لخّصلي

It is not difficult to imagine how an individual's personality could impact their social behaviour.Through the second perspective, the study goes beyond examining stable trends in social behaviour to also investigate the ability of the pathological personality traits to predict indices of instability in social behaviour, which may represent important manifestations of interpersonal impairment.This chapter outlines the theoretical and methodological foundations for this project, including a review of how personality dysfunction has been conceptualized throughout history, the research findings that support the alternative DSM-5 model of personality disorder, the interpersonal circumplex model of social behaviour, and the use of intensive repeated measures in naturalistic settings to assess real-world social behaviour.For example, empirical findings indicate that personality plays an important role in the overarching structure of psychopathology (Kotov et al., 2017; Wright & Simms, 2015), and others have asserted that much of psychopathology is expressed within interpersonal relationships (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2013; Seivewright et al., 2004; Sullivan, 1953).A 10- day procedure using intensive repeated measures in naturalistic settings (IRM-NS) was used to assess targets' social behaviour; targets described their behaviour in everyday interactions, aligning with methods used in past literature (Moskowitz, 1994).Understanding how the pathological personality traits of the alternative model for personality disorders relate to patterns of social behaviour represents an important test of this new approach, which the American Psychiatric Association regards as an 'emerging model' that requires additional empirical review before full adoption.As will be shown, excessive intrapersonal variability appears to be a marker of dysfunction, and thus understanding how the traits relate to these markers represents an important investigation of how interpersonal impairment may be manifested.Accordingly, such pathological personality traits play a central role in the alternative model for personality disorders listed in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013).Regarding the first perspective, this study is one of the first to compare the predictive validity of self- versus informant-reports of pathological personality traits, using an ecologically valid and methodologically rigorous measure of social behaviour as the outcome variable.As will be reviewed, the link between personality dysfunction and social behaviour is well established in the broader literature, but few studies have examined the connections between the pathological personality traits of this model and social behaviour in a multifaceted way.However, replace 'agreeable' with 'antagonistic' or 'manipulative' and the picture soon changes.

It is not difficult to imagine how an individual’s personality could impact their
social behaviour. Someone generally described as ‘agreeable’ is likely to be pleasant and
easy-going when they interact with others. However, replace ‘agreeable’ with
‘antagonistic’ or ‘manipulative’ and the picture soon changes. Maladaptive personality
traits and their impact on social functioning are gaining recognition within the broader
understanding of mental health. For example, empirical findings indicate that personality
plays an important role in the overarching structure of psychopathology (Kotov et al.,
2017; Wright & Simms, 2015), and others have asserted that much of psychopathology is
expressed within interpersonal relationships (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2013; Seivewright et
al., 2004; Sullivan, 1953). Historically, maladaptive personality has been classified
through categorical personality disorders, which suggest that personality dysfunction is
unique to certain types of people. However, dimensional personality traits have come to
the forefront of modern conceptualizations of personality disorders, in new models that
assert that these maladaptive traits vary across the entire population. Accordingly, such
pathological personality traits play a central role in the alternative model for personality
disorders listed in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Understanding how the pathological personality traits of the alternative model for
personality disorders relate to patterns of social behaviour represents an important test of
this new approach, which the American Psychiatric Association regards as an ‘emerging
model’ that requires additional empirical review before full adoption. The connection
2
between pathological personality traits and social behaviour is multifaceted and should
thus be examined from a variety of perspectives. One such perspective concerns whether
individuals can accurately and usefully report about their own maladaptive traits. In
contrast, an informant rater’s external perspective of a target’s personality has the
potential to enhance the prediction of social behaviour. To date, few studies have directly
compared the predictive validity of self- versus informant-reports of the pathological
personality traits using an ecologically valid outcome measure. The current study sought
to fill that gap. A second perspective aims to understand the pathological personality
traits as they relate not only to general trends in social behaviour, but also to the range
and variability in behaviour that an individual exhibits within their social environment.
As will be shown, excessive intrapersonal variability appears to be a marker of
dysfunction, and thus understanding how the traits relate to these markers represents an
important investigation of how interpersonal impairment may be manifested. This study
uses these two perspectives to examine the relations between the pathological personality
traits of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders and social behaviour.
The current study examined these perspectives by recruiting dyads, wherein one
participant served as a target and the other as a nominated informant. Both participants
provided information about the target’s levels of the pathological personality traits. A 10-
day procedure using intensive repeated measures in naturalistic settings (IRM-NS) was
used to assess targets’ social behaviour; targets described their behaviour in everyday
interactions, aligning with methods used in past literature (Moskowitz, 1994). Thus, the
current study contributes to the literature in at least three ways. The first is that it
contributes to the growing literature on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality
3
disorders, by examining their respective connections to an ecologically valid measure of
social behaviour. As will be reviewed, the link between personality dysfunction and
social behaviour is well established in the broader literature, but few studies have
examined the connections between the pathological personality traits of this model and
social behaviour in a multifaceted way. This study fills that gap by using two different
perspectives to examine those connections. Regarding the first perspective, this study is
one of the first to compare the predictive validity of self- versus informant-reports of
pathological personality traits, using an ecologically valid and methodologically rigorous
measure of social behaviour as the outcome variable. Through the second perspective, the
study goes beyond examining stable trends in social behaviour to also investigate the
ability of the pathological personality traits to predict indices of instability in social
behaviour, which may represent important manifestations of interpersonal impairment.
This chapter outlines the theoretical and methodological foundations for this
project, including a review of how personality dysfunction has been conceptualized
throughout history, the research findings that support the alternative DSM-5 model of
personality disorder, the interpersonal circumplex model of social behaviour, and the use
of intensive repeated measures in naturalistic settings to assess real-world social
behaviour. The following two chapters detail information specific to the two perspectives
on the relations between personality disorder and social behaviour: first, comparisons of
self- versus informant-reports of personality, and second, the relations between
personality and indices of within-person variability in social behaviour. The specific
hypotheses made regarding each perspective are also outlined in their r