis and psychological assessment, based on reciprocal interactions between affective states and behaviors instead of solely on symptom checklists or evaluations of mean symptom levels (e.g., Hopwood, 2018;Hopwood, Pincus, & Wright, 2019;Pincus & Hopwood, in press;Roche et al, 2014;van Os et al, 2013).…”

Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature

“…One important aspect that is absent from much of the applied network and factor analytic literature are contextual variables such as the environment. Personality traits dynamically interact with environmental processes, and might often be stable because people occupy environmental niches that serve as reinforcing feedback functions on their personality system (Hopwood, 2018;D. N. Klein et al, 2011;Mischel, 2004;Mõttus & Allerhand, 2017).…”

Personalized models of personality disorders: Using a temporal network method to understand symptomatology and daily functioning in a clinical sample

“…For instance, clinical reports of narcissistic personality disorder describe distinct states of both grandiosity and vulnerability Edershile, 2018, Hopwood, 2018). In the interpersonal model of PD, narcissistic personality disorder is thought to be characterized by perceptions of threat to one's feelings of superiority, resulting in feelings of anxiety and envy and a desire to assert one's self, which leads to displays of grandiosity (Hopwood, 2018). The other person would likely respond negatively to such displays, and perhaps become competitive, reinforcing this sequence (i.e., individual with narcissistic personality disorder perceives a status threat) .…”

“…To implement this in a study, individuals would receive several specific queries throughout the day (i.e., morning, afternoon, and evening) about any interpersonal situations that they encountered. For each encounter, participants would respond to probes regarding their interaction, emotional state, goals during the interaction, and resulting behavior; they would also be asked about the response of the other individual (informed by the elements of the interpersonal sequence described by Hopwood, 2018). In line with previous applications of GIMME, 100 completed encounter surveys, would be collected (see Beltz and Gates, 2017 for a GIMME tutorial).…”

“…Association, 2013), PDs continue to be conceptualized as discrete categories despite strong evidence of limitations of this approach and benefits of a dimensional perspective (Hopwood et al, 2018, Krueger et al, 2014. Although DSM diagnoses were organized around key clinical processes, such as contextualized and dynamic symptoms (Wright and Hopwood, 2016), efforts to integrate a dimensional perspective into clinical settings, as exemplified by the "Alternative Model for Personality Disorder" (AMPD) in the latest version of the DSM, has significant potential to accommodate the inherent heterogeneity in manifestations of personality pathology.…”