Machiavellianism and personality disorder: their relationship in the mirror of interpersonal attitudes

2014 ◽  
Vol 155 (40) ◽  
pp. 1584-1588
Author(s):  
András Láng
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Interpersonal Problems ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Callous Unemotional ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Medium Strength

Introduction: Social and personality psychologists have described Machiavellianism as a pragmatic, callous-unemotional, exploitative and manipulative attitude towards others. Several former studies linked Machiavellian personality traits and interpersonal problems or personality dysfunction. Aim: The aim of this study was to reveal the connection between Machiavellianism and interpersonal problems that are characteristic of personality disorders. Method: 252 participants (146 females and 106 males, aged 32.46±5.39 years, mean±SD) filled out self-report measures of Machiavellianism and personality disorder related interpersonal problems. Results: There was a medium strength relationships between Machiavellianism and several interpersonal problems. Aggression and ambivalence proved to be significant predictors of Machiavellian personality traits. Conclusions: Results are discussed in relation to the patient–therapist bond. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(39), 1584–1588.

scholarly journals MCMI-III Personality Disorders, Traits, and Profiles in Adult ADHD Outpatients

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 830-839
Author(s):  
Francesco Oliva ◽  
Chiara Mangiapane ◽  
Gabriele Nibbio ◽  
Alberto Portigliatti Pomeri ◽  
Giuseppe Maina
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Profiles ◽  
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory ◽  
High Prevalence

Objective: To assess prevalence of personality traits and disorders according to Millon’s evolution-based model and to identify the most representative personality profiles among adult ADHD outpatients. Method: Personality traits and disorders were evaluated using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI-III) and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a consecutive sample of adult ADHD outpatients ( N = 70) diagnosed by the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale–version 1.1 (ASRS-v1.1) and the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults (DIVA 2.0). Results: More than half of our sample (57.1%) showed at least one personality disorder (PD). The most prevalent PDs were paranoid, schizotypal and negativistic (18.6% for all three PDs), depressive (17.1%), and sadistic (11.4%). No patient had a borderline PD. The EFA identified three personality profiles (“sadistic-antisocial-negativistic,” “masochistic-depressive-dependent-avoidant,” and “antihistrionic-schizoid”). Conclusion: High prevalence of PDs among adult ADHD patients was confirmed. The personality profiles seemed to reflect the persistence of ADHD and related childhood comorbidities in adulthood.

The General Criteria for Personality Disorders Assessed by Interview: Do They Still Have a Role to Play?

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-S9
Author(s):  
Josep M. Peri ◽  
Ana Muñoz-Champel ◽  
Rafael Torrubia ◽  
Fernando Gutiérrez
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Short Duration ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
Diagnostic Aspects ◽  
Long Duration

On the path to developing dimensional models of personality disorder (PD), we are at risk of leaving key diagnostic aspects behind. The general criteria for PD may be important ones because they reflect the defining aspects of personality pathology: long duration, independence from psychopathological states, and harmfulness. We assessed these criteria by interview in a sample of 362 psychiatric outpatients after administering the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire–4+. The result was a 42.5% fall in self-reported endorsements, due to misinterpretations (11.5%), short duration of traits or contamination by state psychopathology (9.8%), and traits being non-harmful (21.2%). However, not all personality traits and disorders underwent correction to the same extent, and ultimately, the interview did not improve the prediction of clinical variables. These findings raise doubts about the practical relevance of the general criteria for PD and support the role of self-report questionnaires for diagnostic purposes.

Test-Retest Reliability of a Self-Report Questionnaire for DSM-IV and ICD-10 Personality Disorders

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Ottosson ◽  
Martin Grann ◽  
Gunnar Kullgren
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Anxiety State ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Summary: Short-term stability or test-retest reliability of self-reported personality traits is likely to be biased if the respondent is affected by a depressive or anxiety state. However, in some studies, DSM-oriented self-reported instruments have proved to be reasonably stable in the short term, regardless of co-occurring depressive or anxiety disorders. In the present study, we examined the short-term test-retest reliability of a new self-report questionnaire for personality disorder diagnosis (DIP-Q) on a clinical sample of 30 individuals, having either a depressive, an anxiety, or no axis-I disorder. Test-retest scorings from subjects with depressive disorders were mostly unstable, with a significant change in fulfilled criteria between entry and retest for three out of ten personality disorders: borderline, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Scorings from subjects with anxiety disorders were unstable only for cluster C and dependent personality disorder items. In the absence of co-morbid depressive or anxiety disorders, mean dimensional scores of DIP-Q showed no significant differences between entry and retest. Overall, the effect from state on trait scorings was moderate, and it is concluded that test-retest reliability for DIP-Q is acceptable.

