Components of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy are nested within the Five-Factor Model

The triarchic model of psychopathy is a recently developed model of psychopathy that identifies three primary domains: Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition. These traits overlap substantially with general and pathological five-factor model of personality (Boldness = low Neuroticism + high Extraversion; Meanness = low Agreeableness; Disinhibition = low Conscientiousness). In the current study (total N = 1,266), we compare domains from the triarchic model of psychopathy and five-factor model in relation to self- and informant-report of external criteria (e.g., pathological traits, antisocial behavior), and quantified their absolute similarity using a profile-matching approach. The corresponding traits from these models show large interrelations and very similar convergent and divergent relations, suggesting that unaltered traits from one can be considered excellent representations of the other. Results are discussed in terms of the benefits of using a unifying trait-based model to study psychopathy, as well as personality disorders more broadly

Testing whether the relations between sex and psychopathology are accounted for by structural morphometry in ABCD.

Sex differences in psychopathology are well-established, with females demonstrating higher rates of internalizing (INT) psychopathology and males demonstrating higher rates of externalizing (EXT) psychopathology. Using two waves of data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (N = 6,778 at each wave), the current study tested whether the relations between sex and psychopathology might be accounted for by structural brain differences. In general, we found robust, relatively consistent relations between sex and structural morphometry across waves. Relatively few morphometric brain variables were significantly related to INT or EXT across waves, however, with very small effect sizes when present. Next, we tested the extent to which each morphometric brain variable could account for the associations of sex with INT and EXT psychopathology. We found a total of 26 brain regions that accounted for significant portions of the associations between sex and psychopathology across both waves (almost all related to EXT), although the effects present were very small. The current evidence suggests that in children aged 9–12, multiple whole-brain and regional brain variables appear to statistically account for small portions of the sex-psychopathology links, especially for externalizing

No evidence for morphometric associations of the amygdala and hippocampus with the five-factor model personality traits in relatively healthy young adults.

Despite the important functional role of the amygdala and hippocampus in socioemotional functioning, there have been limited adequately powered studies testing how the structure of these regions relates to putatively relevant personality traits such as neuroticism. Additionally, recent advances in MRI analysis methods provide unprecedented accuracy in measuring these structures and enable segmentation into their substructures. Using the new FreeSurfer amygdala and hippocampus segmentation pipelines with the full Human Connectome Project sample (N = 1105), the current study investigated whether the morphometry of these structures is associated with the five-factor model (FFM) personality traits in a sample of relatively healthy young adults. Drawing from prior findings, the following hypotheses were tested: 1) amygdala and hippocampus gray matter volume would be associated with neuroticism, 2) CA2/3 and dentate gyrus would account for the relationship of the hippocampus with neuroticism, and 3) amygdala gray matter volume would be inversely associated with extraversion. Exploratory analyses were conducted investigating potential associations between all of the FFM traits and the structure of the hippocampus and amygdala and their subregions. Despite some previous positive findings of whole amygdala and hippocampus with personality traits and related psychopathology (e.g., depression), the current results indicated no relationships between the any of the brain regions and the FFM personality traits. Given the large sample and utilization of sophisticated analytic methodology, the current study suggests no association of amygdala and hippocampus morphometry with major domains of personality

Exposure to Celebrities as a Possible Explanatory Mechanism in the Perception of American Narcissism

Recent studies have examined perceived levels of narcissism as rated by Americans and non-Americans and found support for early assumptions that American culture is perceived as narcissistic (Miller et al., 2015; Wolfe, 1976). However, specific reasons for this phenomenon remain unclear. The aim of the current study was to test if proximal, salient exposure to narcissistic exemplars (i.e., celebrities) acts as one mechanism that explains this perception. Participants (N = 300) were randomly assigned to exposure to either celebrity magazines or neutral magazines conditions, and subsequently asked to provide American PNC ratings. No hypothesized differences by condition were found in terms of narcissism or FFM profile; however, American PNCs were rated as pathologically narcissistic in both conditions

Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data.

