Chapter 5

Personality Traits
and Dynamics
Robert F. Bornstein
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Suppose you are assessing the personality of a one is attempting to address in the assessment,
­suspected terrorist, now being held in U.S. custody. the person being evaluated, the setting in which
You have been asked to evaluate this person’s per- the assessment takes place (e.g., clinical, forensic),
sonality traits and dynamics so that officials can and the types of information that different tests
develop a strategy for gaining her trust and decide yield. As in medicine, sometimes decisions regard-
how best to approach and interact with her to learn ing how best to integrate psychological test data
about the inner workings of the network of which are driven by the data themselves—initial scrutiny
she was once a part. You have been assured that no of test results may suggest particular strategies for
coercive techniques will be used to obtain informa- combining and synthesizing the data. As also in
tion from this person but that the ultimate goal is to medicine, sometimes initial scrutiny of psychologi-
develop a long-term working relationship with her cal test results suggests that additional tests should
to help prevent future attacks. be conducted to obtain a more complete picture of
With this in mind, consider two decisions that the person.
must be made. First, if you could select any b­ attery Assessing any complex psychological con-
of tests you would like to assess this person’s per- struct is challenging, especially when that con-
sonality traits and dynamics, which tests would struct involves internal mental states that are not
you choose? Second, what strategies would you use directly observable, or that may not be completely
to integrate data from these tests to illuminate the ­accessible to introspection and self-description,
nuances of this person’s personality as completely even by a respondent motivated to report accu-
as possible? rately (e.g., impulsivity, social skills, defense style).
The first question is comparatively straight­ This chapter discusses the assessment of personality
forward; the second is quite complex. Although we traits and dynamics.
all have our favored tests and measures, based in
part on our background and experience, in part on
DESCRIPTION AND DEFINITION
theoretical orientation, and in part on plain old his-
tory and habit, most of us would select tools that are In this section I define the concepts of personality
psychometrically sound, that capture a broad array and personality assessment. Personality assessment
of constructs, and that vary somewhat in format and is then contrasted with two related constructs:
method so we can capture different manifestations testing and diagnosis.
and levels of personality.
The second question is harder to answer because What Is Personality?
there are few firm guidelines regarding how to inte- The concept of personality is so firmly embedded in
grate personality test data. It depends on the issues the lexicon of popular culture that it has taken on

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14861-005
APA Handbook of Clinical Psychology: Vol. 3. Applications and Methods, J. C. Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, and D. K. Freedheim (Editors-in-Chief)
81
Copyright © 2016 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
APA Handbook of Clinical Psychology: Applications and Methods, edited by J. C.
Norcross, G. R. VandenBos, D. K. Freedheim, and R. Krishnamurthy
Copyright © 2016 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
 Robert F. Bornstein

an interesting metaphorical quality: Without real- which emphasizes underlying—often unconscious—

izing it, people often treat personality as something psychological processes and structures, including
tangible, an attribute that varies in quantity from impulses, defenses, and mental representations of
person to person (as in “She’s full of personality!” self and significant others. Although the dynamic
or “He’s not a bad guy, but no personality”). In fact, tradition is most closely associated with the work of
all people have pretty much the same amount of Sigmund Freud (e.g., 1908/1953a, 1923/1961), there
­personality; it’s just that some have congenial per- have been a number of other influential dynamic
sonalities, and others have more objectionable ones. perspectives, including those associated with object
In the scientific community, personality has tra- relations theory (Kernberg, 1975), self-­psychology
ditionally been equated with the study of individual (Kohut, 1971), attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969),
differences. In contrast to other areas of psychology and humanistic and existential approaches ­(e.g., Frankl,
that seek to delineate general principles that apply 1966; Rogers, 1961). A distinguishing feature of
to broad segments of the population (e.g., how the dynamic view is its emphasis on hidden men-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

