CarterMillerWidiger2018_ExtremePersonalitiesAtWorkAndInLife.pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328547261 Extreme Personalities at Work and in Life Article in Current Directions in Psychological Science · October 2018 DOI: 10.1177/0963721418793134 CITATIONS...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328547261 Extreme Personalities at Work and in Life Article in Current Directions in Psychological Science · October 2018 DOI: 10.1177/0963721418793134 CITATIONS READS 26 789 3 authors, including: Nathan T Carter Joshua D Miller Michigan State University University of Georgia 97 PUBLICATIONS 3,277 CITATIONS 426 PUBLICATIONS 29,145 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Nathan T Carter on 29 October 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. 793134 research-article2018 CDPXXX10.1177/0963721418793134Carter et al.Extreme Personalities ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Current Directions in Psychological Extreme Personalities at Work and in Life Science 1­–8 © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0963721418793134 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418793134 www.psychologicalscience.org/CDPS Nathan T. Carter1, Joshua D. Miller1, and Thomas A. Widiger2 1 Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, and 2Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky Abstract Contemporary personality taxonomies cast personality traits as ranging from the maladaptive (e.g., low conscientiousness) to adaptive (e.g., high conscientiousness) levels. Despite philosophical and conventional wisdom dating back to the ancients, researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on “normal” or “desirable” personality traits might be maladaptive. Here, we present an emerging perspective on why and how extreme standing on “desirable” trait continua translates into maladaptive behavior and undesirable outcomes at work and in life. An overview of the literature on the topic is presented for each trait within the five-factor model. We suggest two reasons for the lack of clarity in the empirical literature: (a) problems with statistical tests resulting from measurement error and (b) lack of breadth in the conceptualization and measurement of personality traits. We suggest that a solution to this problem is to extend trait continua to reflect maladaptive levels at both ends. We close by pointing out that a major implication of this emerging perspective indicates that many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought and that future research needs to examine whether the question is consistent with evolutionary and neurophysiological accounts of personality science. Keywords personality, curvilinearity, inverted U, nonlinearity, personality disorders For the man who flies from and fears everything and they are relatively unrelated to one another, many trait- does not stand his ground against anything becomes level combinations (or “profiles”) may be observed. a coward, and the man who fears nothing at all but Notably, these trait labels all reflect the high end of goes to meet every danger becomes rash; and their continua, which represent “desirable” qualities, similarly the man who indulges in every pleasure much like Aristotle’s conceptions of temperance and and abstains from none becomes self-indulgent, courage. However, the FFM, as typically conceived, while the man who shuns every pleasure, as boors considers only Aristotle’s conception of “defect” in that do, becomes in a way insensible; temperance and low trait levels are considered maladaptive and high courage, then, are destroyed by excess and defect, levels are considered adaptive. and preserved by the mean. Psychologists have generally operated under the —Aristotle (349 BC/2004, p. 25) assumption that for all traits, more is better. Thus, we generally assume that conscientiousness has a positive In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that all human linear relationship with valued outcomes such as physi- qualities can be too extreme and—importantly—that cal health, academic performance, and job performance they can be too extreme in both directions. However (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Poropat, intuitive, Aristotle’s idea flies in the face of contempo- 2009) or that lower agreeableness results in external- rary taxonomies of human personality-trait structure, izing problems such as aggression and antisocial behav- along with our tacit assumptions about how personality ior ( Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011). Therefore, higher relates to outcomes. The five-factor model (FFM) of personality suggests that humans can be placed on the Corresponding Author: continua of agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional Nathan T. Carter, University of Georgia, Department of Psychology, stability, extraversion, and openness. Thus, humans can 323 Psychology Building, Athens, GA 30602 range from low to high on each FFM trait, and because E-mail: [email protected] 2 Carter et al. High High “Desirable” Outcome “Desirable” Outcome Low Low –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 “Desirable” Personality Trait “Desirable” Personality Trait Fig. 1. Depiction of the typical perspective (left) and emerging perspective (right) on the form of personality–outcome links. The former show a linear relation between levels of “desirable” outcomes and “desirable” personality traits, whereas the latter shows a curvilinear, inverted-U-shaped relation. agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, with lower salaries for both men and women, although extraversion, and openness is better. The FFM has even the effect was much stronger for men ( Judge, Livingston, been instantiated in diagnostic models of psychopathol- & Hurst, 2012). Indeed, Bozionelos, Bozionelos, ogy, such as the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Polychroniou, and Kostopoulos (2014) showed that Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA, 2013), in highly agreeable persons were less likely to receive men- which personality disorder traits were designed to cap- toring than their more moderately agreeable peers, per- ture pathology only at one (the lower) end of these haps explaining their lower likelihood for advancement. dimensions. Thus, the possibility that impairment or In a team context, Chang, Wang, Liang, and Liang (2014) distress could appear at both polar ends was deter- found in a sample of design majors that agreeableness mined to be unlikely. was helpful for the conceiving of imaginative design Here, we discuss research challenging the notion that ideas but that the transformation of such ideas was high FFM trait levels constitute optimal levels. First, we hindered by extreme levels of the trait, perhaps because discuss work that links high FFM trait levels to mal- they were unwilling to voice conflicting ideas. Unfor- adaptivity, such as personality disorders, and studies tunately, no research has looked at curvilinear relations showing curvilinear, inverted-U-shaped (see Fig. 1) in broader life contexts for agreeableness. links with desirable states, behaviors, and other traits. We discuss two problems that plague the literature on Conscientiousness curvilinear personality-outcome relations: problems with statistical tests caused by measurement error and Conscientiousness includes such traits as being disciplined, a lack of breadth of trait continua in personality tax- ordered, achievement striving, and deliberate, all adaptive onomies. Finally, we end with our conclusions and strengths. Yet the essential feature of obsessive-compulsive suggestions for future research directions. personality disorder (OCPD) is “a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control” (APA, 2013, p. 678)—suggesting an important link Connection of High Trait Levels between conscientiousness and OCPD (Lynam & Widiger, to Maladaptivity 2001), which has been observed (e.g., Bastiaansen, Rossi, Schotte, & De Fruyt, 2011). Within the work domain, find- Agreeableness ings suggest that moderate conscientiousness is associated Agreeableness includes such traits as being compliant, with optimal levels of multiple performance dimensions trusting, modest, and altruistic, all clearly positive attri- and that selection based on this assumption would result butes. However, it would seem evident that some persons in dramatic decreases in turnover for negative reasons can be overly compliant, trusting, modest, or altruistic (e.g., job abandonment) compared with selection based (Widiger, Gore, Crego, Rojas, & Oltmanns, 2017). Elevated on the assumption that individuals with the highest con- levels of agreeableness have been shown to be associated scientiousness should be selected (Carter et al., 2014). Extreme Personalities 3 Highly conscientious individuals also exhibit negative with well-being-related outcomes, such as self-assessed stress and performance reactions when given negative health (Williams, O’Brien, & Colder, 2004) and general performance feedback (Cianci, Klein, & Seijts, 2010). well-being, but not other components (McFatter, 1994). Examining psychological well-being, Carter, Guan, Maples, Williamson, and Miller (2016) found that persons with Openness moderate levels of the conscientiousness facets of dutiful- ness, self-discipline, and cautiousness showed the lowest Individuals who are particularly prone to an active fan- levels of negative affect and that these facets were more tasy life and immersion in emotional and sensory expe- closely associated with OCPD variants than others. More riences may be more likely to have difficulty drawing recently, Carter, Williamson, LoPilato, and Guan (2018) clear lines between reality and fiction, see meaningful found that individuals with moderate self-efficacy showed patterns where none exist, and misperceive important the highest grade point averages, those with moderate stimuli. Indeed, extreme openness may reflect a liability caution and dutifulness showed the highest subjective for psychoticism and schizotypy (Crego & Widiger, socioeconomic status, and those with moderate dutiful- 