Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Several psychiatric conditions (e.g., substance use, mood, and personality disorders) are characterized, in part, by greater delay discounting (DD)—a decision-making bias in the direction of preferring smaller, more immediate over larger, delayed rewards. Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is highly comorbid with substance use, mood, and other personality disorders, suggesting that DD may be a process underpinning risk for NPD as well. This meta-analysis examined associations between DD and theoretically distinct, clinically relevant dimensions of narcissism (i.e., grandiosity, entitlement, and vulnerability). Literature searches were conducted and articles were included if they were written in English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, contained measures of DD and narcissism and reported their association, and used an adult sample. Narcissism measures had to be systematically categorized according to clinically relevant dimensions (Grijalva et al., 2015; Wright & Edershile, 2018). Seven studies met inclusion criteria (N = 2,705). DD was positively associated with narcissism (r = .21; 95% confidence interval [.10, .32]), with this association being largely attributable to measures of trait grandiosity that were used in each study (r = .24; 95% confidence interval [.11, .37]). No studies included diagnostic NPD assessments. These findings provide empirical evidence that DD is related to trait narcissism and perhaps risk for NPD (e.g., grandiosity listed in Criterion B of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, alternative model of personality disorders). Considering the positive evidence from this review, and the dearth of research examining DD in individuals with NPD, investigators studying NPD may consider incorporating DD measures in future studies to potentially inform clinical theory and novel adjunctive treatment options. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: It is debated whether men with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are less often treated for their disorder, compared to women, even when they have sought care. Here, the aim was to examine gender differences in the treatment of patients with BPD. Through linkage to Swedish health and administrative registers, we identified all patients diagnosed with BPD (n = 5530) in Stockholm County from 2012 to 2016. We ascertained information on sociodemographic characteristics, comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, and all mental health care utilization within inpatient and outpatient mental health care, including receipt of psychiatric medication and various psychological therapies. We identified 802 men and 4,728 women with BPD during the study period. Men with BPD were less likely than their female counterparts to be treated with psychotherapy as well as psychiatric medication. Most of the differences in treatment with psychological therapies were nonsignificant in the multivariate model, indicating they are likely the result of differences in sociodemographic variables and comorbidity between men and women with BPD. Men with BPD were in average 4 years older than women at the time of the first BPD diagnosis, had lower education, and were also more likely to receive social welfare support. In conclusion, few men are diagnosed with BPD and those who are diagnosed are likely to receive somewhat less psychiatric medication and psychological therapies compared to women. Researchers and clinicians need to focus more on men with BPD to improve help-seeking and recognition of this disabling condition in men and enable equal treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Transparency estimation, that is, estimating the extent to which one’s mental states are observable to others, requires the simultaneous representation of the self and of others’ perspective on the self. Individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) have difficulty integrating multiple perspectives when mentalizing, which may be reflected in impaired transparency estimation. A total of 62 participants high and low in BPD features watched emotionally evocative video clips and estimated the transparency of their emotional experience while facial expression coding software (FaceReader) quantified their objective transparency. Individuals high in BPD features showed a larger discrepancy between estimated and objective transparency than individuals low in BPD features, showing that they both over- and underestimated their transparency. Indeed, estimated transparency positively predicted objective transparency in individuals low in BPD features, but not in individuals high in BPD features. Moreover, the ability to estimate intraindividual variability in one’s own objective transparency was moderated by self-reported arousal in the participants high in BPD features. Impairments in transparency estimation were correlated with self-report measures of borderline features, attachment, and mentalizing. In conclusion, we found that borderline features relate to a reduced capacity to estimate the extent to which one’s own emotional states are observable to others. Although replication in clinical samples of BPD patients is needed, the present study provides evidence for problems in mentalizing the (embodied) self from another person’s perspective in BPD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Wide empirical support exists for 2 aspects of narcissism—grandiosity and vulnerability. Hostility is a form of interpersonal antagonism, which is considered central to narcissism broadly. Though it has often been subsumed by the concept of narcissistic grandiosity, interpersonal antagonism is associated with vulnerability as well. Rejection represents an interpersonal stressor that evokes hostility to a greater degree in those high in narcissism, with mixed evidence regarding whether it stems from threat to one’s egotism (grandiosity) or low self-esteem (vulnerability). Therefore, investigating the associations between narcissistic dimensions and individuals’ trajectories of hostility leading up to and following rejection may provide a basis for a more unified conceptualization. In this study, we leverage the wide range of narcissistic expression displayed in a combined sample of borderline personality disorder (N = 56) and community (N = 60) individuals who completed ambulatory assessments approximately 6 times per day for 21 consecutive days. We examine whether narcissistic vulnerability and grandiosity, as measured by NEO Personality Inventory facet combinations constructed based on the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory, moderate trajectories and overall levels of hostility surrounding self-reported interpersonal rejections. Grandiosity and vulnerability were independently positively associated with a faster rise in hostility leading up to rejection; however, greater grandiosity was uniquely associated with a greater spike in hostility at the occasion of rejection and subsequent faster recovery. These results are consistent with both the idea that grandiosity is proportionately more central to interpersonal antagonism and that antagonism serves as a bridge, connecting and reinforcing both narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Psychopathic personality disorder (PPD) is a widely researched construct characterized by severe dysfunction in affective, interpersonal and behavioral domains. Inconsistencies across different theoretical formulations and operationalizations have major implications for research and practice. Two separate