moral reasoning changes with age, how semantic tal states in shaping thought, behavior, and affec-
memory differs from episodic memory), personal- tive responding. As a result, the dynamic tradition
ity reflects each person’s unique style of adapting to shifts the focus of personality (and personality
the opportunities and challenges of life. Personality assessment) from overt behavioral predispositions
traits and dynamics are shaped by multiple fac- to underlying processes whose existence must be
tors, including—among other things—biological inferred rather than directly observed.
­predispositions, cultural influences, implicit pro-
cesses (e.g., motives, thoughts, and feelings that may What Is Personality Assessment?
not be fully accessible to conscious awareness), and If personality is the study of individual differences,
social learning that takes place within and outside personality assessment involves quantifying these
the family. individual differences—measuring key features of
Contemporary theories of personality have personality traits and dynamics, alone or in com-
emerged primarily from two historical traditions. bination. As the ensuing discussion shows, the
Trait-based approaches have generally sought to strategies needed to assess personality traits and per-
describe broad domains of responding—overarching sonality dynamics overlap in certain ways, but they
behavioral predispositions that seem relatively stable also present different types of challenges. Regardless
over time, along with the narrower underlying of whether traits or dynamics are the object of study,
dimensions (sometimes called facets) that make up however, two distinctions are central to understand-
these broad domains. Nineteenth-century descrip- ing the basic principles of personality assessment.
tive psychiatry (e.g., Kraepelin, 1889) played a cen-
Testing versus assessment.  Although psycholo-
tral role in the emergence of the trait perspective, as
gists often use the terms testing and assessment
did the factor-analytic approaches of Allport (1937),
interchangeably, they in fact mean different things.
Cattell (1947), and others. Leary’s (1957) two-factor
Handler and Meyer (1998) provided an excellent
love–hate/dominance–submission model was partic-
summary of these differences. They wrote,
ularly important in creating a foundation for modern
trait approaches. Although the specific dimensions Testing is a relatively straightforward
and trait labels evolved over the years (e.g., agency process wherein a particular test is
and communion have replaced dominance and love in administered to obtain a particular
many current models), Leary’s basic framework has score or two. Subsequently, a descrip-
stood the test of time, setting the stage for the devel- tive meaning can be applied to the
opment of circumplex models of personality (e.g., score based on normative, nomothetic
Kiesler, 1996) as well as other related perspectives. findings. . . . Psychological assessment,
The second major influence on modern however, is a quite different enterprise.
personality theory has been the dynamic tradition, The focus here is not on obtaining a

82
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

single score, or even a series of test similar mood disorders. Studies have shown that
scores. Rather, the focus is on taking a in dependent patients the onset of depression often
variety of test-derived pieces of informa- ­follows interpersonal conflict or loss (e.g., the
tion, obtained from multiple methods of breakup of a romantic relationship); in self-critical
assessment, and placing these data in the patients, the onset of depression often follows work-
context of historical information, referral or achievement-related stressors (e.g., failure to get
information, and behavioral observations a hoped-for promotion; Luyten & Blatt, 2013).
in order to generate a cohesive and com- Another advantage of combining diagnostic data
prehensive understanding of the person with assessment data is that assessment data can
being evaluated. (pp. 4–5) help structure treatment in ways that diagnostic
data cannot. Consider, for example, two patients
Assessment versus diagnosis.  These two terms with borderline personality disorder, both of whom
are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are are undergoing insight-oriented psychotherapy.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

actually quite different. Diagnosis involves identify- Although their symptoms are similar, assessment
ing and documenting a patient’s symptoms, with the reveals that the first patient is capable of using
goal of classifying that patient into one or more cat- relatively mature defenses (e.g., intellectualization,
egories whose labels represent shorthand descriptors rationalization) and has reasonably good impulse
of complex psychological syndromes (e.g., social control, whereas the second patient relies on less
anxiety disorder, bulimia nervosa, avoidant person- mature defenses (e.g., projection, denial) and has
ality d­ isorder). Assessment, in contrast, involves greater difficulty controlling impulses. On the
collecting broad information, usually with psycho- basis of these assessment results, the clinician may
logical tests, to disentangle the array of dispositional adopt a relatively unstructured, uncovering treat-
and situational factors that interact to determine a ment strategy in therapy with the first patient,
patient’s subjective experiences, core beliefs, cop- probing and challenging on occasion to help the
ing strategies, and behavior patterns. Put another patient gain insight into the origins and dynam-
way, diagnosis is key to understanding a patient’s ics of his or her difficulties. The second patient
­pathology; assessment is key to understanding the likely requires a more structured and supportive
person with this pathology (Bornstein, 2007a; Finn, therapeutic approach, with insight taking a back
2007, 2011). seat to strengthening of defenses and bolstering of
In clinical settings, assessment data can help coping skills.
strengthen diagnostic data in several ways. First,
although assessment data by themselves should
PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATIONS
never be used to render diagnoses, knowing some-
thing about a patient’s underlying personality Although most people—including most mental
structure can help the clinician differentiate two health professionals—tend to associate clinical
syndromes with similar surface characteristics ­psychology primarily with psychotherapy, person-
(Huprich & Ganellen, 2006; Weiner, 2000). Beyond ality assessment’s clinical history is at least as long
aiding in differential diagnosis, assessment data as that of psychological treatment. The first use of
help contextualize diagnoses by providing informa- the term mental test in the psychological literature
tion regarding personality traits that play a role in referred to intellectual testing (Cattell, 1890), but it
symptom onset and modify symptom course. For did not take long for interest in personality assess-
example, two patients with depression may pres- ment to follow: Two years later, Kraepelin (1892)
ent with similar (even identical) symptoms, but if described the use of a formal free association mea-
assessment reveals that one patient is dependent sure for use with psychiatric patients. Several years
whereas the other is self-critical, the clinician has after that, he outlined a series of personality tests
obtained important information regarding the eti- designed to quantify basic aspects of character and
ology and dynamics of these patients’ ostensibly temperament (Kraepelin, 1895). Most psychologists

