Extraversion and psychopathology: A multilevel hierarchical review

Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

Full Length Article

Extraversion and psychopathology: A multilevel hierarchical review q David Watson a,⇑, Kasey Stanton b, Shereen Khoo a, Stephanie Ellickson-Larew a,1, Sara M. Stasik-O’Brien c a

University of Notre Dame, USA University of Western Ontario, Canada c Knox College, USA b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 24 January 2019 Revised 21 April 2019 Accepted 25 April 2019 Available online 26 April 2019 Keywords: Hierarchical models Communal extraversion Agentic extraversion Depression Social dysfunction Mania Externalizing Personality disorder NEO Personality Inventory

a b s t r a c t We examine relations between extraversion and psychopathology, using a four-level hierarchical structure in which the general domain is divided into two aspects (Communal Extraversion, Agentic Extraversion), four consensual facets (Sociability, Liveliness, Venturesomeness, Dominance), and six NEO facets (Gregariousness, Warmth, Positive Emotions, Activity, Excitement-Seeking, Assertiveness). Our review indicates that extraversion’s negative correlations with depression primarily reflect the aspect of Communal Extraversion, the consensual facet of Liveliness, and NEO Positive Emotions. Its negative associations with social dysfunction largely are due to the aspect of Communal Extraversion, the consensual facet of Sociability, and NEO Warmth, Gregariousness, and Positive Emotions. Finally, externalizing and mania are positively related to the aspect of Agentic Extraversion, the consensual facets of Venturesomeness and Dominance, and NEO Excitement-Seeking. Ó 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Historical overview Extraversion emerged as an important trait concept in the early 20th century (for an historical review, see Watson & Clark, 1997). It is a key component of virtually all major structural models of personality (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005; Watson & Clark, 1997). From the beginning, personality researchers recognized that extraversion was a broad construct that subsumed a diverse array of characteristics. Early models—especially that of Guilford (1975)—emphasized the central role of individual differences in impulsivity versus restraint in defining the trait. Later trait theorists focused on the importance of interpersonal characteristics such as assertiveness/dominance and gregariousness/sociability (Watson & Clark, 1997). Finally, contemporary models increasingly

q We thank Lee Anna Clark, Holly Levin-Aspenson, Ericka Nus, Claire Scott-Bacon, and Kevin Wu for their help in the preparation of this manuscript. ⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, 390 Corbett Family Hall, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Watson). 1 Stephanie Ellickson-Larew now is at the Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiological Research and Information Center at the VA Boston Healthcare System.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.04.009 0092-6566/Ó 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

emphasize the central importance of individual differences in reward sensitivity (e.g., DeYoung, 2013; Smillie, 2013). Smillie (2013), for example, argues that the various components of extraversion—such as assertiveness, sociability, liveliness, and positive emotionality—likely are held together by their shared link to reward processing, writing: ‘‘Variation in reward responsivity may explain why people who tend to be sociable tend also to be outgoing and to experience high levels of positive affect” (pp. 167–168). 1.2. Extraversion and psychopathology The primary goal of this paper is to explicate the nature of the associations between extraversion and psychopathology. This is a challenging topic to summarize briefly, given the complexity of these associations. In contrast to other five-factor model traits, one of the most intriguing features of extraversion is that it shows both negative associations (suggesting that the trait may be a protective factor for some symptoms and disorders) and positive associations (suggesting that it potentially represents a vulnerability factor for other conditions) with psychopathology (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Watson et al., submitted for publication, in preparation; Watson, Stasik, Ellickson-Larew, & Stanton, 2015). Moreover, as we will see, different elements within this domain primarily are responsible for these negative and positive relations.

2

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

1.3. The hierarchical structure of extraversion It is well established that personality traits are ordered hierarchically at different levels of breadth (e.g., Markon et al., 2005; Watson, Nus, & Wu, 2019). In order to summarize the full range of evidence related to this topic, we present data reflecting four different levels of the trait hierarchy. Fig. 1 provides a schematic representation of the multilevel hierarchical structure of this domain; we describe key aspects of this structure in greater detail later. First, extraversion itself represents the general, ‘‘big” trait forming the apex of this hierarchy. Next, this broad domain can be divided into two more specific aspects (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007; Watson et al., submitted for publication, in preparation), which we call Communal Extraversion and Agentic Extraversion. At the third level, these two aspects can be further divided into four consensual facets; these are recurring factors that have emerged as specific components of extraversion in structural analyses based on multiple personality inventories (Naragon-Gainey & Watson, 2014; Naragon-Gainey, Watson, & Markon, 2009; Watson et al., 2015). Here, we have labeled them Sociability, Liveliness, Venturesomeness, and Dominance.2 Finally, various versions of the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005) have been extensively studied in the psychopathology literature. The NEO includes six specific extraversion facets: Gregariousness, Warmth, Positive Emotions, Activity, Excitement-Seeking, and Assertiveness. In the following sections, we summarize evidence from each of these levels of the trait hierarchy. We then report integrative findings from a community sample that allow all four levels to be examined together in the same data. 2. Domain-level associations 2.1. General summary At the domain level, extraversion is broadly negatively related to internalizing, socioemotional detachment, and thought disorder. It shows particularly strong negative associations with two types of psychopathology (e.g., Kotov et al., 2010; Watson & NaragonGainey, 2010; Watson et al., 2015). First, it is negatively linked to various types of social/interpersonal dysfunction, such as social anxiety, social aloofness, coldness/emotional detachment, and social avoidance (e.g., social phobia, avoidant personality disorder [PD], schizoid PD). Second, it is inversely related to indicators of anhedonia and low positive emotionality (e.g., depressive disorders, schizophrenia). In addition, extraversion shows positive associations with mania and various forms of externalizing (e.g., Johnson, Leedom, & Muhtadie, 2012; Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Watson & Naragon-Gainey, 2010, 2014; Watson et al., 2015). 2.2. Meta-analytic associations To provide an overview of data at the highest level of the hierarchy, Table 1 presents correlations between extraversion domain scores and a broad range of psychopathology; these results are drawn from seven published meta-analyses. Samuel and Widiger (2008) reported correlations with the 10 DSM PDs. Kotov et al., (2010) presented correlations with three mood disorder diagnoses (e.g., dysthymic disorder, major depressive disorder), seven anxiety disorder diagnoses (e.g., social phobia, agoraphobia), and four substance use diagnoses (e.g., alcohol use, drug use). The other five 2 These labels differ somewhat from those used in previous publications. To avoid any confusion, we have chosen these labels to distinguish these consensual facets from those included in the NEO.