An evaluation of DSM-5 Section III Personality Disorder Criterion A (Impairment) in accounting for psychopathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Sleep ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L Crowe ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Statistical Prediction ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Axis I

An alternative diagnostic model of personality disorders (AMPD) was introduced in DSM-5 that diagnoses PDs based on the presence of personality impairment (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B). Research examining Criterion A has been limited to date, due to the lack of a specific measure to assess it; this changed, however, with the recent publication of a self-report assessment of personality dysfunction as defined by Criterion A (Levels of Personality Functioning Scale – Self-report; LPFS-SR; Morey, 2017). The aim of the current study was to test several key propositions regarding the role of Criterion A in the AMPD including the underlying factor structure of the LPFS-SR, the discriminant validity of the hypothesized factors, whether Criterion A distinguishes personality psychopathology from Axis I symptoms, the overlap between Criterion A and B, and the incremental predictive utility of Criterion A and B in the statistical prediction of traditional PD symptom counts. Neither a single factor model nor an a priori four-factor model of dysfunction fit the data well. The LPFS-SR dimensions were highly interrelated and manifested little evidence of discriminant validity. In addition, the impairment dimensions manifested robust correlations with measures of both Axis I and II constructs, challenging the notion that personality dysfunction is unique to PDs. Finally, multivariate regression analyses suggested that the traits account for substantially more unique variance in DSM-5 Section II PDs than does personality impairment. These results provide important information as to the functioning of the two main components of the DSM-5 AMPD and raise questions about whether the model may need revision moving forward.Keywords: dysfunction, impairment, personality disorders, Section III, incremental validity Public Significance: The alternative model of personality disorders included in Section III of the 5th addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes two primary components: personality dysfunction and maladaptive traits. The current results raise questions about how a new, DSM-5 aligned measure of personality dysfunction operates with regard its factor structure, discriminant validity, ability to differentiate between personality and non-personality based forms of psychopathology, and incremental validity in the statistical prediction of traditional DSM personality disorders.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Affect Integration and Psychopathology in Patients with Personality Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 627
Author(s):  
Christina Frederiksen ◽  
Ole André Solbakken ◽  
Rasmus Wentzer Licht ◽  
Carsten René Jørgensen ◽  
Maria Rodrigo-Domingo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Interpersonal Problems ◽  
Symptom Distress ◽  
Central Component ◽  
Psychotherapeutic Treatment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Emotional Dysfunction ◽  
The Relationship

Background and Objectives: Emotional dysfunction is considered a key component in personality disorders; however, only few studies have examined the relationship between the two. In this study, emotional dysfunction was operationalized through the Affect Integration Inventory, and the aim was to examine the relationships between the level of affect integration and the levels of symptom distress, interpersonal problems, and personality functioning in patients diagnosed with personality disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition. Materials and Methods: Within a hospital-based psychiatric outpatient setting, 87 patients with personality disorder referred for treatment were identified for assessment with the Affect Integration Inventory and other measures (e.g., the Symptom Checklist-90, Revised, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems 64 circumplex version, and the Severity Indices of Personality Problems). Results: The analyses revealed that problems with affect integration were strongly and statistically significantly correlated with high levels of symptom distress, interpersonal problems, and maladaptive personality functioning. Additionally, low scores on the Affect Integration Inventory regarding discrete affects were associated with distinct and differentiated patterns of interpersonal problems. Conclusion: Taken together, emotional dysfunction, as measured by the Affect Integration Inventory, appeared to be a central component of the pathological self-organization associated with personality disorder. These findings have several implications for the understanding and psychotherapeutic treatment of personality pathology. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of considering the integration of discrete affects and their specific contributions in the conceptualization and treatment of emotional dysfunction in patients with personality disorders.

A New Look at Personality Disorders Treatments

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S506-S506
Author(s):  
S. Neves ◽  
J. Tudela
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Adjunctive Treatment ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Sociocultural Change ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Competing Interest

IntroductionMental illness develops and is inseparable from the sociocultural context. The Disturbances may exhibit different symptoms in different cultures. In personality disorders, there is a pathological expansion of normal traits that often demonstrate a sociocultural change. The quality of life of these patients can improve with certain treatments, which appears to be relevant to be achieved.MethodSearch on Pubmed and Medline for original research or review articles published in English or Portuguese in the last 10 years. It used a combination of terms: “personality”, “treatment”, “personality disorder”, “borderline”, “antissocial”, “pharmacotherapy”, and other named personality disorders.Objectives/AimSearch the evidence base and the new perspectives for the effective treatment of personality disorders.ResultsThe same personality traits may be adaptive or non-adaptive in different contexts. So, without changing these characteristics, patients can learn to use them more effectively. In other words, although the therapy did not change the personality traits, it can be modified in the way they affect the behavioral expression.ConclusionsPsychological or psychosocial intervention is recommended as the primary treatment for borderline personality disorder and pharmacotherapy is only advised as an adjunctive treatment. The amount of research about the underlying, abnormal, psychological or biological processes leading to the manifestation of a disordered personality is increasing, which could lead to more effective interventions.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Personality Disorders