83
 Robert F. Bornstein

trace modern personality assessment to the develop- that women and men often express similar
ment of Woodworth’s Personal Data Sheet during underlying conflicts differently (e.g., when low
World War I (Franz, 1919) and to the publication self-esteem is manifested as internalizing disor-
of Psychodiagnostik, Hermann Rorschach’s (1921) ders in women and externalizing disorders in
monograph describing procedures for interpreting men). Culture also shapes the experience and
patients’ responses to his now-famous inkblots. expression of personality traits and dynamics:
Personality assessment continues to play an In many instances, relational styles consid-
important role in contemporary clinical psychology: ered dysfunctional in one culture are norma-
There are more than a dozen categories of mental tive in another (e.g., high levels of expressed
health professionals who treat psychological disor- dependency in adults are problematic in many
ders, but only psychologists are trained and quali- individualistic societies but expected in more
fied to conduct personality assessments. Moreover, sociocentric ones; Castillo, 1997; Yamaguchi,
assessment is a core competency in contemporary 2004). Although the core features of personality
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

clinical psychology (Krishnamurthy & Yaloff, 2010) are relatively stable over time, the way in which
and a central element in professional training and traits and dynamics are expressed evolves with
practice. Personality tests are widely used in clinical age (e.g., in young adults, histrionic personality
settings, of course, but they also play a central role characteristics are often associated with theatri-
in psychological and psychiatric research. During cality and flirtatiousness, but in older adults they
the past several decades, personality assessment has tend to be manifested as somatization; Bornstein,
become commonplace in forensic and organizational Denckla, & Chung, 2015).
contexts (see, e.g., Hilsenroth & Stricker, 2004); 3. The assessment of traits and dynamics often
with the growth of health psychology and behavioral requires different approaches. Traditionally,
medicine, personality assessment has been increas- self-report scales have been the most common
ingly used in medical settings as well (Fuertes, method for assessing personality traits, and
Boylan, & Fontanella, 2009). indirect measures (e.g., performance-based
Five principles guide psychologists’ use of tools such as the Rorschach Inkblot Method
­personality tests in various practice settings: [RIM]) have been used to assess personality
dynamics not amenable to self-report (Archer &
1. Core features of personality are relatively stable Krishnamurthy, 1993a, 1993b; Meyer, 1996,
over time. The earliest manifestations of personal- 1997). With this as context, it is important to
ity traits and dynamics typically take the form note that in recent years various indirect mea-
of individual differences in temperament (e.g., sures have been used to quantify trait domains
activity level, soothability) that are apparent dur- and facets as well (Hopwood, Wright, Ansell, &
ing infancy, sometimes as early as the first few Pincus, 2013), and researchers are increasingly
days of life (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Although combining performance-based test data with
the stability of different personality traits and data derived from interviews and questionnaires
dynamics varies as a function of the construct to obtain a more complete picture of the person
being assessed, the core features of personality (Bornstein, 2010).
are relatively stable over time: Obsessive teenag- 4. Traits are dynamic, and dynamics are traitlike.
ers usually become obsessive adults, and people Although the trait and dynamic perspectives both
who are introverted at age 20 tend to be intro- have long histories, and even today clinicians and
verted at age 50. Reviews of evidence bearing on researchers discuss the two frameworks as if they
the long-term stability of personality traits and were separate, there is in fact considerable over-
dynamics have been provided by Eaton, Krueger, lap between these two approaches (Hopwood
and Oltmanns (2011) and Wagner et al. (2013). et al., 2013). Many underlying personality
2. The expression of traits and dynamics varies across dynamics (e.g., self-concept, defense style) are
gender, culture, and age. Research has confirmed stable over time, with enduring, traitlike qualities

84
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

(Janson & Stattin, 2003). Moreover, trait theo- affective, and motivational dynamics that occur as
rists are increasingly invoking dynamic concepts the respondent perceives, evaluates, and responds to
(e.g., unconscious conflict, parataxic distortion) test stimuli; Bornstein, 2007a, 2011). Table 5.1 uses
to conceptualize the intra- and interpersonal a process-focused framework to classify the array
features of traitlike behavioral predispositions of personality assessment tools used by psycholo-
(Morgan & Clark, 2010; Pincus et al., 2014). gists today, grouping these instruments into five
5. Personality assessment is inextricably inter- categories based on the mental activities involved in
personal. Even the most well-trained, well-­ responding to these tests.
intentioned psychologist brings a set of A comprehensive review of tests in each category
stereotypes and expectations to the assessment would be beyond the scope of this (or any) ­chapter.
(Garb, 1998). These may be based in part on the In the following sections, I describe the major cat-
examiner’s beliefs regarding the patient based on egories of personality tests and highlight the key
that patient’s surface characteristics (e.g., gen- features of representative measures within each
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

der, age), and in part on information obtained category.