meta-analyses examined relations with various forms of externalizing psychopathology (e.g., narcissism, psychopathy, substance use) (Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, & De Clercq, 2009; Muris, Merckelbach, Otgaar, & Meijer, 2017; Ruiz, Pincus, & Schinka, 2008; Vize, Lynam, Collison, & Miller, 2018; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, Story, & White, 2015). Consistent with the broader literature, Table 1 indicates that extraversion had particularly strong negative associations with disorders characterized by various forms of social dysfunction; these include avoidant PD (which is characterized by social inhibition, feelings of inadequacy, and hypersensitivity to negative evaluation), schizoid and schizotypal PD (which both involve social aloofness/disinterest and coldness/emotional detachment), and social phobia (which is characterized by a pervasive fear in social or performance situations). Correlations with these disorders ranged from 0.28 to 0.49, with mean r of 0.40. In addition, extraversion displayed moderate negative associations with all three depressive disorders examined by Kotov et al. (2010), with correlations ranging from 0.25 (major depressive disorder) to 0.29 (dysthymic disorder). Conversely, extraversion had a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.33) with histrionic PD, a diagnosis that includes characteristics such as exhibitionism and self-dramatization. Furthermore, although Samuel and Widiger (2008) found that extraversion was only weakly related to narcissistic PD (r = 0.09), subsequent meta-analyses have reported moderate positive associations with various indicators of grandiose narcissism (rs ranged from 0.31 to 0.40). In contrast, extraversion was weakly related to other forms of externalizing, such as psychopathy/antisocial behavior (rs ranged from 0.01 to 0.06) and Machiavellianism (rs ranged from 0.01 to 0.08). Thus, at the domain level, extraversion is moderately positively related to certain forms of externalizing but essentially unrelated to others. 2.3. Associations with mania Table 1 does not include any results related to mania. However, there is considerable evidence establishing that extraversion is positively related to at least some types of mania symptoms (Johnson et al., 2012; Watson & Naragon-Gainey, 2010, 2014; Watson et al., 2015). For example, Watson and Naragon-Gainey (2014) subjected a number of bipolar symptom measures to an exploratory factor analysis, which yielded evidence of two underlying dimensions. The first factor was marked primarily by content related to affective lability, restlessness/psychomotor agitation, and cognitive manifestations of mania (e.g., pressure of speech); this factor can be labeled Emotional Lability. The second factor reflected individual differences in elation, excitement, and energy/activation; we can call this factor Euphoric Activation. Extraversion domain scores were strongly positively correlated with Euphoric Activation (r = 0.52) but were unrelated to Emotional Lability (r = 0.02). Stanton, Gruber, and Watson (2017) subsequently reported very similar findings in three additional analyses. 3. Aspect-level associations 3.1. Aspect models of extraversion Aspects represent an intermediate level between domains and facets in the trait hierarchy (DeYoung et al., 2007; Watson et al., submitted for publication, in preparation). Tellegen created the first model of this type, based on his work in developing the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen & Waller, 2008). Tellegen proposed a model in which a higher order Positive

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

3

Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure of extraversion domain, aspects, consensual facets, and NEO facets.

Table 1 Meta-analytic correlations between extraversion domain scores & psychopathology. Diagnosis

Correlation

Samuel and Widiger (2008) Avoidant personality disorder Schizoid personality disorder Schizotypal personality disorder Paranoid personality disorder Dependent personality disorder Borderline personality disorder Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder Antisocial personality disorder Narcissistic personality disorder Histrionic personality disorder

0.49 0.46 0.28 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.33

Ruiz et al. (2008) Substance pathology Antisocial pathology

0.06 0.06

Decuyper et al. (2009) Psychopathy Antisocial personality disorder

0.09 0.05

Kotov et al., (2010) Social phobia Dysthymic disorder Unipolar depression Panic disorder Obsessive-compulsive disorder Major depressive disorder Posttraumatic stress disorder Agoraphobia Mixed substance use Generalized anxiety disorder Overall substance use Drug use Alcohol use Specific phobia

0.37 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.07

O’Boyle et al. (2015) Machiavellianism Psychopathy Narcissism

0.01 0.04 0.40

Muris et al. (2017) Machiavellianism Psychopathy Narcissism

0.08 0.01 0.31

Vize et al. (2018a) Machiavellianism Psychopathy Narcissism

0.04 0.02 0.32

Note. Correlations with an absolute value  0.30 are in bold.

Emotionality dimension was split into two subfactors: Communal Positive Emotionality was defined primarily by sociability (as assessed by the MPQ Social Closeness scale), whereas Agentic Positive Emotionality was characterized by content related to dominance/assertiveness (MPQ Social Potency) and ambition/mastery (MPQ Achievement). Positive emotional experience (as assessed by MPQ Positive Emotionality) was related to both aspects, thereby helping to create the overarching Positive Emotionality factor. DeYoung et al. (2007) subsequently created the Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS) to model two subfactors within each five-factor model domain. Enthusiasm and Assertiveness are the BFAS aspect scales for extraversion. BFAS Assertiveness assesses content related to dominance and ascendance (e.g., see myself as a good leader, can talk others into doing things). In contrast, BFAS Enthusiasm contains content related to both liveliness/positive emotionality (e.g., have a lot of fun, laugh a lot) and sociability/gregariousness (e.g., make friends easily, warm up quickly to others). Finally, Watson et al. (in preparation) developed extraversion aspect scales from items included in the Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM; Watson, Nus, & Wu, 2019). Communal Extraversion contains eight items from the FI-FFM Positive Temperament facet, plus seven items from Sociability and three interpersonally oriented items from Venturesomeness (e.g., I like places that are crowded and exciting). High scorers on this scale are cheerful, enthusiastic, and energetic individuals who enjoy spending time with others. In contrast, Agentic Extraversion includes seven items from the FI-FFM Frankness facet, plus six items from Ascendance and two non-interpersonal items from Venturesomeness (e.g., I enjoy the sensation of going really fast). High scorers on this scale are blunt, assertive, and exhibitionistic individuals who enjoy thrilling experiences and seek out positions of power. 3.2. Associations with the FI-FFM aspect scales These two aspects of extraversion are positively correlated with one another (Watson et al., submitted for publication, in preparation). Nevertheless, they have strikingly different associations with psychopathology: Communal Extraversion generally shows negative associations, whereas Agentic Extraversion tends to have positive links to psychopathology. For example, Watson et al. (submitted for publication) examined associations between the FI-FFM aspect scales and a broad range of self-report and interview-based psychopathology measures. At the bivariate level, FI-FFM Communal Extraversion