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yosefa A. Ehrlich ◽  
Amir Garakani ◽  
Stephanie R Pavlos ◽  
Larry Siever
Keyword(s):  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Early Adulthood ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Organizational System ◽  
Medical Disorders

Personality can be defined as an organizational system of self that shapes the manner in which a person interacts with his or her environment. Personality traits develop in adolescence or early adulthood and are thought to be shaped by early childhood experiences and enduring throughout a lifetime. Personality traits that prevent an individual from being able to function in society or that cause significant distress are diagnosed as personality disorders. A thorough history is needed to rule out other psychiatric and medical disorders. This chapter reviews the diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, comorbidity, prevalence, etiology (including genetics and neurobiology), prognosis, and treatment of paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, borderline, antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic, avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, and dependent personality disorders. A discussion of the relevance of personality disorders to primary care practices and approaches to managing such patients is also included. Tables describe the diagnostic criteria of each personality disorder. Figures illustrate the prevalence of personality disorders in the general and psychiatric populations; schizotypal personality disorder in the community, general population, and clinical population; childhood trauma in individuals with personality disorder; and comorbid disorders in individuals with borderline personality disorder. A model of brain processing in borderline personality disorder is also featured. This chapter contains 5 highly rendered figures, 10 tables, 230 references, and 5 MCQs.

Personality Disorders as Collections of Traits

2019 ◽  
pp. 40-70
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
General Model ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Empirical Relations ◽  
Expert Ratings

This chapter argues that personality disorders can and should be understood as collections of basic personality traits from a general model of personality, namely the five-factor model (FFM). It reviews evidence for the convergence of FFM personality disorder profiles across multiple approaches—expert ratings (i.e., researchers and clinicians) and empirical relations. It discusses how to score the personality disorders from the FFM and provides evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and construct validity of this approach. The chapter also demonstrates how the new alternative model for personality disorders can be embedded within the more established and robust FFM literature.

COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY AND ASSERTION TRAINING GROUPS FOR PATIENTS WITH DEPRESSION AND COMORBID PERSONALITY DISORDERS

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jillian Ball ◽  
Brian Kearney ◽  
Kay Wilhelm ◽  
Jodie Dewhurst-Savellis ◽  
Belinda Barton
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Depressive Symptomatology ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Assertion Training

Longitudinal evaluations were conducted on 61 adults who were referred to a Mood Disorders Unit with a history of depression (all index episodes reached criteria for DSM-III-R major depression or dysthymia) and who had completed a cognitive behavioural therapy group either on its own or in combination with an assertion training group. Assessment of personality was made using DSM-III-R Axis II personality disorder categories. These categories were aggregated to form three groups: (i) no personality disorder; (ii) Cluster B (dramatic-erratic); and (iii) Cluster C (anxious-fearful), and were used to identify responsiveness to treatment and outcome at long-term follow-up. A battery of self-report measures were administered pretreatment, posttreatment and at long-term follow-up (1–3 years later). Both groups showed significant improvements in mean scores during treatment and these gains were maintained over the follow-up period. However, improvement in those patients without personality disorders was greater at posttreatment and at long-term follow-up, both in level of depressive symptomatology and proportion of cases meeting criteria for recovery. The treatment implications of these results are discussed.

Incremental validity of the Structured Interview for the Five‐Factor Model of Personality (SIFFM)

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie D. Stepp ◽  
Timothy J. Trull ◽  
Rachel M. Burr ◽  
Mimi Wolfenstein ◽  
Angela Z. Vieth
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Histrionic Personality Disorder

This study examined the incremental validity of the Structured Interview for the Five‐Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) scores in the prediction of borderline, antisocial, and histrionic personality disorder symptoms above and beyond variance accounted for by scores from the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993), a self‐report questionnaire that includes items relevant to both normal (i.e. Big Three) and abnormal personality traits. Approximately 200 participants (52 clinical outpatients, and 149 nonclinical individuals from a borderline‐features‐enriched sample) completed the SIFFM, the SNAP, and select sections of the Personality Disorder Interview—IV (PDI‐IV; Widiger, Mangine, Corbitt, Ellis, & Thomas, 1995). We found support for the incremental validity of SIFFM scores, further indicating the clinical utility of this instrument. However, results also supported the incremental validity of SNAP scores in many cases. We discuss the implications of the findings in terms of dimensional approaches to personality disorder assessment. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document