2017; DeYoung, Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012). Beyond ness had the highest incomes. the work of Bozionelos et al. (2014)—who showed an inverted-U relation between openness and mentoring receipt—there is a dearth of research on curvilinear Extraversion relations between openness and desirable work and The more maladaptive traits and outcomes most typi- life outcomes. Harris, Williamson, and Carter (2017) cally associated with high extraversion are histrionism, reported an inverted-U relation between openness and fearless dominance and boldness, excitement seeking, fluid intelligence that was driven by the facet of open- and interpersonal dominance. That is, particularly high ness to values (e.g., being friends with someone no levels of gregariousness may manifest in a pathological matter his or her beliefs). In a follow-up study, they need for attention from other people, sexual promiscu- showed that the contribution of openness to creative ity, thrill seeking, and excessive self-disclosure (Wilt & achievements is strongest among individuals with high Revelle, 2017). Excitement seeking is generally a more intelligence and weakest in those with low intelligence, neutral trait (Maples-Keller, Berke, Few, & Miller, 2016) leading to the conclusion that intelligence is a neces- in terms of behavior outcomes (e.g., antisocial behavior, sary condition for openness to manifest in creative substance use) but may become more problematic at achievement (Harris, Williamson, & Carter, 2018). extremes. Fearless dominance and boldness is a compo- nent of some models of psychopathic personality (e.g., Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009) that manifests null to Emotional stability small effects with antisocial outcomes, although some The primary theoretical connection between high scores researchers have speculated that these relations may on emotional stability and maladaptivity comes in rela- emerge at particularly high levels of the trait (Blonigen, tion primarily to low anxiety and fear (e.g., Lykken, 2013). Finally, assertive and agentic interpersonal behav- 1995). Neuroticism exists as a universal trait in part ior is associated with seeking and attaining positions of because it does have certain benefits for adaptive func- leadership. However, unduly high levels may result in tioning (Del Giudice, 2014). The absence of the ability domineering behavior in which other group members to feel anxious would likely be quite maladaptive, per- are not afforded adequate say in decision making. In the haps in a manner akin to the maladaptivity associated workplace, studies of the relation between extraversion with the inability to feel pain. Anxiety is a useful trait and performance are suggestive of a dependence on for anticipating negative outcomes and risks. Indeed, it environmental influence. Individuals with extreme levels would seem, in theory, for the fearlessness of some of extraversion are generally less likely to show high sales psychopathic persons to be potentially quite maladap- performance (Grant, 2013) and organizational citizenship tive, contributing to a willingness to take risks and behavior (i.e., prosocial behavior that is not part of the chances that would lead to arrest, injury, or even death. job duties; Williamson & Carter, 2016) and exhibit high We were unable to find any research linking extreme safety performance (Yuan, Li, Xu, & Huang, 2018), com- emotional stability to either work or life outcomes; thus, pared with their moderately extraverted counterparts. future research should consider its possibility. However, Williamson and Carter (2016) found that the inverted-U relation with citizenship behavior was stron- Problems With Tests for Curvilinearity ger in jobs with low social demands and linear for jobs with high social demands. Although there is scant evi- Above, we reviewed studies showing only affirmations dence, extraversion has also shown inverted-U relations of the idea that extremely high levels of FFM traits are 4 Carter et al. associated with maladaptation. However, the literature measures both psychometrically (Stark, Chernyshenko, on such tests is generally highly mixed. For example, Drasgow, & Williams, 2006) and experimentally (LaPalme, in reviewing tests for inverted-U relations between con- Tay, & Wang, 2018). Carter et al. (2014) were able to scientiousness and job performance, Carter et al. (2014) show that utilizing traditional sum scores replicated the found that 47% of all tests conducted found significant near 50-50 split in tests for curvilinearity across two stud- curvilinearity in the expected direction. This is not an ies but that application of ideal-point IRT revealed that ideal state for a scientific literature. However, these 100% of these tests were affirmative. In a simulation, authors suggested that a possible explanation for such Carter, Dalal, Guan, LoPilato, and Withrow (2017) mixed findings was that the typical method of sum showed the application of the correct IRT model leads scoring used in most self-report personality tests