4

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

tended to be negatively related to psychopathology. Paralleling the results reviewed earlier at the domain level, its strongest associations fell into two specific areas: social dysfunction (e.g., social anxiety, social aloofness, and interpersonal avoidance) and depression/anhedonia. Moreover, regression analyses—which controlled for its shared variance with Agentic Extraversion—clearly established that the unique component of Communal Extraversion is healthy and adaptive in nature. In marked contrast, Agentic Extraversion tended to be positively related to psychopathology in both correlational and regression analyses. Its strongest associations were with mania, narcissism and other indicators of externalizing psychopathology. These data demonstrate that the unique component of Agentic Extraversion is largely maladaptive in nature. 3.3. PID-5 analyses The results reported by Watson et al. (submitted for publication) were based on scales derived from a single instrument. Do these findings generalize to other extraversion aspect scales? We can address this issue by examining correlations with the 25 facet scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). The PID-5 is ideal for our purposes because it includes a very broad range of content related to internalizing, externalizing, detachment, and thought disorder. Table 2 presents correlations between the PID-5 facets and the extraversion aspect scales from both the BFAS and the FI-FFM. The FI-FFM data are taken from Watson et al. (submitted for publication, Table 2). The BFAS data are from DeYoung, Carey, Krueger, and Ross (2016), who reported correlations with the PID-5 in two samples (Ns = 321 and 549; these results are preTable 2 Correlations between Aspects of Extraversion & the PID-5 Facet Scales. PID-5 Scale

Withdrawal Anhedonia Restricted Affectivity Depressivity Intimacy Avoidance Suspiciousness Anxiousness Hostility Callousness Perseveration Eccentricity Distractibility Irresponsibility Perceptual Dysregulation Deceitfulness Emotional Lability Rigid Perfectionism Manipulativeness Risk Taking Attention Seeking Grandiosity Unusual Experiences Impulsivity Separation Insecurity Submissiveness Overall mean r

BFAS Aspects

FI-FFM Aspects

Enthus

Commun

*

Assert

*

0.75 0.69* 0.54* 0.50* 0.41* 0.40* 0.37* 0.37* 0.36* 0.32* 0.30* 0.29* 0.25* 0.21* 0.20* 0.13* 0.12*

0.36 0.38 0.11 0.34 0.14 0.08 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.21 0.07 0.28* 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.07

0.64 0.65* 0.27* 0.50* 0.36* 0.30* 0.35* 0.31* 0.14 0.32* 0.21* 0.33* 0.22* 0.25* 0.06 0.27* 0.16*

0.06 0.18 0.26 0.00 0.10* 0.02 0.04 0.06

0.40* 0.39* 0.37* 0.35* 0.11* 0.10* 0.13* 0.34*

0.10 0.23 0.27 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.14* 0.14

0.24

0.04

0.22

Agentic 0.26 0.24 0.01 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.23* 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.21* 0.00 0.02 0.37* 0.44* 0.47* 0.31* 0.15* 0.20* 0.07 0.27* 0.07

Note. N = 870 (BFAS), 759 (FI-FFM). Correlations with an absolute value  0.30 are in bold. PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5. BFAS = Big Five Aspect Scales. FIFFM = Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model. ENTHUS = Enthusiasm. ASSERT = Assertiveness. COMMUN = Communal Extraversion. AGENTIC = Agentic Extraversion. Unusual Experiences = Unusual Beliefs and Experiences. * Higher correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) within pair.

sented in their online supplemental materials). The BFAS data presented in Table 2 represent average correlations computed across these two samples. Table 2 demonstrates that the basic pattern of findings replicates well across the two sets of scales. For example, BFAS Enthusiasm and FI-FFM Communal Extraversion both have moderate to strong negative associations with PID-5 Withdrawal, Anhedonia, Depressivity, and Intimacy Avoidance (rs range from 0.36 to 0.75). In marked contrast, BFAS Assertiveness and FI-FFM Agentic Extraversion both are moderately positively linked to PID-5 Manipulativeness, Risk Taking, Attention Seeking, and Grandiosity (rs ranged from 0.31 to 0.47). To determine the overall level of similarity between the two sets of coefficients, we computed columnvector correlations between the corresponding scales for each aspect. These vector correlations were 0.93 (BFAS Enthusiasm vs. FI-FFM Communal Extraversion) and 0.95 (BFAS Assertiveness vs. FI-FFM Agentic Extraversion), establishing a very strong level of replication across the two instruments. It is noteworthy, moreover, that BFAS Enthusiasm and FI-FFM Communal Extraversion both tended to have stronger negative associations with the PID-5, whereas BFAS Assertiveness and FIFFM Agentic Extraversion generally had stronger positive links to personality pathology. We quantified these differences by conducting significance tests for each pair of correlations, using the Williams modification of the Hotelling test for two correlations involving a common variable (Kenny, 1987). These tests indicated that the correlations for the two aspect scales differed significantly from one another (p < .05, 1-tailed) in 47 of 50 cases (94.0%). The three exceptions involved the BFAS analyses related to PID-5 Anxiousness, Distractibility, and Emotional Lability. As expected, in 44 of the 47 significant comparisons (93.6%), BFAS Enthusiasm and FI-FFM Communal Extraversion had a stronger negative correlation—or a weaker positive correlation—than BFAS Assertiveness and FI-FFM Agentic Extraversion. Here, the exceptions were that PID-5 Submissiveness had a significantly stronger negative correlation with both BFAS Assertiveness and FI-FFM Agentic Extraversion (rs = 0.34 and 0.27, respectively) than with BFAS Enthusiasm and FI-FFM Communal Extraversion (rs = 0.06 and 0.14, respectively); and that PID-5 Separation Insecurity had a stronger negative association with BFAS Assertiveness (r = 0.13) than with BFAS Enthusiasm (r = 0.04). 3.4. Concluding summary Despite these exceptions, the general pattern is clear. Communal Extraversion (as defined by both BFAS Enthusiasm and FIFFM Communal Extraversion) primarily is responsible for the negative associations between extraversion and psychopathology, whereas Agentic Extraversion (as assessed by BFAS Assertiveness and FI-FFM Agentic Extraversion) primarily is responsible for the positive associations between extraversion and psychopathology. These findings highlight the value of examining personalitypsychopathology relations at the aspect level. 4. Associations with consensual facets 4.1. Identification of the consensual facet factors Several studies have reported structural analyses of extraversion facet scales contained in multiple personality inventories. First, Naragon-Gainey et al. (2009) conducted separate structural analyses in patient and student samples, using facet scales from several instruments, including the FI-FFM, the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and the MPQ. Next, Naragon-Gainey and Watson (2014) examined extraversion facet scales contained in six omni-

