Judgment research and the dimensional model of personality.

Comments on the original article "Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model," by T. A. Widiger and T. J. Trull (see record 2007-01685-001). The purpose of this comment is to address (a) whether psychologists know how personality traits are currently assessed by clinicians and (b) the reliability and validity of those evaluations. Although Widiger and Trull argued that the shift to a dimensional model will improve the diagnosis of personality disorders, we can also expect that it will lead to improvements in evaluating personality traits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Yes, cavalier attitudes can have pernicious consequences.

Responds to the comments by J. J. Krueger, K. D. Vohs, and R. F. Baumeister (see record 2007-19520-015) on the current authors' original article, "Do people's self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life" (see record 2007-01685-002). Krueger et al brought up many points with which the current authors agree. Nevertheless, as Krueger et al noted these points of agreement, the current authors focus instead on several points of continued disagreement. In addition, the current authors comment on a few new twists that Krueger et al have added to their argument. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Improving training in methodology enriches the science of psychology.

Replies to the comment Ramifications of increased training in quantitative methodology by Herbet Zimiles (see record 2008-19206-013) on the current authors original article "Doctoral training in statistics, measurement, and methodology in psychology: Replication and extension of Aiken, West, Sechrest, and Reno's (1990) survey of PhD programs in North America" (see record 2007-19520-003). The current authors state that in their recent article, they reported the results of an extensive survey of quantitative training in all PhD programs in North America. They compared these results with those of a similar survey conducted 12 years earlier (Aiken, West, Sechrest, & Reno, 1990), and raised issues for the future methodological training of substantive and quantitative researchers in psychology. The authors then respond to Zimiles three questions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Important questions remain to be addressed before adopting a dimensional classification of mental disorders.

Comments on the original article "Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model," by T. A. Widiger and T. J. Trull (see record 2007-01685-001). Widiger and Trull raised important nosological issues that warrant serious consideration not only for the personality disorders but for all mental disorders as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is revised during the next few years. As argued compellingly by these authors, dimensional classification may indeed offer substantial improvement over the present categorical system. Several questions remain to be addressed in evaluating whether this is the case and, if so, how dimensional classification can be implemented to best serve the disparate users of the DSM. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidentiality, ethics, and informed consent.

Comments on the article Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice model by Mary Alice Fisher (see record 2007-19520-001). In Fisher's excellent and much-needed article, she rightly implied that when discussing ethical dilemmas, psychologists may find themselves saying "consult an attorney" almost as often as they find themselves saying, "consult a fellow psychologist." Fisher's article was meant to turn the ship so to speak, by providing psychologists with a foundation for thinking clearly about confidentiality issues--a foundation that does not use legal arguments as primary building blocks. The above being said, we offer comments about four issues that we hope will add to the fine ideas expressed by Fisher. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Clarifying confidentiality with the ethical practice model.

Replies to comments (see record 2008-14338-012) on the author's original article Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice model (see record 2007-19520-001). The important issues raised by Pipes, Blevens, and Kluck illustrate the complications that can arise in discussing confidentiality and making decisions about it: First, they noted that the term client consent is used by psychologists to mean two quite different things about confidentiality: (a) acknowledgement of its limits and (b) consent to disclose specific information. Second, Pipes et al made several comments about laws, one of which referred to Behnke's (2004) "doors" model. Third, Pipes et al elicited my personal thoughts about the current APA Ethics Code (APA, 2002). Finally, Pipes et al expect the ethical practice model to be used in psychology training programs. The current author hopes it will provide the next generation of psychologists with a clear ethical framework for considering confidentiality issues. Meanwhile, as in this exchange, it can facilitate conversation among colleagues not only about ethical and legal questions but also about cultural issues, personal values, and professional standards that affect our approach to confidentiality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diversity is a compelling interest, and affirmative action is an important strategy for achieving it.

Responds to comments made by Pipes (see record 2007-01685-011) and Kuncel and Sackett (see record 2007-01685-012) on the current authors' original article (see record 2006-01690-003). The current authors respond to the various points raised in the commenting articles, and suggest that diversity is a compelling interest and affirmative action is one means of achieving it. They stand by their original challenge, with the caveat that they do recognize that some tests may predict certain educational outcomes with similar reliability across diverse populations. They suggest that an increase in diversity in psychology would promote a robust exchange of ideas and would be of value to all. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ramifications of increased training in quantitative methodology.