intro- to higher power and lower Type 1 error rates over the duced measurement error—particularly at the extreme sum score or the incorrect IRT model. ends—that obfuscated curvilinear relations. As a solu- A second potential problem that has yet to see tion, they proposed the use of item-response-theory empirical investigation is that the breadth of the trait (IRT) models for scoring. In particular, they proposed domains in the FFM is limited. That is, both in theory that ideal-point scoring is necessary. and practice, the continua may be too constricted; spe- Ideal-point-scoring models allow for respondents to cifically, the maladaptivity of low trait levels along with disagree with a statement not only because they are adaptive levels of the trait receive sufficient coverage lower in the trait than the level expressed by the item (currently considered the high end of the trait conti- statement but because they are either lower or higher in nua). Alternatively, a possibility is that there should be the trait than the level expressed by the item. For exam- more equal representation of maladaptivity at the low ple, in traditional scoring, disagreement with the item “I and high ends of these continua, requiring theory and am usually on time for my appointments” is always measures to extend the continua. Indeed, Widiger et al. assumed to indicate low conscientiousness. However, (2017) analyzed data from a lexical study by Coker, ideal-point models allow for the fact that a person may Samuel, and Widiger (2002) and showed that high (desir- express disagreement because he or she is always on able) levels of some FFM traits were associated with a time for appointments, indicating high conscientiousness. number of negative trait descriptors (see Table 1). Nota- Indeed, the ideal-point theory of responses has been bly, the traits with the lowest percentage of negative trait shown to better characterize self-report personality descriptors were agreeableness and emotional stability, Table 1. Summary of Terms Used to Describe Individuals With High and Low Levels of Traits in the Five-Factor Model Negative terms (%) Terms for extremely Terms for extremely Extremely Extremely Trait high negative traits low negative traits high low Agreeableness Deceivable Deceitful 14 97 Dependent Heartless Ingratiating Treacherous Transparent Violent Conscientiousness Overbookish Careless 20 96 Overcautious Disorderly Stringent Heedless Tight Reckless Extraversion Blustery Aloof 43 89 Exaggerative Humorless Flaunty Reclusive Showy Somber Openness Overindulgent Dogmatic 26 94 Rebellious Prejudiced Uncomformable Unimaginative Unconventional Unreflective Emotional stability Conscienceless Defensive 8 60 Emotionless Moody Inexcitable Hypersensitive Inhuman Self-destructive Note: This table was adapted from Widiger, Gore, Crego, Rojas, and Oltmanns (2017); data are from Coker, Samuel, and Widiger (2002). Values in the two right-hand columns refer to the percentage of terms used to describe high or low trait levels that had negative connotations. Extreme Personalities 5 Extreme High Plasticity Extreme High Extreme High Openness Extraversion Extreme High Agreeableness Extreme Low Conscientiousness Extreme High Emotional Stability Extreme Low Stability Extreme High Stability Extreme Low Emotional Stability Extreme High Conscientiousness Extreme Low Agreeableness Extreme Low Extreme Low Extraversion Extreme Low Openness Plasticity Fig. 2. Depiction of a possible extended five-factor circumplex model. Dashed lines indicate trait levels not explicitly covered in current trait taxonomies. both of which—in our review—appeared to see the least finding that those facets of conscientiousness that showed attention in tests for curvilinearity. inverted-U curvilinearity with well-being-related out- One possibility is that this points toward a circumplex comes showed exponentially increasing relations with conception of personality, with two dominant axes— their obsessive-compulsive variants lends support to the plasticity (an amalgam of extraversion and openness) and idea that a trait domain including maladaptive extremes stability (amalgam of conscientiousness, agreeableness, at both poles will clarify the functional form of personality– and emotional stability; see DeYoung, Peterson, & outcome relations. The use of ideal-point scaling tech- Higgins, 2002), wherein persons at the center of the circle niques will be a necessary component of this endeavor (i.e., moderate in all traits) are the most well-adjusted. 