about the patient before the assessment (e.g., in
the referral question). The same is true of the Self-Report Tests
patient: His or her beliefs regarding opportunities Also labeled self-attribution tests because they
and risks inherent in the assessment procedure, require the respondent to attribute various thoughts,
coupled with various incidental cues (e.g., the motives, behavior patterns, and emotional states to
physical setting, the appearance and demeanor him- or herself, self-report tests typically take the
of the examiner) combine to alter his or her form of questionnaires wherein people are asked to
approach to testing (e.g., Masling, 2002). The acknowledge whether a series of descriptive state-
interpersonal aspects of personality a­ ssessment ments is or is not true of them or rate the degree to
can never be completely removed from the which these statements describe them accurately.
procedure. Answering self-report test items typically involves
engaging in a retrospective memory search wherein
the respondent tries to determine whether the
MAJOR TESTS AND METHODS
­statement in a test item (e.g., “I would rather be a
There have been myriad efforts to delineate cat- follower than a leader”) is characteristic of his or
egories of psychological tests, with researchers her everyday experience. If instances of this behav-
classifying scales on the basis of content, structure, ior are easily retrieved from memory, the person is
the method used to derive test items, and the pro- inclined to attribute that pattern to him- or herself.
cedures used to validate test scores (Cizek, Rosen- Some self-report tests assess a single personality
berg, & Koons, 2008; Slaney & Maraun, 2008). Any trait or dynamic (e.g., the Pathological Narcissism
scheme for classifying different personality tests Inventory; Pincus et al., 2009); others are omnibus
will have inherent limitations because certain tests tests designed to capture a broad array of traits or
contain elements that do not fit easily into a single dynamics. Three of the more widely used measures
category, and some include features of multiple in this latter category are the NEO Personality
­categories. Moreover, the labels assigned to catego- Inventory (NEO PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992b),
ries of psychological tests are often inaccurate, based the Interpersonal Circumplex (IC) Scales (Kiesler,
more on tradition than on the core elements of the 1996; Wiggins, 1991), and the 16 Personality ­Factor
measure in question (Meyer & Kurtz, 2006). ­Questionnaire (16PF; Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993).
Accumulating evidence has suggested that the Rooted firmly in the trait tradition, the NEO
most heuristic and clinically useful method for clas- PI assesses the five trait domains of the five-factor
sifying personality tests is one based on the psycho- model (FFM; Neuroticism, Openness, Conscien-
logical processes that are engaged when respondents tiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness), along
complete different measures (i.e., the cognitive, with the narrower facets that make up these five

85
 Robert F. Bornstein

TABLE 5.1

A Process-Based Framework for Classifying Personality Tests

Test category Key characteristics Representative tests

Self-report Test scores reflect the degree to which the person NEO Personality Inventory
attributes various traits, feelings, thoughts, Interpersonal Circumplex Scales
motives, behaviors, attitudes, or experiences to
himself or herself.
Performance based Person attributes meaning to ambiguous stimuli, Rorschach Inkblot Method
with attributions determined in part by stimulus Thematic Apperception Test
characteristics and in part by the person’s cognitive
style, motives, emotions, and need states.
Constructive Generation of test responses requires person to Draw-a-Person Test
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

create or construct a novel image or written description Qualitative and Structural Dimensions of Object
within parameters defined by the tester. Relations
Behavioral Test scores are derived from observers’ ratings of Spot Sampling
person’s behavior exhibited in vivo or in a laboratory Moment by Moment Process Assessment
setting.
Informant report Test scores are based on knowledgeable Shedler–Westen Assessment
informants’ ratings or judgments of person’s Procedure–200 Informant Version
characteristic patterns of behavior and responding. Informant report version of the NEO Personality
Inventory