5

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

bus personality inventories—including both the NEO PI-R and the MPQ—that were assessed in the Eugene-Springfield Community Sample (Grucza & Goldberg, 2007). Finally, Watson et al. (2015) conducted principal factor analyses of the extraversion facet scales from the FI-FFM, NEO-PI-3 (McCrae et al., 2005), and the Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO; Lee & Ashton, 2018). The same four factors emerged in all of these structural analyses. Two of these consensual facets—Liveliness and Sociability— contain content subsumed within Communal Extraversion at the aspect level (see Fig. 1). The Liveliness factor is defined by scales tapping individual differences in cheerfulness, energy, and enthusiasm (e.g., NEO Positive Emotions, NEO Activity, FI-FFM Positive Temperament, HEXACO Liveliness), whereas Sociability is marked by measures of gregariousness and affiliation (e.g., NEO Gregariousness, FI-FFM Sociability, HEXACO Sociability, MPQ Social Closeness). The NEO Warmth scale is a consistent marker of Sociability, but sometimes also cross-loads on Liveliness (as is indicated in Fig. 1). Given their content, Liveliness and Sociability should be largely adaptive in nature and correlate negatively with psychopathology. In contrast, the Dominance factor taps content that clearly falls within Agentic Extraversion (see Fig. 1). It is defined by measures of assertiveness and exhibitionism (e.g., NEO Assertiveness, FIFFM Ascendance, HEXACO Social Boldness, MPQ Social Potency). Finally, Venturesomeness assesses individual differences in the tendency to seek out intense, thrilling, and exciting experiences (e.g., NEO Excitement-Seeking, FI-FFM Venturesomeness). As shown in Fig. 1, this factor assesses characteristics related to both aspects of extraversion. Based on their content, Dominance and Venturesomeness should be less adaptive in nature and correlate more positively with psychopathology. 4.2. Associations with psychopathology Naragon-Gainey et al. (2009) examined relations between these consensual facets and symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Structural equation modeling revealed that social anxiety was broadly and nonspecifically related to all four facets, whereas depression was substantially negatively related only to Liveliness. Naragon-Gainey and Watson (2014) subsequently replicated this finding of a specific negative link between Liveliness and depression. Based on these data, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Liveliness facet primarily is responsible for the negative associations between extraversion and depression. Watson et al. (2015) reported relations between these consensual facets and a broad range of self-report and interview-based indicators of psychopathology in a community sample. Table 3 presents key results that are adapted from Tables 3 and 4 of Watson et al. (2015). It should be noted that the personality scales used to create these consensual factor scores (viz., the extraversion facet scales from the NEO-PI-3, FI-FFM and HEXACO) were completed at Session 1 of this longitudinal study. Some of the interview ratings also were collected in this initial session, whereas others (and all of the self-report psychopathology scales) were completed at Session 2, roughly three weeks later (mean interval = 20.3 days). As expected, Liveliness and Sociability both generally showed negative associations with psychopathology. Replicating previous findings (Naragon-Gainey & Watson, 2014; Naragon-Gainey et al., 2009), Liveliness clearly showed the strongest negative links to both self-report (r = 0.51) and interview (r = 0.43) measures of depression. In addition, it had moderate to strong negative associations with social anxiety, social aloofness, restricted affectivity, and agoraphobia (rs ranged from 0.26 to 0.53). Sociability displayed a somewhat different pattern, as it showed stronger negative associations with social aloofness (r = 0.63) and social anxiety (r = 0.51 and 0.45 in the self-report and interview data,

Table 3 Correlations between consensual extraversion facets & psychopathology in a community sample. Psychopathology Measure

Liveliness

Sociability

Dominance

Venturesomeness

Depression Self-report Interview

0.51* 0.43*

0.33 0.31

0.19 0.15

Restricted affectivity Self-report

0.30

0.34*

0.12

Social aloofness Self-report

0.52+

0.63*,+

0.31

0.18

Social anxiety Self-report Interview

0.53*,+ 0.43

0.51 0.45*

0.53*,+ 0.46*

0.27 0.27

Agoraphobia Self-report Interview

0.26 0.27

0.28* 0.43*

0.29* 0.16

0.29 0.37

Antagonism Self-report

0.05

Disinhibition Self-report

0.14

0.03

Alcohol use Self-report Interview

0.13 0.04

Drug use Self-report Interview

0.07 0.07

0.15 0.13

0.04

0.32

0.45*,+

0.15

0.40*

0.08 0.03

0.01 0.09

0.20* 0.35*

0.07 0.00

0.01 0.10

0.15* 0.30*

0.04

Note. N = 402 (Self-report), 401 (Interview). Correlations with an absolute value  0.30 are in bold. Self-report values are Pearson correlations; interview values are polyserial correlations. Adapted from Watson et al. (2015, Tables 3 and 4). * Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in row. + Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in column.

respectively) than with depression (r = 0.33 and 0.31, respectively). In contrast, Dominance was weakly related to psychopathology, except for its substantial negative associations with social anxiety (r = 0.53 and 0.46 in the self-report and interview data, respectively). It also had a moderate negative association with social aloofness (r = –0.31) and a moderate positive relation to antagonism (r = 0.32). Finally, Venturesomeness showed the strongest and broadest positive associations with externalizing psychopathology. Its strongest links were with self-rated antagonism (r = 0.45) and disinhibition (r = 0.40), and with interview-based measures of alcohol use (r = 0.35) and drug use (r = 0.30). 4.3. Concluding summary These consensually defined facets are highly distinctive and show different types of associations with psychopathology. Liveliness and Sociability demonstrate the strongest negative links to psychopathology, assessed via both self-report and interview methods: The former has the strongest association with depression, whereas the latter is more strongly related to social aloofness and other forms of social/interpersonal dysfunction. Dominance is negatively related to social dysfunction (particularly social anxiety) and positively related to antagonism. Finally, Venturesomeness has the strongest positive associations with externalizing psychopathology. 5. Associations with NEO facets The six NEO extraversion facets also show distinctive patterns of associations with psychopathology (Watson et al., 2015). Table 4