Comments on the article "Doctoral training in statistics, measurement, and methodology in psychology: Replication and extension of Aiken, West, Sechrest, and Reno's (1990) survey of PhD programs in North America" by Aiken, West, and Millsap (see record 2007-19520-003). The current author asks three questions that are provoked by the comprehensive identification of gaps and deficiencies in the training of quantitative methodology that led Aiken, West, and Millsap to call for expanded graduate instruction resources and programs. This comment calls for greater attention to how advances and expansion in the training of quantitative analysis are influencing who chooses to study psychology and how and what will be studied. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A personality trait model for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM): The challenges ahead.

Replies to comments (see record 2010-13810-004), (see record 2010-13810-005), (see record 2010-13810-006), (see record 2010-13810-007) on the original article Personality traits and the classification of mental Disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM–5 and an empirical model of psychopathology by Robert F. Krueger and Nicholas R. Eaton (see record 2010-13810-003). We were sincerely flattered to discover that John Gunderson, Michael First, Paul Costa, Robert McCrae, Michael Hallquist, and Paul Pilkonis provided commentaries on our target article. In this brief response, we cannot hope to discuss the myriad points raised by this august group. Such a task would be particularly daunting given the diversity of the commentaries. Indeed, the diversity of the commentaries provides a kind of “metacommentary” on the state of personality and psychopathology research. That is, the intellectual diversity contained in the commentaries underlines the substantial challenges that lie ahead of us, in terms of articulating a model of personality and psychopathology with both scientific validity and clinical applicability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A triptych on affective science: Response to the commentary.

Reply by the current authors to the comments made by Jaak Panksepps (see record 2009-02352-007), James.A. Russell (see record 2009-02352-008) and Louise Sundararajan (see record 2009-02352-009) on the original article by Peter Zachar (see record 2007-10982-007). I consider the utility of the concept of natural kind, and explore difficulties in applying it reliably. I examine categorical and dimensional approaches to affect with respect to both scientific realism and nominalist approaches to classification. I agree that eliminativist analogies are beneficial but argue that they cannot fully account for the relationship between folk and scientific psychology. I also claim that neither Panksepp's nor Russell's models are incommensurable with Sundararajn's deeper approach to affective science. I suggest that Panksepp's conclusions about the structure of primary affect may be incompatible with the dimensional model, which illustrates the limits of translational work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Commentary on “Personality traits and the classification of mental disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM-5 and an empirical model of psychopathology”.

Comments on the original article Personality traits and the classification of mental Disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM–5 and an empirical model of psychopathology by Robert F. Krueger and Nicholas R. Eaton (see record 2010-13810-003). This article develops the larger theme that the fundamental quantitatively developed architecture of personality provides a sound base for classifying all areas of psychopathology and, more specifically, should underlie the current effort to revise the classification of personality disorders (PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). My commentary is organized around what I perceive to be four significant problems with the proposed change to a trait-based system: (1) unfamiliarity to clinicians (and possibly unfeasibility), (2) lack of clinical utility, (3) the preliminary quality of the science upon which the proposed change is based, and (4) harmful effects on the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The ethics of asking about abuse and the harm of "don't ask, don't tell."

Replies to comments by J. Read (see record 2007-07130-012), D. Gleaves et al (see record 2007-07130-013), V. Edwards et al (see record 2007-07130-014), M. Black and R. Black (see record 2007-07130-015), and S. Ullman (see record 2007-07130-016), which raised important points about the authors' original article (see record 2006-03947-003). Those comments extend our thinking about how to ask participants about abuse in an ethical way. Together, the comments point to the importance of researchers examining our own reasons for asking--or not asking--about abuse and of paying attention to how we respond when we ask. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to commentaries: Raising a new vision of higher education: Psychology and social issues.