domains (which have also been called the Big Five age differences in NEO PI scores are also gener-
personality traits; Goldberg, 1990). The NEO PI has ally consistent with prevailing evidence in those
been revised several times during the past 30 years, areas (Huang et al., 1997; Widiger & Costa, 2002).
and in addition to the full-length 240-item version, Some critics have noted the NEO PI’s susceptibility
there is a briefer 60-item version of the scale that to self-­presentation effects and recommended inclu-
yields FFM factor but not facet scores, the NEO sion of a separate scale to assess social desirability
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI; Holden et al., and faking, but this sort of validity scale has not
2006; Nysæter et al., 2009). Modified versions of the yet been incorporated into the measure (Ballenger,
NEO FFI focusing on narrower personality domains Caldwell-Andrews, & Baer, 2001).
(e.g., avoidance, dependency, obsessiveness) have Derived from Leary’s (1957) two-dimensional
also been developed (Widiger et al., 2012). framework, the IC conceptualizes personality—and
The NEO PI and its variants have been studied personality pathology—in terms of the two core
extensively in clinical and nonclinical samples, in constructs of agency and communion (Kiesler,
a variety of age groups, and across a broad array of 1996; Wiggins, 1991). The IC takes the form of a
cultures (see Huang, Church, & Katigbak, 1997; circle, typically divided into eight octants, with each
McCrae & Terracciano, 2008). The NEO PI has octant reflecting a unique blend of the core traits
proven psychometrically sound, with strong evi- that make up the two axes. An individual’s place-
dence regarding retest reliability and convergent ment along the perimeter of the IC denotes his or
and discriminant validity with respect to scores her particular blend of agency and communion; the
on other self-report tests, as well as archival and amount of displacement from the center of the circle
life history data (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, 1992b; outward reflects the intensity of the person’s inter-
Young & Schinka, 2001). Cross-cultural com- personal style (e.g., two people might both be domi-
parisons in NEO PI scores typically yield results nant in interpersonal relations and occupy the same
consistent with evidence regarding the contrasting IC octant, but if one is more dominant than the
norms and values of different cultures; gender and other that person would be further from the center).

86
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

A particular strength of the IC is its ability to clinical settings to refine diagnosis and aid in treat-
assess interpersonal complementarity, that is, the ment planning, the 16PF is used in organizational
degree to which concordance exists between the settings and for vocational assessment as well.
interpersonal styles of two members of a dyad,
including dyads composed of friends, romantic Performance-Based Tests
­partners, parent and child, and patient and thera- Performance-based tests (also called stimulus attri-
pist. Complementarity is typically reflected in bution tests) require people to interpret ambiguous
reciprocity along the agency dimension of the IC stimuli, and here the fundamental task is to attri-
(i.e., dominance tends to elicit submission, and bute meaning to a stimulus that can be interpreted
vice versa) and in correspondence along the com- in multiple ways. This attribution process occurs
munion dimension (i.e., warmth tends to evoke in much the same way as the attributions that each
warmth in return, whereas detachment evokes of us make dozens of times each day as we navigate
detachment). An additional strength of the IC is the ambiguities of the social world (e.g., when we
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

that several alternate versions exist for quantify- attempt to infer the motives of a colleague at work,
ing narrower, more focused components of traits, or interpret our friend’s failure to greet us as we
including interpersonal strengths, values, sensitivi- pass on the street). Reviews of performance-based
ties (i.e., vulnerabilities), and covert reactions to assessment tools are presented elsewhere in this vol-
others (e.g., Hatcher & Rogers, 2009; Hopwood ume, so they are discussed more briefly here. Two
et al., 2011). of the most widely used performance based tests
Initially developed during the 1940s using are the RIM and the Thematic Apperception Test
­factor-analytic techniques to uncover basic under- (TAT).
lying traits (sometimes called source traits) from The RIM consists of 10 bilaterally symmetrical
extant measures of everyday behaviors and other inkblots presented to the respondent one at a time;
sources of trait terms (e.g., dictionaries), Cattell’s the respondent is asked to provide open-ended
(1946) 16PF has been revised and updated several descriptions of what he or she sees in each blot, with
times and is now in its fifth edition (Cattell et al., minimal guidance from the examiner. Although
1993). In contrast to most trait measures, the 185 the RIM has been incorrectly labeled “an X-ray of
items that make up the 16PF are phrased to capture the mind” (Piotrowski, 1980, p. 85), evidence has
the respondent’s behaviors in specific situations suggested that the RIM taps both conscious and
rather than his or her report of global behavioral unconscious (implicit) processes and is susceptible
tendencies. In addition to yielding separate scores to faking and dissimulation (though to a lesser
for 16 separate personality factors, the 16PF also degree than most self-report tests; Sartori, 2010).
yields scores for five higher order traits that cor- The RIM, properly scored and interpreted, provides
respond roughly to those of the five-factor model a useful index of the respondent’s cognitive style
(Conn & Rieke, 1994). (e.g., global vs. detail focused), as well as the themes
Evidence supports the construct validity of (e.g., helplessness, aggression) that are most promi-
scores on the 16PF, documenting theoretically nent in the respondent’s mind at the time of testing
­predicted links with scores on other self-report (Bornstein, 2012).
scales that tap similar trait constructs, as well as After Rorschach’s death in 1923, shortly after
knowledgeable informants’ reports of the indi- the inkblots were published, a multiplicity of RIM
vidual’s behavior patterns (Conn & Rieke, 1994). scoring and interpretation systems emerged, some
Evidence supporting the retest reliability and fac- of which were psychometrically sound and clinically
tor structure of the 16PF is also strong, and the useful, others of which were not. Exner’s (1974,
measure has demonstrated utility across a variety 2003) Comprehensive System combined many
of cultures and subcultures and in different age of the strongest features of extant RIM scoring
cohorts (Booth & Irwing, 2011; Irwing, Booth, & methods and dominated Rorschach use for several
Batey, 2014). In addition to being frequently used in decades. Recently, an alternative RIM scoring and