6

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

Table 4 Meta-Analytic Correlations between the NEO Extraversion Facets & Psychopathology. Disorder Ruiz et al. (2008) Substance pathology Antisocial pathology Samuel and Widiger (2008) Schizotypal PD Paranoid PD Schizoid PD Avoidant PD Obsessive-compulsive PD Histrionic PD Borderline PD Dependent PD Narcissistic PD Antisocial PD

Warmth

Gregar

Positive

0.23* 0.11

0.08 0.02 0.25 0.20 0.48*,+ 0.42* 0.16* 0.35* 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02

0.28* 0.28* 0.42+ 0.35 0.07 0.26 0.20 0.03 0.07 0.13

Activity

Assert

Excite

0.17 0.04

0.05 0.07

0.14 0.08

0.17 0.30*,+

0.26 0.27 0.38+ 0.39+ 0.09 0.23 0.26* 0.15 0.02 0.09

0.13 0.08 0.25 0.29+ 0.03 0.25 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.02

0.13 0.08 0.22 0.39+ 0.01 0.27 0.09 0.21* 0.19* 0.06

0.04 0.01 0.21 0.23 0.12 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.25*

Decuyper et al. (2009) Psychopathy Antisocial PD

0.20 0.13

0.03 0.00

0.10 0.08

0.07 0.04

0.16 0.06

0.31*,+ 0.25*

O’Boyle et al. (2015) Psychopathy Narcissism

0.18 0.02

0.00 0.13

0.13 0.05

0.04 0.14

0.07 0.24*

0.20* 0.16

Vize et al. (2018b) Average aggression Reactive aggression Average AS behavior Physical aggression Relational aggression Proactive aggression Non-violent AS behavior

0.16* 0.17* 0.18* 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14

0.01 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04

0.11 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.05

0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02

0.08 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.02

0.13 0.12 0.17* 0.18* 0.19* 0.17* 0.30*,+

Note. Correlations with an absolute value  0.30 are in bold. Gregar = Gregariousness. Positive = Positive Emotions. Assert = Assertiveness. Excite = Excitement-Seeking. AS = Antisocial. PD = Personality disorder. * Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in row. + Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in column.

presents correlational findings taken from five meta-analyses. Four of these meta-analyses were included in the domain-level results presented earlier (see Table 1 and the accompanying text); in addition, Vize et al. (2018b) reported associations between the NEO facets and various forms of antisocial behavior. Table 4 demonstrates that the NEO Warmth, Gregariousness, and Positive Emotions facets have the strongest negative associations with psychopathology. Their strongest links are with schizoid PD (rs range from 0.38 to 0.48) and avoidant PD (rs range from 0.35 to 0.42). The other three facets show weaker negative associations with these disorders, except for the 0.39 correlation between Assertiveness and avoidant PD. In contrast, Excitement-Seeking has the most substantial positive associations with psychopathology. In particular, it clearly is the strongest predictor of psychopathy/antisocial PD, with correlations ranging from 0.20 (O’Boyle et al., 2015) to 0.31 (Decuyper et al., 2009) across the five meta-analyses. Finally, it is noteworthy that all six facets were positively linked to histrionic PD, with correlations ranging from 0.23 (Positive Emotions) to 0.35 (Gregariousness). The data presented in Table 4 are heavily weighted toward externalizing psychopathology and provide very limited coverage of internalizing. Fortunately, we can examine relations between the NEO facets and key forms of internalizing in the next section.

analysis within the same dataset. These integrative analyses are based on the same community adult sample described in Watson et al. (2015). In an earlier analysis, we examined results obtained from the first two sessions of this longitudinal study (see Table 3). We now present relations between extraversion and self-report psychopathology measures that were obtained in Session 3; these data were not reported in Watson et al. (2015). Session 3 was conducted roughly 9.5 months after Session 2. Thus, there is a time interval of slightly more than 10 months (mean interval = 307.2 days) between the Session 1 personality scales and the Session 3 psychopathology measures. Consequently, these data also allow us to examine the prospective ability of extraversionrelated traits to predict psychopathology scores over an extended period of time. 6.2. Measures

6.1. Participants and procedures

Extraversion shows particularly strong links to three types of psychopathology. First, it is negatively correlated with depression, anhedonia, and low positive emotionality. Second, it is negatively linked to various indicators of social/interpersonal dysfunction. Third, it is positively associated with mania and externalizing. We use selected scales from two measures that were assessed in Session 3—the Comprehensive Assessment of Traits relevant to Personality Disorder (CAT-PD; Wright & Simms, 2014) and the Expanded Form of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS-II; Watson et al., 2012)—to model these three key types of psychopathology.3

Thus far, we have reviewed each level of the trait hierarchy separately. We now consider them all together in a single integrated

3 Watson et al. (submitted for publication) report associations between the FI-FFM aspect scales and the CAT-PD; all other results are newly presented here.

6. Integrative multilevel analyses

7

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

To model depression/anhedonia, we report results on CAT-PD Anhedonia (e.g., am not a joyful person, find nothing excites me), CAT-PD Depressiveness (e.g., am sad most of the time, tend to feel very hopeless), and IDAS-II Dysphoria (e.g., felt depressed, had little interest in my usual hobbies and activities). Similarly, we used three scales to model social dysfunction: CAT-PD Social Withdrawal (e.g., do not feel close to people, rarely enjoy being with people), CAT-PD Emotional Detachment (e.g., have difficulty showing affection, am emotionally reserved) and IDAS-II Social Anxiety (e.g., felt self-conscious knowing that others were watching me, found it difficult to make eye contact with people). Finally, we used the IDAS-II Euphoria scale (e.g., felt like I was ‘‘on top of the world,” had so much energy it was hard for me to sit still) to assess mania and five CAT-PD scales to capture various forms of externalizing: Domineering (e.g., make demands on others, insist that others do things my way), Exhibitionism (e.g., am likely to show off if I get the chance, enjoy flirting with complete strangers), Risk Taking (e.g., love dangerous situations, get a thrill out of doing things that might kill me), Grandiosity (e.g., believe that I am better than others, deserve special treatment from others), and Manipulativeness (e.g., have exploited others for my own gain, deceive people).

mania. Despite the fact that they were strongly correlated with one another (r = 0.81 between the NEO-PI-3 and FI-FFM, 0.79 between the NEO-PI-3 and HEXACO, 0.71 between the FI-FFM and HEXACO), it is noteworthy that the three domain scores exhibited somewhat different patterns in these data. The HEXACO extraversion domain clearly is oriented toward assessing the more healthy and adaptive components of the trait: It had mean correlations (after r-to-z transformation) of 0.56 with depression, 0.54 with social dysfunction, and 0.00 with externalizing/mania. At the other extreme, FI-FFM extraversion is more heavily weighted toward the unhealthy, maladaptive characteristics of the trait: It had weaker mean correlations with depression (r = 0.35) and social dysfunction (r = –0.38), and a moderate positive association with externalizing and mania (mean r = 0.29). NEO-PI-3 extraversion falls somewhere in between, with mean correlations of 0.46 (depression), 0.50 (social dysfunction), and 0.16 (externalizing/mania). These findings highlight the fact that these inventories will yield somewhat different results in psychopathology research, a point we return to later.

