Personality Correlates of Midlife Cardiometabolic Risk: The Explanatory Role of Higher‐Order Factors of the Five‐Factor Model

Varying associations are reported between Five‐Factor Model (FFM) personality traits and cardiovascular disease risk. Here, we further examine dispositional correlates of cardiometabolic risk within a hierarchical model of personality that proposes higher‐order traits of Stability (shared variance of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, inverse Neuroticism) and Plasticity (Extraversion, Openness), and we test hypothesized mediation via biological and behavioral factors. In an observational study of 856 community volunteers aged 30–54 years (46% male, 86% Caucasian), latent variable FFM traits (using multiple‐informant reports) and aggregated cardiometabolic risk (indicators: insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, blood pressure, adiposity) were estimated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The cardiometabolic factor was regressed on each personality factor or higher‐order trait. Cross‐sectional indirect effects via systemic inflammation, cardiac autonomic control, and physical activity were tested. CFA models confirmed the Stability “meta‐trait,” but not Plasticity. Lower Stability was associated with heightened cardiometabolic risk. This association was accounted for by inflammation, autonomic function, and physical activity. Among FFM traits, only Openness was associated with risk over and above Stability, and, unlike Stability, this relationship was unexplained by the intervening variables. A Stability meta‐trait covaries with midlife cardiometabolic risk, and this association is accounted for by three candidate biological and behavioral factors.     

Qualitative and quantitative distinctions in personality disorder

The categorical-dimensional debate has catalyzed a wealth of empirical advances in the study of personality pathology. However, this debate is merely one articulation of a broader conceptual question regarding whether to define and describe psychopathology as a quantitatively extreme expression of normal functioning or as qualitatively distinct in its process. In this article I argue that dynamic models of personality (e.g., object relations, cognitive-affective processing system) offer the conceptual scaffolding to reconcile these seemingly incompatible approaches to characterizing the relationship between normal and pathological personality. I propose that advances in personality assessment that sample behavior and experiences intensively provide the empirical techniques, whereas interpersonal theory offers an integrative theoretical framework, for accomplishing this goal.     

Evidence for the criterion validity and clinical utility of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory

In this study, the authors evaluated aspects of criterion validity and clinical utility of the grandiosity and vulnerability components of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI) using two undergraduate samples (N = 299 and 500). Criterion validity was assessed by evaluating the correlations of narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability with established indices of normal personality traits, psychopathology and clinical concerns, and pathological personality traits. Overall, the pattern of correlations supported the convergent and discriminant validity of grandiose and vulnerable conceptualizations of pathological narcissism as measured by the PNI. Clinical utility was assessed by evaluating the extent to which clinicians without specific training in pathological narcissism as well as clinicians with expertise in pathological narcissism could accurately predict the correlates of PNI grandiosity and vulnerability with normal and pathological personality traits and psychopathology. The r(contrast-cv) coefficient provided a global index of accuracy in clinicians' predictions that was more fully elaborated by examining systematic discrepancies across groups. Overall, novice and expert clinicians were generally able to predict criterion correlations, with some exceptions (e.g., counter to predictions, pathological narcissism was negatively associated with treatment resistance). These results provide further evidence regarding the validity and utility of the narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability constructs as measured by the PNI.     

Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford (2002)

In this paper we report on our attempts to fit the optimal data selection (ODS) model (Oaksford & Chater, 1994; Oaksford, Chater, & Larkin, 2000) to the selection task data reported in Feeney and Handley (2000) and Handley, Feeney, and Harper (2002). Although Oaksford (2002b) reports good fits to the data described in Feeney and Handley (2000), the model does not adequately capture the data described in Handley et al. (2002). Furthermore, across all six of the experiments modelled here, the ODS model does not predict participants' behaviour at the level of selection rates for individual cards. Finally, when people's probability estimates are used in the modelling exercise, the model adequately captures only 1 out of 18 conditions described in Handley et al. We discuss the implications of these results for models of the selection task and claim that they support deductive, rather than probabilistic, accounts of the task.     

The reliability and validity of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices for Irish apprentices

The Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) is a 'test of a person's capacity at the time of the test to apprehend meaningless figures presented for his observation, see the relations between them, conceive the nature of the figure completing each system of relations presented and, by so doing, develop a systematic method of reasoning' (Raven et al., 1983, p. 2). It was developed in Britain in the mid-1930s (see Penrose and Raven, 1936) as a non-verbal measure of Spearman's 'g' factor, eduction of relations among abstract items.