87
 Robert F. Bornstein

interpretation system, the Rorschach Performance attribution tests, which require respondents to
Assessment System (Meyer et al., 2011) was devel- describe stimuli whose essential properties were
oped, emphasizing those Comprehensive System determined a priori, in constructive tests the stimu-
variables that had garnered the strongest empirical lus exists only in the mind of the respondent (e.g., a
support (Mihura et al., 2013), as well as variables self-schema or parental image).
from outside the Comprehensive System that add Projective drawings such as the Draw-a-Person
clinical utility and predictive value to Rorschach (Machover, 1949), Kinetic Family Drawing (Burns,
Performance Assessment System indices. In addition 1982), and House Tree Person test (Buck, 1966)
to these omnibus RIM scoring systems, several nar- continue to be used in clinical settings, although
rower scoring systems have also obtained empirical they have fallen out of favor in recent years in part
support (Bornstein & Masling, 2005), for example, because of a paucity of evidence supporting their
a thought disorder index (Johnston & Holtzman, construct validity and clinical utility (e.g., Groth-
1979) and an oral dependency scale (Masling, Marnat, 1999). Scores derived from the Draw-a-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Rabie, & Blondheim, 1967). Person, Kinetic Family Drawing, and House Tree
Like the RIM, the TAT consists of a series of Person test do provide useful information regard-
ambiguous stimuli to which the respondent must ing certain personality dynamics (e.g., self-esteem,
attribute meaning. Unlike the RIM, TAT stimuli social anxiety), but even here they are best used in
depict recognizable scenes, most of which involve conjunction with other well-established measures
one or two people engaged in an activity, the nature of similar or overlapping constructs (Matto, 2002).
of which is open to interpretation (Jenkins, 2008). Projective drawings appear most useful with chil-
Respondents’ open-ended descriptions of the events dren and adults who have experienced trauma; in
in the scene are scored for narrative content (e.g., these populations, such measures are not only use-
prevailing themes) and sometimes for structure as ful in assessing underlying personality dynamics but
well (e.g., degree of articulation of the characters’ may also have therapeutic value because they afford
inner life). Murray’s (1943) original TAT scor- patients an opportunity to express aspects of their
ing system focused on the main character’s needs inner experience and affect that are not easily ver-
(motives), and press (aspects of the individual, his balized (Smyth, Hockemeyer, & Tulloch, 2008).
or her environment, or both that affected the char- Blatt’s Qualitative and Structural Dimensions of
acter’s ability to achieve his or her goals). Updated, Object Representations (QSDOR) scale (e.g., Blatt
empirically validated scoring systems for specific et al., 1988) is a widely used constructive test in
needs (e.g., need for achievement, need for power) clinical settings and has a strong empirical founda-
are still in use (e.g., Koestner, Weinberger, & tion. The QSDOR is designed to capture key features
McClelland, 1991), but press has been less widely of the individual’s self- and object representations;
studied in recent years. In addition, methods have administration involves asking the respondent to
been developed to score qualities of a respondent’s describe him- or herself or another significant figure
mental representations of self, others, and self–other (e.g., mother, father, therapist, God, ideal romantic
interactions (Westen’s 1995 Social Cognition and partner) on a blank sheet of paper (one sheet per
Object Relations Scale) and defense style (Cramer’s description). Because the QSDOR uses open-ended
2006 Defense Mechanisms Manual). descriptions rather than questionnaire items to
assess qualities of self- and object representations,
Constructive Tests it is less susceptible than other self-report scales to
Constructive tests are distinguished from performance- social desirability and self-presentation effects.
based tests because constructive tests require Administration of the QSDOR is straightforward;
respondents to create—literally to construct—novel scoring is not. Scores derived from respondents’
products (e.g., drawings, written descriptions) with open-ended descriptions are grouped into five
minimal guidance from the examiner and no test broad categories that capture both the content and
stimuli physically present. In contrast to stimulus the structure of the representation: (a) conceptual