6.3. Overview of analyses

The depression scales demonstrated a clear and straightforward pattern in these data. At the aspect level, depression had a much stronger negative association with Communal Extraversion (mean r = 0.48) than with Agentic Extraversion (mean r = 0.16). Follow-up tests indicated that the correlations for Communal and Agentic Extraversion differed significantly from one another (p < .01, 1-tailed) in all three cases. Replicating previous results (Naragon-Gainey & Watson, 2014; Naragon-Gainey et al., 2009; Watson et al., 2015), the depression measures had stronger negative associations with Liveliness (mean r = 0.54) than with the other three consensual facets (mean rs = 0.40 for Sociability, 0.27 for Dominance, and 0.09 for Venturesomeness). Follow-up tests indicated that correlations between depression and Liveliness were significantly stronger (p < .05, 1-tailed) than those for the other three facets in eight of nine cases. The one exception was that IDAS-II Dysphoria did not

Correlations between Session 1 extraversion and these Session 3 psychopathology measures are reported in Tables 5 (depression and social dysfunction) and 6 (externalizing and mania). Each table presents associations at four levels of the trait hierarchy: (a) the NEO-PI-3, FI-FFM, and HEXACO extraversion domain scores; (b) the FI-FFM aspect scales; (c) the four consensual facets, using regression-based factor scores that were created by Watson et al. (2015); and (d) the six NEO-PI-3 extraversion facets. 6.4. Domain-level associations Consistent with previous results, the extraversion measures largely were negatively related to depression and social dysfunction, but showed many positive associations with externalizing and

6.5. Analyses of depression

Table 5 Prospective correlations between extraversion & self-report indicators of depression and social dysfunction in a community sample. Depression Extraversion Measure

Anhed

Social Dysfunction Dep

Dys

Aloof

Det

Socanx

Domain NEO-PI-3 FI-FFM HEXACO

0.59 0.48 0.62

0.45 0.33 0.60+

0.33 0.21 0.45+

0.62* 0.51* 0.64*

0.44 0.37 0.48

0.40 0.25 0.49+

Aspects Communal Agentic

0.59* 0.25*

0.47 0.15

0.35 0.06

0.60* 0.26*

0.41 0.23

0.33 0.13

Consensual Facets Liveliness Sociability Dominance Venturesomeness

0.67*,+ 0.46 0.35 0.23*

0.52 0.44 0.27 0.03

0.38 0.30 0.19 0.01

0.51 0.68*,+ 0.43* 0.22*

0.38 0.50+ 0.34 0.04

0.36 0.40 0.27 0.03

NEO-PI-3 Facets Positive Emotions Activity Gregariousness Warmth Assertiveness Excitement-Seeking

0.60* 0.37* 0.33 0.48 0.35 0.21*

0.51 0.23 0.32 0.40 0.29 0.04

0.32 0.20 0.22 0.29 0.24 0.06

0.48 0.30 0.56* 0.52* 0.41* 0.22*

0.41 0.19 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.02

0.34 0.18 0.33 0.35 0.29 0.11

Note. N = 294. Correlations with an absolute value  0.30 are in bold. ANHED = Anhedonia. DEP = Depressiveness. DYS = Dysphoria. ALOOF = Social Withdrawal. DET = Emotional Detachment. SOCANX = Social Anxiety. NEO-PI-3 = NEO Personality Inventory-3. FI-FFM = Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model. HEXACO = Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory. * Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in row. + Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in column.

8

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

correlate more strongly with Liveliness (r = 0.38) than with Sociability (r = 0.30; z = 1.47, n.s.). Finally, the depression scales showed stronger negative associations with Positive Emotions (mean r = 0.49) than with the other NEO-PI-3 facets (mean rs = 0.39 for Warmth, 0.29 for Gregariousness and Assertiveness, 0.27 for Activity, and 0.10 for Excitement-Seeking). Follow-up tests indicated that depression had significantly stronger (p < .05, 2-tailed) correlations with Positive Emotions than the other five facets in 12 of 15 cases. The three exceptions all involved IDAS-II Dysphoria, which did not correlate more strongly with Positive Emotions (r = 0.32) than with Warmth (r = 0.29), Assertiveness (r = 0.24), and Gregariousness (r = 0.22). 6.6. Analyses of social dysfunction At the aspect level, indicators of social dysfunction had much stronger negative associations with Communal Extraversion (mean r = 0.45) than with Agentic Extraversion (mean r = 0.21). Follow-up tests indicated that the correlations for Communal and Agentic Extraversion differed significantly from one another (p < .01, 1-tailed) in all three cases. Consistent with the findings of Watson et al. (2015), the social dysfunction measures had stronger negative associations with Sociability (mean r = 0.54) than with the other consensual facets (mean rs = 0.42 for Liveliness, 0.35 for Dominance, and 0.10 for Venturesomeness). Follow-up tests established that the correlations with Sociability were significantly stronger (p < .05, 1-tailed) than those with the other three facets in eight of nine cases. The one exception was that IDAS-II Social Anxiety did not correlate more strongly with Sociability (r = 0.40) than with Liveliness (r = 0.36; z = 0.85, n.s.). In contrast, the NEO-PI-3 facets demonstrated a more nonspecific pattern. The social dysfunction scales correlated very similarly with Gregariousness (mean r = 0.44), Warmth (mean r = 0.43) and Positive Emotions (mean r = 0.41); more moderately with Assertiveness (mean r = 0.35); modestly with Activity (mean r = 0.22); and weakly with Excitement-Seeking (mean r = 0.12). The strongest single association was between Gregariousness and CAT-PD Social Withdrawal (r = 0.56). 6.7. Analyses of externalizing and mania Measures of externalizing and mania had stronger positive associations with Agentic Extraversion (mean r = 0.35) than with Communal Extraversion (mean r = 0.08). Follow-up tests indicated that the correlations for Communal and Agentic Extraversion differed significantly from one another (p < .01, 1-tailed) in all six comparisons. Analyses at the consensual facet level revealed that mania and externalizing were moderately positively correlated with both Venturesomeness (mean r = 0.43) and Dominance (mean r = 0.30), but essentially were unrelated to Liveliness (mean r = 0.03) and Sociability (mean r = 0.00). Follow-up tests revealed that correlations for Venturesomeness and Dominance were significantly stronger than those for Liveliness and Sociability in 23 of 24 cases. The sole exception was that IDAS-II Euphoria did not correlate more strongly with Dominance (r = 0.24) than with Liveliness (r = 0.15; z = 1.59, n.s.). In addition, Venturesomeness had substantially stronger correlations with CAT-PD Risk Taking (r = 0.62) and Manipulativeness (r = 0.34) than did Dominance (rs = 0.23 and 0.14, respectively). Finally, indicators of externalizing and mania were moderately related to NEO-PI-3 Excitement-Seeking (mean r = 0.31); modestly related to Assertiveness (mean r = 0.17) and Activity (mean r = 0.17); and largely unrelated to Gregariousness (mean r = 0.04),