personality-based perspectives of psychopathy have been proposed, one anchored within the influential five factor model (FFM) of personality and the comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality (CAPP) model, which was specifically designed as an inclusive concept map of PPD. The current study evaluated the empirical overlap between the CAPP and the FFM-based models of psychopathy to determine the convergences and divergences in providing a personality-based perspective on psychopathy. Participants were undergraduate students (n = 924) who completed the CAPP–Self-Report (CAPP-SR) and the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment–Short Form (EPA-SF). Results indicated significant convergent validity associations between CAPP-SR scales and conceptually relevant EPA-SF scales (range = .30–.74; median discriminant associations range = .10–.36). Furthermore, an exploratory factor analysis supported the conceptual overlap between the CAPP-SR and EPA-SF scales as representing personality-based models of psychopathy, yielding a 4-factor structure that reflected antagonism, disinhibition, emotional stability, and narcissism. Overall, the findings support the convergence of the CAPP and FFM-based PPD models, at both a basic trait and higher order level. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Scholars have begun to explore college student engagement in erotic services (e.g., pornography, escort); however, few studies in the United States have examined the prevalence of erotic service involvement among college students and which personality traits are associated with such engagement. This study examined the relevance of gender and psychopathic traits, above the influence of substance use, for understanding erotic service involvement in men and women college students. A total of 1,250 undergraduate students (800 women) completed the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III and Erotic Activity Questionnaire. Men and women, respectively, endorsed low-moderate provision levels (12.25% and 11.00%) and moderate-high consumption levels (44.17% and 26.16%) of erotic services and/or sex exchange. Impulsive-antisocial psychopathic traits were related to erotic service provision. In contrast, participants high on both interpersonal-affective and impulsive-antisocial factors of psychopathy were most likely to consume services. These relations did not change when adjusting for substance use. Lastly, although associations between psychopathic traits and provision were not dependent on gender, the interpersonal-affective traits were associated with increased consumption of physical contact services in women, whereas consumption was similar in men across levels of these traits. Results inform college student involvement in erotic services and highlight personality correlates of engagement in understanding risks and benefits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Research has repeatedly evidenced the structural validity of the five-factor model (FFM), but questions remain about the use of its dimensions in clinical practice. Samuel and colleagues (2018) found therapists reported their clients had lower levels of personality pathology compared with clients’ own self-reports when using the unipolar Personality Inventory for the DSM–5 (PID-5) scale. The present study utilized the same sample of 54 client–therapist dyads to examine their use of the bipolar FFM Rating Form. When comparing the clinical ratings to expertly rated healthy profile ratings, clients rated themselves as more aligned with healthy than their therapists rated them. Alternatively, clients were up to 3.6 times more likely to use the extreme (i.e., theoretically pathological) ratings of the FFM Rating Form compared with their therapists. These results suggest that therapists and clients use these measures quite differently, and we cannot firmly conclude which source reports more pathology. Theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Borderline (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) were introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM–III). However, the clinical differentiation of the 2 diagnoses (e.g., psychotic-like features) was challenging for diagnostic classification and clinical management. With the introduction of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in DSM–5 Section III, a dimensional approach was proposed, which potentially holds promise for better future differentiation between BPD and SPD. The present study sought to examine the psychopathology using the AMPD model. A total of 105 patients were interviewed, 25 were excluded according to exclusion criteria, and the final sample comprised 80 patients who fulfilled the DSM–5 criteria for BPD (n = 35), SPD (n = 25), and comorbid BPD + SPD (n = 20), respectively. All patients were administered The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–5 alternative model for personality disorders Modules I and II. One-way analysis of variance tests with planned contrasts were used. Results showed that for AMPD Criterion A, the BPD + SPD group had the most severe impairment of personality functioning, except for Identity, where the SPD group showed the most severe impairment. For AMPD Criterion B, the domain of Detachment and the facet of Eccentricity from the Psychoticism domain were most prominent for the SPD group relative to the 2 other groups. The differentiating between BPD and SPD manifestations of cognitive/perceptual disturbances does not seem resolved by the Psychoticism domain, which covers broader aspects of psychopathology. Future research should further investigate the construct of Psychoticism, especially to differentiate nonpsychotic symptoms (e.g., dissociation) and address thought disorder. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Despite clinical theory suggesting that individuals are largely unaware of personality-related problems (Gallrein et al., 2013; Oltmanns & Powers, 2012); work in this area shows that individuals possess insight into their pathological traits and the impairment they may cause. Individuals generally dislike pathological traits and desire change in the direction of greater adaptivity (Lamkin et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2018). Individuals may also be able to make small, intentional changes in some personality domains (e.g., neuroticism; Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Hudson & Roberts, 2014) but not others (no positive change in conscientiousness or agreeableness). It remains unclear why many individuals exhibit relatively little change in their pathological traits (e.g., antagonism), given their awareness of the problems these traits cause and their desire for change. The goal of the present study was to explore the relation between personality disorder (PD) traits and desire for change, perceived impairment and benefits, and barriers to change among an online sample (N = 497). Findings suggest that most individuals were uninterested in changing their trait levels; however, individuals with elevated PD traits were more interested in change than those with lower levels. Pathological traits were generally perceived as impairing rather than beneficial; however, mean level analyses revealed similar levels of perceived impairment and benefits for those relatively high on antagonism. Individuals reported that personality change was stymied in part because it was too hard, they were unmotivated to make the changes, or they did not know how to go about making such changes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:00:00 GMT
Subscription journal