88
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

sophistication (e.g., complexity, conceptual level), principle underlying MMPA is that the circumplex
(b) relatedness (e.g., closeness vs. distance), can be conceptualized as a circle defined by the
(c) cognitive attributes (e.g., reflectivity, ambiva- orthogonal axes of agency and communion. MMPA
lence), (d) key traits (e.g., self-criticism, benevo- uses a computer joystick to record moment-by-
lence), (e) developmental qualities (e.g., articulation, moment variations in behavior, with the observer
self-definition), and (f) affect (e.g., anxiety, depres- using the joystick to rate target individuals on a
sion). Interrater reliability in QSDOR scoring is computer monitor. In line with the IC as tradition-
excellent (Blatt, Auerbach, & Levy, 1997), and evi- ally conceptualized, the various positions of the
dence regarding the convergent and discriminant ­joystick reflect the person’s degree of dominance
validity of QSDOR scores is quite good (Bers et al., versus submissiveness (on the vertical axis) and
1993). In a series of studies, Blatt and his colleagues friendliness versus hostility (on the horizontal axis).
found that QSDOR scores help predict potential to As the observer indicates momentary changes in
benefit from insight-oriented therapy (Blatt & Ford, inter­personal behavior by shifting the joystick, the
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1994). Moreover, QSDOR scores shift in the positive computer records the joystick position, and the
direction, as expected during the course of success- resulting pattern provides a continuous sampling
ful treatment (e.g., Blatt et al., 1996). of the target person’s behavior in real time (Sadler
et al., 2009).
Behavioral Measures One advantage of MMPA over traditional
Most measures in this category involve rating the ­observation is that joystick techniques circumvent
behavior of individuals in vivo, either as these the problem of asking judges to mentally aggregate
behaviors occur or at some later date (in which case, ratings themselves through recollection of observed
video recordings of the individuals being evalu- behaviors; evidence has suggested that people
ated are typically used to assign behavioral ratings). are poor information processers in this regard,
Diary methods have been used in this domain as subject to myriad biases and distortions as they use
well, with respondents being asked to record their heuristics to combine ratings (Kahneman, 2011;
own behaviors at specified intervals, usually using Westen & Weinberger, 2004). A number of studies
structured rating forms. As behavioral assessment have supported the validity and utility of MMPA in
methods have become increasingly sophisticated, the assessment of spontaneous and goal-directed
the selection of behavioral episodes to be evaluated behavior in clinical contexts and laboratory set-
has become more refined, with spot sampling tech- tings (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2013; Sadler, Ethier, &
niques used to ensure that behaviors are assessed Woody, 2011).
in a representative array of situations and contexts
and at various times during the day. Technological Informant Reports
advances have allowed respondents to record behav- Behavioral measures are distinguished from
ior using smartphones and other hand-held devices ­informant reports, in which data are derived from
in lieu of diaries, and these technologies have fur- knowledgeable informants’ descriptions or rat-
ther enhanced the ecological validity of spot sam- ings (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1991). In both cases,
pling by allowing researchers to signal participants judgments are made by an individual other than
at random or predetermined intervals. the person being evaluated, but different psycho-
Other behavioral measures are used primar- logical processes are involved in generating these
ily in laboratory situations; particularly promis- judgments: observational measures based on direct
ing among these is moment-by-moment process observation and recording of behavior and infor-
assessment (MMPA, also known as the “joystick mant report tests based on informants’ retrospective,
technique”), a method for online evaluation of the memory-derived conclusions regarding charac-
behavior of an individual or dyad. To date, most teristics of the target person. Use of retrospection
MMPA research has been based on the IC, and—as introduces an additional source of potential distor-
is true of IC research more generally—the central tion to informant reports, given the well-established

89
 Robert F. Bornstein

biasing effects of attributional heuristics (e.g., the than informant reports for most personality traits
actor–observer effect) and flawed retrieval strategies and dynamics (Vazire, 2006). Thus, effective use
in accessing episodic memories (Bornstein, 2011; of informant-report data in clinical and research
Meyer et al., 2001). ­settings requires that these data be used primar-
Sometimes informant reports are obtained via ily to add additional perspective regarding overt
structured or unstructured interview (e.g., Dreessen, ­behavioral predispositions rather than hidden men-
Hildebrand, & Arntz, 1998). In addition, modified tal states, which may best be assessed via perfor-
versions of widely used self-report instruments are mance-based measures and constructive tests.
available to obtain informant reports of the traits
and behavioral predispositions captured by these
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY TEST DATA
instruments. For example, along with the self-report
version of the NEO PI (Form S), there is a version Selecting personality measures for inclusion in
of the measure (Form R) specifically designed for a test battery is comparatively straightforward;
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