The Open Science Movement (OSM) emphasizes increased transparency at many of the steps in the scientific process and has improved psychological science. In the present article, we discuss whether such transparency should find its way into the review process. We discuss a priori thoughts and intuitions about the costs and benefits of signing reviews. In terms of benefits, these include greater alignment with OSM and greater accountability leading to increases in civility, care, and thoughtfulness of reviews. The most obvious cost is potential retaliation for negative reviews. To check these intuitions, we surveyed a sample of 358 faculty members about their experience and views on signing reviews. Results both underscored and extended the initial intuitions. Results suggest there are many benefits to increasing the incidence of reviewers signing their reviews. Fears of retaliation seem to be somewhat exaggerated. We discuss possible means of reducing the possibility of retaliation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data.

The Open Science Movement (OSM) emphasizes increased transparency at many of the steps in the scientific process and has improved psychological science. In the present article, we discuss whether such transparency should find its way into the review process. We discuss a priori thoughts and intuitions about the costs and benefits of signing reviews. In terms of benefits, these include greater alignment with OSM and greater accountability leading to increases in civility, care, and thoughtfulness of reviews. The most obvious cost is potential retaliation for negative reviews. To check these intuitions, we surveyed a sample of 358 faculty members about their experience and views on signing reviews. Results both underscored and extended the initial intuitions. Results suggest there are many benefits to increasing the incidence of reviewers signing their reviews. Fears of retaliation seem to be somewhat exaggerated. We discuss possible means of reducing the possibility of retaliation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data

The Open Science Movement (OSM) emphasizes increased transparency at many of the steps in the scientific process and has improved psychological science. In the present article, we discuss whether such transparency should find its way into the review process. We discuss a priori thoughts and intuitions about the costs and benefits of signing reviews. In terms of benefits, these include greater alignment with OSM and greater accountability leading to increases in civility, care, and thoughtfulness of reviews. The most obvious cost is potential retaliation for negative reviews. To check these intuitions, we surveyed a sample of 358 faculty members about their experience and views on signing reviews. Results both underscored and extended the initial intuitions. Results suggest there are many benefits to increasing the incidence of reviewers signing their reviews. Fears of retaliation seem to be somewhat exaggerated. We discuss possible means of reducing the possibility of retaliation

Planned coal mine subsidence in Illinois : a public information booklet

Ope

Recalibrating expectations about effect size: A multi-method survey of effect sizes in the ABCD study.

Effect sizes are commonly interpreted using heuristics established by Cohen (e.g., small: r = .1, medium r = .3, large r = .5), despite mounting evidence that these guidelines are mis-calibrated to the effects typically found in psychological research. This study's aims were to 1) describe the distribution of effect sizes across multiple instruments, 2) consider factors qualifying the effect size distribution, and 3) identify examples as benchmarks for various effect sizes. For aim one, effect size distributions were illustrated from a large, diverse sample of 9/10-year-old children. This was done by conducting Pearson's correlations among 161 variables representing constructs from all questionnaires and tasks from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study® baseline data. To achieve aim two, factors qualifying this distribution were tested by comparing the distributions of effect size among various modifications of the aim one analyses. These modified analytic strategies included comparisons of effect size distributions for different types of variables, for analyses using statistical thresholds, and for analyses using several covariate strategies. In aim one analyses, the median in-sample effect size was .03, and values at the first and third quartiles were .01 and .07. In aim two analyses, effects were smaller for associations across instruments, content domains, and reporters, as well as when covarying for sociodemographic factors. Effect sizes were larger when thresholding for statistical significance. In analyses intended to mimic conditions used in "real-world" analysis of ABCD data, the median in-sample effect size was .05, and values at the first and third quartiles were .03 and .09. To achieve aim three, examples for varying effect sizes are reported from the ABCD dataset as benchmarks for future work in the dataset. In summary, this report finds that empirically determined effect sizes from a notably large dataset are smaller than would be expected based on existing heuristics