Replies to the numerous comments (see cases 2007-09070-001, 2007-09071-001, 2007-09072-001, 2007-09073-001, and 2007-09074-001) made on the current author's original article (see record 2007-09069-001). The crisis in higher education is far more about psychology than it is about education, and appropriately so. "Crisis" is, after all, a term from personality and clinical psychology. Our interventions must be more akin to the cognitive restructuring of psychotherapy than to the experimental or scientific analysis of a substantive issue. We already understand well enough the education part. We have not yet acknowledged the psychological part and unleased the power of action-research that allows us to combine living and knowing in way which does not make them a mutually exclusive choice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On grandiosity in personality psychology.

Responds to the comments by A. Wood and S. Joseph (see record 2006-23492-015); S. R. Maddi (see record 2006-23492-016); and S. Epstein (see record 2006-23492-017) on the current author's original article (see record 2006-03947-002) "A New Big Five: Fundamental Principles for an Integrative Science of Personality" (McAdams & Pals, April 2006). Here, McAdams responds to the objections raised in the three commentaries to his and Pals' characterization of the grand theories of personality provided by Freud, Jung, Rogers, and other luminaries from the first half of the 20th century. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Focusing on weight is not the answer to America's obesity epidemic.

Current authors respond to two comments on their article Medicare's Search for Effective Obesity Treatments: Diets Are Not the Answer (see record 2007-04834-008). The two comments state opposing views of the validity and novelty of the articles conclusions. In his comment, Applebaum (see record 2008-03389-008) claimed that our conclusion is "provocative and unproven" (p. 200), whereas Herman, Van Strien, and Polivy (see record 2008-03389-009) generally agreed with our findings but stated that "this conclusion is hardly new" (p. 202). Research on obesity treatment often leads to polarizing views, and our aim was to present a dispassionate analysis of the methodological issues in the long-term studies of diets. We believe we accomplished this goal, and the conclusions we presented were based on this analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Competing paradigms for anorexia nervosa.

The current author comments on the articles from the April 2007 American Psychologist special issue on eating disorders. The current author states that the contributors to this special issue are to be commended for acknowledging lack of progress in understanding, classifying, and treating anorexia nervosa (AN). They highlighted the acute need to refine diagnosis (see record 2007-04834-004), understand comprehensive causal mechanisms to tune treatments and transcend "hodgepodge diagnoses" (see record 2007-04834-005), study functional neural circuits and link behavior with "genomic, cellular, and systems data" (see record 2007-04834-003), and develop effective treatments (see record 2007-04834-006). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is emotion regulation a useful construct that adds to the explanatory power of learning models of anxiety disorders or a new label for old constructs?

Replies to comments made by Olatunji et al (see record 2007-04834-019) on the current authors' original article (see record 2006-00920-002). Olatunji et al noted that we addressed factors that are likely to potentiate fear and anxiety conditioning but did not address the questions of how, when, and why potentiated fear leads to an anxiety disorder. We thank them for raising these issues so that we have an opportunity to address them. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

More reasons to adopt the five-factor model.

The authors (see record 1987-01218-001) respond to comments by M. M. Dachowski (see record 1988-04372-001) and N. G. Waller and Y. S. Ben-Porath (see record 1988-04405-001) on their 5-factor (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) model of personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Grand theories of personality cannot be integrated.

Comments on the original article "A New Big Five: Fundamental Principles for an Integrative Science of Personality," by Dan P. McAdams and Jennifer L. Pals (see record 2006-03947-002). McAdams and Pals (April 2006) presented a new model to integrate the field of personality psychology. Cultural and evolutionary factors interact with an individual's basic traits, characteristic adaptations, and life narratives, which in turn are linked to roles, demands, and behaviors. The current authors welcome McAdams and Pals's (2006) model for providing a way to integrate much of the previously disparate empirical findings in personality psychology. However, the current authors also think that McAdams and Pals (2006) overstated the inclusiveness of the model, and more generally, the current authors dispute their assertion that the grand theories of personality can be integrated within a single model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Problems with McAdams and Pals's (2006) proposal of a framework for an integrative theory of personality.

Comments on the original article "A New Big Five: Fundamental Principles for an Integrative Science of Personality," by Dan P. McAdams and Jennifer L. Pals (see record 2006-03947-002). Here, the current author begins with a critique of McAdams and Pals's (April 2006) five principles for a framework for an integrative theory of personality. The current author then comments on their statements about the person-situation debate and the failure of personality psychologists to produce an integrative theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)