Positive Emotions (mean r = 0.00), and Warmth (mean r = 0.08). The differences were particularly pronounced for the CAT-PD Risk Taking, Exhibitionism, and Manipulativeness scales. Here, correlations with Excitement-Seeking were significantly more positive than those for the other five facets in 17 of 18 comparisons; the one exception was that Exhibitionism did not correlate more strongly with Excitement-Seeking (r = 0.41) than with Assertiveness (r = 0.30; z = 1.69, p < .10). 7. General discussion 7.1. Overall summary of results Our review highlights the value of examining relations with psychopathology at multiple levels of the trait hierarchy. The reviewed evidence demonstrates that different components of extraversion primarily are responsible for its key links to psychopathology. Its significant negative correlations with depression/anhedonia primarily are attributable to Communal Extraversion at the aspect level, Liveliness at the consensual facet level, and the Positive Emotions facet of the NEO. Its negative associations with social dysfunction are specifically linked to Communal Extraversion at the aspect level and Sociability at the consensual facet level; the NEO data are less specific, with three scales (Warmth, Gregariousness, and Positive Emotions) displaying the strongest relations. Finally, indicators of externalizing and mania are most strongly positively related to Agentic Extraversion at the aspect level; Venturesomeness and Dominance at the consensual facet level; and NEO Excitement-Seeking. 7.2. Research implications The specificity of these relations has two important implications for research in this area. First, they demonstrate that currently available hierarchical trait instruments—such as the NEOPI-3, HEXACO, and FI-FFM—will produce somewhat different findings when related to psychopathology. For example, Tables 4 and 6 establish that indicators of externalizing correlate more strongly with Excitement-Seeking than with the other NEO facets. It is noteworthy that the NEO-PI-3 and the FI-FFM both subsume content related to excitement seeking, whereas the HEXACO does not. Consequently, the NEO-PI-3 and FI-FFM will show stronger associations with externalizing than the HEXACO (see also Watson et al., 2019). More generally, each inventory models the domain differently and can be expected to yield some idiosyncratic findings. Therefore, researchers should carefully consider which instrument (or instruments) best serves their purpose. Second, our findings demonstrate the importance of moving beyond the domain level and examining more fine-grained components of the trait. One striking aspect of our data is that extraversion subsumes antagonistic elements—at both the aspect and facet level—that can cancel each other out at the domain level. For example, the Table 4 data demonstrate that NEO Warmth consistently shows negative associations with psychopathy/antisocial personality (rs ranged from –0.11 to 0.20), whereas ExcitementSeeking is positively related to these forms of externalizing (rs ranged from 0.20 to 0.31). When combined together, these opposing elements produce very weak associations at the domain level (rs ranged from 0.01 to 0.06 in Table 1). This leads to a related question: Which level of the hierarchy is the most useful in psychopathology research? A thorough examination of this issue is beyond the scope of our paper, but we can begin to address it by revisiting the integrative multilevel results that were presented in Tables 5 and 6. For each of the 12 psychopathology scales, we conducted separate regression analyses

9

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10 Table 6 Prospective correlations between extraversion & self-report indicators of externalizing and mania in a community sample. Externalizing Extraversion Measure

Domin

Exhib

Risk

Manip

Grand

Euphor

Domain NEO-PI-3 FI-FFM HEXACO

0.16 0.33 0.02

0.36* 0.48* 0.24*

0.21 0.31 0.04

0.00 0.10 0.21

0.05 0.21 0.06

0.17 0.27 0.04

Aspects Communal Agentic

0.04 0.46*,+

0.25* 0.47*

0.10 0.35

0.08 0.20

0.02 0.30

0.13 0.32+

Consensual Facets Liveliness Sociability Dominance Venturesomeness

0.00 0.01 0.42 0.38

0.18* 0.24* 0.47* 0.53+

0.07 0.04 0.23 0.62*,+

0.13 0.18 0.14 0.34+

0.07 0.04 0.27 0.32+

0.15 0.01 0.24 0.33+

NEO-PI-3 Facets Positive Emotions Activity Gregariousness Warmth Assertiveness Excitement-Seeking

0.01 0.10 0.01 0.06 0.29* 0.25

0.13 0.23* 0.28* 0.04 0.30* 0.41

0.04 0.24* 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.53*

0.17* 0.13 0.09 0.22* 0.05 0.26

0.08 0.07 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.19

0.17* 0.21 0.02 0.00 0.12 0.16

Note. N = 294. Correlations with an absolute value  0.30 are in bold. DOMIN = Domineering. EXHIB = Exhibitionism. RISK = Risk Taking. MANIP = Manipulativeness. GRAND = Grandiosity. EUPHOR = Euphoria. NEO-PI-3 = NEO Personality Inventory-3. FI-FFM = Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model. HEXACO = Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory. * Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in row. + Highest correlation (absolute value within ± 0.01) in column.

