scholarly journals Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? President Donald Trump’s Personality Profile as Perceived from Different Political Viewpoints

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Keith Campbell ◽  
Courtland Hyatt ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Complex Traits ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Complex Trait ◽  
Emotional Stability ◽  
Personality Profile ◽  
Political Views ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Perceived Helpfulness

The present research used an empirical, crowdsourced trait profiling approach to describe the personality of Trump that accounts for political views. Clinton (N=120) and Trump (N=118) voters rated Trump’s personality on the 30 facets of the Five Factor Model. Participants also provided perceived helpfulness and harmfulness ratings of the facets before and after the election. We treated these facet level ratings as trait profiles, which were transformed into estimates of personality disorders (PDs) and complex trait-based constructs based on expert profiles. Results suggest only modest agreement between Clinton and Trump voters on Trump’s personality. Clinton voters perceived much greater antagonism, lower conscientiousness, and higher levels of impairment in Trump’s personality than did Trump voters who primarily perceived high levels of extraversion and emotional stability (i.e., low neuroticism). At the level of PDs and complex traits, there was some convergence with both groups seeing Trump as high in narcissism and psychopathy.

scholarly journals Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? President Donald Trump’s Personality Profile as Perceived from Different Political Viewpoints

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtland Hyatt ◽  
W. Keith Campbell ◽  
Donald R. Lynam ◽  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Complex Traits ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Complex Trait ◽  
Personality Profile ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Views ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Perceived Helpfulness

The present research used an empirical, crowdsourced trait profiling approach to describe the personality of President Donald Trump (hereafter Trump) that accounts for political views. We recruited participants who voted for Hillary Clinton (N = 120; hereafter Clinton) and Trump (N = 118), and asked them to rate Trump’s personality on the 30 facets of the Five Factor Model. Participants also provided perceived helpfulness and harmfulness ratings of the facets before and after the election. We treated these facet level ratings as trait profiles, which were transformed into estimates of personality disorders (PDs) and complex trait-based constructs based on expert profiles. Results suggest only modest agreement between Clinton and Trump voters on Trump’s personality. Clinton voters perceived much greater antagonism, lower conscientiousness, and higher levels of impairment in Trump’s personality than did Trump voters who primarily perceived high levels of extraversion and emotional stability (i.e., low neuroticism). At the level of PDs and complex traits, there was some convergence with both groups seeing Trump as high in narcissism and psychopathy.

Comparison of categorical and dimensional approaches to the diagnosis of personality disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
T. G. Gadisov ◽  
A. A. Tkachenko
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Categorical Approach ◽  
Personal Traits ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Neo Five Factor Inventory

Summary. Objective: A comparative study of the personality structure from the perspective the Five-factor personality model (“Big Five”) in mentally healthy and in people with personality disorders depending on the leading radical determined by the clinical method.Materials and methods: a comparative study of personality structures in the mentally healthy (13 people) and in individuals with personality disorders (47 people) was carried out. To assess the personality structure, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire was used. Persons with personality disorders were divided into groups in accordance with the leading radical: 24 — with emotionally unstable; 13 — with a histrionic; 6 — with schizoid; 4 — with paranoid radicals.Results: There were no differences in the values of the domains of the Five-Factor personality model between a group of individuals with personality disorders and the norm. The features of domain indicators of the Five-factor personality model were revealed in individuals with personality disorder depending on theradical.Conclusion: The NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire, like most other tools from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model, is not suitable for assessing a person in terms of assigning it to variants of a mental disorder. When comparing the categorical and dimensional approaches to assessing the structure of personality disorders, it was found that the obligate personality traits identified using the categorical approach are fully reflected in the «Big Five» in individuals with a leading schizoid radical. The relations of obligate personal traits with the domains of the Five-factor model of personality in individuals with other (paranoid, histrionic,and emotionally unstable) radicals are less clear.

scholarly journals Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 983-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
LESLIE C. MOREY ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. HOPWOOD ◽  
JOHN G. GUNDERSON ◽  
ANDREW E. SKODOL ◽  
M. TRACIE SHEA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Validation Data ◽  
Categorical Diagnosis ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Marker Variables ◽  
Over Time

Background. The categorical classification system for personality disorder (PD) has been frequently criticized and several alternative dimensional models have been proposed.Method. Antecedent, concurrent and predictive markers of construct validity were examined for three models of PDs: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) model and the DSM-IV in the Collaborative Study of Personality Disorders (CLPS) sample.Results. All models showed substantial validity across a variety of marker variables over time. Dimensional models (including dimensionalized DSM-IV) consistently outperformed the conventional categorical diagnosis in predicting external variables, such as subsequent suicidal gestures and hospitalizations. FFM facets failed to improve upon the validity of higher-order factors upon cross-validation. Data demonstrated the importance of both stable trait and dynamic psychopathological influences in predicting external criteria over time.Conclusions. The results support a dimensional representation of PDs that assesses both stable traits and dynamic processes.

Clinical Utility of the Five Factor Model

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Mullins-Sweatt ◽  
Douglas B. Samuel ◽  
Ashley Helle
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Clinical Application ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Three Components

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the clinical utility of the Five Factor Model (FFM). This chapter will consider the clinical application of the FFM for treatment in general, but its primary focus will be on the clinical utility of an FFM of personality disorders. Discussed herein will be the three fundamental components of clinical utility: ease of usage, communication, and treatment planning. Empirical research concerning the clinical utility of the FFM also will be considered in terms of the three components. Finally, research and examination of clincians’ perspectives of the utilty of categorical and dimensional models of personality will be discussed.

Personality Disorders as Collections of Traits

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

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

scholarly journals A-12 The Dimensionality of Symptoms Before and After Sport-Related Concussion

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 785-785
Author(s):  
J Karr ◽  
G Iverson
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Fit Indices ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Post Injury ◽  
Specific Symptom ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Sleep Arousal

Abstract Objective Multiple factor analyses have examined the dimensionality of physical, emotional, and cognitive symptoms both before and after a sport-related concussion. The current study compared model fit and measurement invariance of five candidate factor models, including a one-factor model, original four-factor model (cognitive-sensory, vestibular-somatic, sleep-arousal, and affective), alternative four-factor model (cognitive, physical, sleep-arousal, and affective), five-factor model (cognitive-sensory separated), and bifactor model. Method Student athletes (N = 1,554; 56.7% boys; age: M = 16.1 ± 1.2) completed the Post-Concussion Symptoms Scale (PCSS) at preseason baseline and after a suspected concussion. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted at both time points, with pre-injury to post-injury measurement invariance models (configural, weak, strong, and strict) also examined. Model results were assessed via fit indices (CFI ≥ .90/RMSEA≤.08) and change-in-fit indices (∆CFI ≤ -.01). Results All models other than the one-factor model showed excellent fit before and after concussion (CFIs>.95/RMSEAs < .06). Based on pre-injury to post-injury invariance analyses, full weak invariance was established for both four-factor and the bifactor models, and partial strict invariance was established for each of these models following modifications. Conclusions Support for partial strict invariance indicates that meaningful comparisons can be made between factor means before and after concussion for the four-factor and bifactor models, evidencing the validity of a total symptom score and specific symptom subscales before and after concussion. The alternative four-factor model may offer an improved conceptual framework compared to the original four-factor model, which included a non-intuitive cognitive-sensory factor. These findings could support the development of normative scores for PCSS subscales for use in research and clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document