1 to allow for items at both maladaptive extremes as well This circumplex structure is comparable with the well- as the presumably more adaptive middle points (Roberts, established interpersonal circumplex (Leary, 1957), which Laughlin, & Wedell, 1999). One starting point would be is defined by the two lower-order domains of agreeable- to combine traditional FFM scales with FFM-based mea- ness and extraversion (or love–hate and dominance– sures of maladaptive traits already mapped onto the tra- submission) for which maladaptive variants have been ditional trait taxonomy (e.g., Samuel, Riddell, Lynam, well established for all poles of all octants (e.g., Horowitz, Miller, & Widiger, 2012). It is notable that the creation of Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000). Figure 2 shows this scales under the ideal-point assumption of measurement possible model, with dashed lines indicating trait levels would allow for scales with low and high poles that that our current taxonomies do not explicitly include. reflect maladaptivity, along with items reflecting adaptive Current measures may capture only a limited portion of levels of the trait. the continua of FFM traits. Thus, the names we use for the high end of these continua (e.g., emotional stability) actually refer to the levels placed closer to the center of Conclusions and Future Directions the circle. Thus, a failure of the field to consider the full In closing, we find it important to note the general range of the FFM traits could explain the somewhat weak implications for how we think about persons with cer- curvilinear effects found. Indeed, Carter et al.’s (2016) tain levels of personality traits. In general, most research 6 Carter et al. showing curvilinear relationships have found that these when utilizing appropriate personality-test scoring and inverted-U curves peak at approximately 1 standard showing the difference that can be made when utilizing deviation above the mean. This would indicate that for a curvilinear model for employment-selection decisions. any given trait, approximately 23% of persons have an Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Miller, J. D. (2016). (See References). An article that optimal level 2; accounting for error in the estimate shows how particular facets of conscientiousness result would also greatly increase this percentage. Alterna- in lower well-being at the extreme high end and dem- tively, if we believe only in linear relations, we must onstrates that those facets are more closely connected believe that an infinitesimally small number of people to obsessive-compulsive traits and negative affectivity. have the “best” level of any given trait. Indeed, Con- Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good verse and Oswald (2014) pointed out the potential for thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. important differences in employment selection deci- Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61–76. A general sions using this model, suggesting the potential for review of the “too much of a good thing” idea that dis- major societal implications. Notably, we do not believe cusses such effects in the psychological sciences more there is curvilinearity everywhere. Rather, we believe broadly than does the current article. it is possible that persons with moderate levels of FFM Widiger, T. A., Gore, W. L., Crego, C., Rojas, S. L., & Oltmanns, J. (2017). (See References). A chapter clearly laying out traits will see better work and life outcomes—across a the connection between “normal” personality taxonomic variety of jobs and situations—than those at the structure and personality disorder and a summary of the extremes but that there will be high variability in the connection between the two. “optimal” level of the trait between situations and per- sons (dependent on other traits). Action Editor Future directions for research should focus not only on the extension of taxonomies a la Widiger et al. Randall W. Engle served as action editor for this article. (2017), its applications to measurement, and further tests for curvilinearity, but the idea should be examined Declaration of Conflicting Interests from a variety of standpoints. In particular, the issue The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest should be examined from the lens of evolutionary the- with respect to the authorship or the publication of this ory as well as neurophysiological models of personality. article. For example, evolutionary scientists using simulation techniques (e.g., see Wolf & McNamara, 2012) could Funding examine the extent to which various rules for selecting This material is based on work conducted by N. T. Carter, employees on the basis of an optimal-level idea are who is supported by the National Science Foundation under consistent with trait distributions and intertrait covari- Grant SES-1561070. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions ances versus models that take the position that more is expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not always better. Further, the emerging field of personality necessarily reflect the views of the National Science neuroscience (DeYoung et al., 2010; Hyatt et al., in Foundation. press) would be an exciting lens through which to examine such questions. Optimal levels of neurological Notes activity or structural signatures may shed new light on 1. These dominant axes represent the proposed higher-order the issue. structure of the FFM (see DeYoung et al., 2002) and are used New research examining the downsides of traits his- here to approximate the Leary circumplex, which also has two torically considered to be advantageous at their high ends dominant axes: (a) dominance–submission and (b) love–hate presents exciting challenges and opportunities for per- (Leary, 1957). sonality researchers. Careful attention and potential revi- 2. This estimate (23%) represents the percentage of persons with trait levels 1 standard deviation above the mean for a per- sions to theory and measurement around trait domains fectly normally distributed variable. As noted by one reviewer, will be crucial to arriving at a clearer answer on why we this is simply a very rough estimate. Further, if it were indeed do—and do not—see curvilinear personality–outcome true that our measures do not capture the higher ends of the relations, and a wealth of open questions remain unan- FFM traits’ ranges, then this could lead to the conclusion that an swered. We hope for this article to further invigorate and even larger percentage of persons have optimal trait levels. That catalyze researchers to consider such questions. is, the current estimate relies on research using more traditional FFM scales. Recommended Reading Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O’Connell, M. S., References Kung, M.-C., & Delgado, K. (2014). (See References). Aristotle. (2004). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). New An article showing how the curvilinear relation between York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (Original work personality and performance is detected reliably only published 349 BC) Extreme Personalities 7 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and sta- Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2017). The conceptualization and tistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, assessment of schizotypal traits: A comparison of the FFSI DC: Author. and PID-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 606–623. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five person- Del Giudice, M. (2014). An evolutionary life history frame- ality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. work for psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 25, Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. 261–300. Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Schotte, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2011). DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). The structure of personality disorders: Comparing the From madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait DSM-IV-TR five-factor model framework using structural domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in equation modeling. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, Personality, 46, 63–78. 378–396. DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Blonigen, D. M. (2013). Is fearless dominance relevant to the Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions construct of psychopathy? Reconciling the dual roles of from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the theory and clinical utility. Personality Disorders: Theory, Big Five. Psychological Science, 21, 820–828. Research, and Treatment, 4, 87–88. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the lead- Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual ing behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Differences, 33, 533–552. Bulletin, 130, 887–919. Grant, A. M. (2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24, 1024– Kostopoulos, K. (2014). Mentoring receipt and person- 1030. ality: Evidence for non-linear relationships. Journal of Harris, A. M., Williamson, R. L., & Carter, N. T. (2017, April). Business Research, 67, 171–181. Investigating curvilinearity with an ideal point measure of Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O’Connell, M. S., openness. In R. L. Williamson, C. M. Castille, & A. M. Harris Kung, M.-C., & Delgado, K. (2014). Uncovering curvi- (Chairs), Ideal point IRT modeling: Advances in personality linear relationships between conscientiousness and job assessment. Symposium presented at the 32nd annual con- performance: How theoretically appropriate measure- ference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational ment makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology, Orlando, FL. Psychology, 99, 564–586. Harris, A. M., Williamson, R. L., & Carter, N. T. (2018). A con- Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Guan, L., LoPilato, A. C., & ditional threshold hypothesis for creative achievement: Withrow, S. A. (2017). Item response theory scoring and On the interaction between intelligence and openness. the detection of curvilinear relationships. Psychological Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance Methods, 22, 191–203. online publication. doi:10.1037/aca0000182 Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. Miller, J. D. (2016). The downsides of extreme consci- (2000). Inventory of interpersonal problems. Professional entiousness for psychological well-being: The role of manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. obsessive compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality, Hyatt, C. S., Owens, M. M., Gray, J. C., MacKillop, J., Sweet, 84, 510–522. L. H., & Miller, J. D. (in press). Personality shares over- Carter, N. T., Williamson, R. L., LoPilato, A. C., & Guan, L. lapping neuroanatomical correlates with internalizing (2018). The development of a hierarchical ideal point and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal measure of conscientiousness. Athens, GA: Applied Psychology. Psychometric Laboratory. Jones, S. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, Chang, C.-C., Wang, J.-H., Liang, C.-T., & Liang, C. (2014). antisocial behavior, and aggression: A meta-analytic Curvilinear effects of openness and agreeableness on review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 329–337. the imaginative capability of student designers. Thinking Judge, T. A., Livingston, B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice Skills and Creativity, 14, 68–75. guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and of negative feedback on tension and subsequent perfor- Social Psychology, 102, 390–407. mance: The main and interactive effects of goal content LaPalme, M., Tay, L., & Wang, W. (2018). A within-person and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, examination of the ideal-point response process. Psycho- 618–630. logical Assessment, 30, 567–581. Coker, L. A., Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Maladaptive Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New personality functioning within the big five and the five- York, NY: Roland Press. factor model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 385– Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, 401. NJ: Erlbaum. Converse, P. D., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Thinking ahead: Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor Assuming linear versus nonlinear personality-criterion model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: relationships in personnel selection. Human Performance, An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal 27, 61–79. Psychology, 110, 401–412. 8 Carter et al. Maples-Keller, J. L., Berke, D. S., Few, L. R., & Miller, J. D. considered for scale development and scoring? Journal (2016). A review of sensation seeking and its empirical of Applied Psychology, 91, 25–39. correlates: Dark, bright, and neutral hues. In V. Zeigler- Widiger, T. A., Gore, W. L., Crego, C., Rojas, S. L., & Oltmanns, J. Hill & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: (2017). Five factor model and personality disorder. In Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor psychology (pp. 137–156). Washington, DC: American model (pp. 449–478). New York, NY: Oxford University Psychological Association. Press. McFatter, R. M. (1994). Interactions in predicting mood from Williams, P. G., O’Brien, C. D., & Colder, C. R. (2004). The extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of Personality and effects of neuroticism and extraversion on self-assessed Social Psychology, 66, 570–578. health and health-relevant cognition. Personality and Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic Individual Differences, 37, 83–94. conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins Williamson, R. L., & Carter, N. T. (2016, April). The develop- of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development ment of an ideal point measure of extraversion facets. and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938. In N. T. Carter, R. L. Williamson, & R. T. King (Chairs), Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model Exciting new adventures in Thurstonian measurement for of personality and academic performance. Psychological self-report data. Symposium presented at the 31st annual Bulletin, 135, 322–338. conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Roberts, J., Laughlin, J., & Wedell, D. (1999). Validity issues Psychology, Anaheim, CA. in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude mea- Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2017). Extraversion. In T. A. Widiger surement. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 59, (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 211–233. 57–82). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Samuel, D. B., Riddell, A. D., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Wolf, M., & McNamara, J. M. (2012). On the evolution of Widiger, T. A. (2012). A five-factor measure of obses- personalities via frequency-dependent selection. The sive-compulsive personality traits. Journal of Personality American Naturalist, 179, 679–692. Assessment, 94, 456–465. Yuan, X., Li, Y., Xu, Y., & Huang, N. (2018). Curvilinear effects Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. of personality on safety performance: The moderating (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding role of supervisor support. Personality and Individual in personality assessment: Should ideal point models be Differences, 122, 55–61. View publication stats