that examined the joint predictive power of all the traits modeled at each level of the hierarchy (e.g., the joint predictive power of FIFFM Communal Extraversion and Agentic Extraversion at the aspect level). Across the 12 analyses, these regressions yielded mean R2 values of 0.184 (aspects), 0.246 (NEO facets), and 0.310 (consensual facets). Thus, the four consensual facets exhibited the greatest predictive power in these data. These results likely reflect the fact that the consensual facets represent the most intensive approach to trait assessment (i.e., they model content from all three hierarchical instruments), thereby reducing the effects of measurement error. In other words, more intensive measurement can be expected to yield stronger findings. Before leaving this topic, we also must acknowledge that the specificity of these relations partially reflects criterion contamination, that is, the presence of overlapping content between the trait scales and the psychopathology measures. For the most part, we do not view this content overlap as problematic, as it reflects inherent similarities between constructs that were derived independently in different contexts. For instance, schizoid PD contains diagnostic criteria (e.g., preference for solitary activities, lack of desire for close relationships) that closely resemble the item content of Sociability measures (e.g., NEO-PI-3 Gregariousness, FI-FFM Sociability). In this case, (low) extraversion content was built into the DSM concept of schizoid PD. In certain instances, however, criterion contamination represents a more serious problem. For instance, Stanton et al. (2017) present results suggesting that some mania and narcissism measures include content that appears to assess adaptive characteristics of extraversion (e.g., mania items that assess sociability), rather than psychopathology per se. This is an issue that merits greater attention in future research.

7.3. Theoretical implications Our findings also have important implications for clarifying the nature of extraversion itself. Here, our data raise a central question: How is it that positively correlated characteristics within the same trait domain have quite different—sometimes even opposite—associations with psychopathology?

As noted earlier, there is growing evidence that individual differences in reward sensitivity play a central role in the nature and structure of the extraversion domain (e.g., DeYoung, 2013; Smillie, 2013). Some data further suggest that the agentic and communal components of the trait are related to the reward system in different ways. Specifically, agentic extraversion is more strongly linked to reward anticipation and incentive motivation (i.e., wanting rewards) and appears to be more substantially related to individual differences in the dopaminergic system; in contrast, communal extraversion is more strongly related to consummatory pleasure (i.e., enjoying rewards) and also reflects variations in the forebrain opioid system (DeYoung, 2013; Smillie, 2013). Moreover, this pattern is congruent with the nature of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, with which communal and agentic extraversion are respectively associated. That is, externalizing pathology involves inappropriate wanting—and acquisition—of rewards (vs. sharing resources fairly), whereas internalizing psychopathology involves insufficient enjoyment of experiences that most people find pleasurable. Thus, work on reward sensitivity potentially can explain both the shared and unique components of various characteristics subsumed within extraversion. Further explicating the shared and unique features of this domain is perhaps the important issue that needs to be addressed in future work in this area.

References Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Decuyper, M., De Pauw, S., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., & De Clercq, B. J. (2009). A metaanalysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PD-, and FFM relations. European Journal of Personality, 23, 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.729. DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi. org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762. Article 762. DeYoung, C. G., Carey, B. E., Krueger, R. F., & Ross, S. R. (2016). Ten aspects of the big five in the personality inventory for DSM-5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000170. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.

10

D. Watson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 81 (2019) 1–10

Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 167–187. https://doi. org/10.1080/00223890701468568. Guilford, J. P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 802–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077101. Johnson, S. L., Leedom, L. J., & Muhtadie, L. (2012). The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 692–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0027503. Kenny, D. A. (1987). Statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F. L., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking ‘‘big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 768–821. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0033291711002674. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment, 25, 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659134. Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.88.1.139. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070. Naragon-Gainey, K., & Watson, D. (2014). Consensually-defined facets of personality as prospective predictors of change in depression symptoms. Assessment, 21, 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114528030. Naragon-Gainey, K., Watson, D., & Markon, K. E. (2009). Differential relations of depression and social anxiety symptoms to the facets of extraversion/positive emotionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 299–310. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0015637. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. (2015). A metaanalytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the dark triad and fivefactor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 83, 644–664. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jopy.12126. Ruiz, M. A., Pincus, A. L., & Schinka, J. A. (2008). Externalizing pathology and the fivefactor model: A meta-analysis of personality traits associated with antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, and their co-occurrence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.4.365. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002.

Smillie, L. D. (2013). Extraversion and reward processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412470133. Stanton, K., Daly, E., Stasik-O’Brien, S. M., Ellickson-Larew, S., Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2017). An integrative analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and the hypomanic personality scale: Implications for construct validity. Assessment, 24, 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115625801. Stanton, K., Gruber, J., & Watson, D. (2017). Basic dimensions defining mania risk: A structural approach. Psychological Assessment, 29, 304–319. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/pas0000337. Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Salkofske (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 261–292). Thousand Oaks, CA. US: Sage Publications, Inc.. Vize, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Collison, K. L., & Miller, J. D. (2018a). Differences among dark triad components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000222. Vize, C. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2018b). FFM facets and their relations with different forms of antisocial behavior: An expanded meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.04.004. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Watson, D., Ellickson-Larew, S., Stanton, K., Levin-Aspenson, H. F., Khoo, S., StasikO’Brien, S. M., & Clark, L. A. (2019b). Development and validation of extraversion aspect scales from the Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM). (in preparation). Watson, D., Ellickson-Larew, S., Stanton, K., Levin-Aspenson, H. F., Khoo, S., StasikO’Brien, S. M., & Clark, L. A. (2019a). Aspects of extraversion and their associations with psychopathology. (submitted for publication). Watson, D., & Naragon-Gainey, K. (2010). On the specificity of positive emotional dysfunction in psychopathology: Evidence from the mood and anxiety disorders and schizophrenia/schizotypy. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 839–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.002. Watson, D., & Naragon-Gainey, K. (2014). Personality, emotions, and the emotional disorders. Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2167702614536162. Watson, D., Nus, E., & Wu, K. D. (2019). Development and validation of the Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM). Assessment, 26, 17–44. https://doi. org/10.1177/1073191117711022. Watson, D., O’Hara, M. W., Naragon-Gainey, K., Koffel, E., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., ... Ruggero, C. J. (2012). Development and validation of new anxiety and bipolar symptom scales for an expanded version of the IDAS (the IDAS-II). Assessment, 19, 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112449857. Watson, D., Stasik, S. M., Ellickson-Larew, S., & Stanton, K. (2015). Extraversion and psychopathology: A facet-level analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000051. Wright, A. G. C., & Simms, L. J. (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/ per0000037.