knowledgeable informants. The same is true of the ­integrating data derived from these measures
Shedler–Westen Assessment Procedure (Shedler & is more challenging. Beyond providing a useful
Westen, 2007) and the IC, both of which have sepa- method for classifying the array of personality scales
rate self-report and informant-report versions. The in use today, the process-focused model provides a
psychometric properties of the informant report framework for combining and integrating the data
version of the NEO PI—Revised seem comparable produced by different tests. When this process-
to those of the self-report version (Kurtz, Lee, & focused emphasis is combined with the clinical and
Sherker, 1999); similar findings have emerged for empirical findings described in the previous sec-
self- versus informant reports on the IC (Hopwood tions (i.e., evidence regarding the construct valid-
et al., 2013) and the Shedler–Westen Assessment ity and clinical utility of individual measures), five
Procedure (Bradley et al., 2007). principles emerge to guide clinicians in integrating
The clinical utility of informant report data lies in personality test data.
its potential to add unique information not obtained
by self-report, and evidence has confirmed that data Select Measures With Contrasting
obtained from well-validated informant reports Strengths and Limitations
do in fact add incremental validity to a psychologi- No psychological test is perfect; all have flaws.
cal test battery (Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, By combining the results from tests with contrasting
2005; Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2009). Not sur- strengths and limitations, psychologists can obtain
prisingly, given the contrasting perspectives of self a more complete picture of the construct being
and observer, and the different processes involved assessed. For example, many people are reluctant
in generating ratings (Bornstein, 2011), self-reports to acknowledge the presence of socially undesirable
and reports by knowledgeable informants typically traits (e.g., aggressiveness, hostility) in themselves.
yield cross-observer correlations in the range of .3 to Because the high face validity of many questionnaire
.4 (Schwartz et al., 2011; Vazire, 2006). These inter- and interview measures renders them susceptible
correlations tend to be somewhat lower in clinical to social desirability and self-presentation effects,
samples (Hoerger et al., 2011) and forensic popula- these measures provide an incomplete picture of
tions (Keulen-de-vos et al., 2011) than in samples of the respondent’s personality in these domains. By
college students and community adults. administering a parallel measure of the same con-
Evidence has further suggested that informant struct with low face validity (i.e., a well-validated
reports are most accurate when informants are performance-based or constructive test), another
asked to judge a target person’s expressed behaviors index of the trait or dynamic of interest can be
(e.g., aggressiveness) rather than his or her inter- obtained—one less susceptible to self-presentation
nal states (e.g., anxiety). When internal states are effects, and one that in some respects provides a
assessed, self-reports appear to be better predictors purer measure of that construct.

90
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

Another example of increasing incremental valid- they can be minimized by interspersing measures
ity by selecting measures with contrasting strengths that could potentially produce carryover effects
and limitations involves self-reports and informant with scales that tap a different set of psychological
reports. Whatever limitations they may have, self- processes (e.g., an intelligence test or neurologi-
report tests are the best means available for deter- cal screen). These intervening measures act as filler
mining how people perceive and present themselves. tasks that allow thoughts and emotional reactions
Such self-perceptions and self-presentations may or evoked by one personality test to subside before the
may not be accurate, but they nonetheless provide patient completes a second personality test that taps
unique information that no other type of test can similar or overlapping constructs. The same is true
provide. These strengths notwithstanding, in certain in research settings when multiple personality tests
situations observer ratings provide valuable infor- are administered to the same participants.
mation beyond that available in self-reports. For
example, among military recruits, reports of person- Focus on Meaningful Test
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

ality disorder symptoms provided by knowledgeable Score Discontinuities

informants (in this case, fellow recruits) were better Only by understanding the psychological processes
predictors of success in basic training than were engaged by different types of tests can test score
recruits’ self-reports of personality disorder symp- convergences and divergences be meaningfully
toms (Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2009). Put another interpreted. Given the contrasting psychological
way, in this particular setting the best predictor of processes that characterize different personality
the likelihood that a recruit would succeed or fail scales, it is not surprising that tests that assess the
was his colleagues’ reports of his level and type of same construct using different methods often yield
personality pathology; the recruit’s self-reported divergent results. Self-report and performance-based
personality pathology had less predictive value. measures of interpersonal dependency typically
show intertest intercorrelations in the .2 to .3 range
Be Cognizant of Order and Priming Effects (Bornstein, 2002); similar modest correlations are
It is easy to understand how completing a self-report obtained for self-report and performance-based mea-
measure of aggressiveness might alter a patient’s sures of need for achievement (McClelland, Koest-
performance-based aggression scores. After all, ner, & Weinberger, 1989), and in other domains as
the retrieval of aggression-related autobiographi- well Meyer et al., 2001). In both research and clini-
cal memories inherent in responding to self-report cal settings, scrutiny of these test score discontinui-
items will prime aggression-related thoughts and ties can be revealing.
emotions (Bargh & Morsella, 2008); when aggres- For example, to examine the underlying
sion schemas are activated in this way, they move ­dynamics of dependent and histrionic personality
from long-term memory to working memory and disorders, Bornstein (1998) used the Personality
are more likely to shape the respondent’s inter­ Diagnostic Questionnaire—Revised to select col-
pretations of ambiguous stimuli such as inkblots lege students with clinically elevated symptoms
(Bornstein, 2007b). of dependent personality disorder, histrionic
The reverse is true as well, even if the effects personality disorder, another Diagnostic and Sta-
are more subtle. Just as completing self-report tistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition
aggression test items will alter subsequent stimulus personality disorder, or no personality disorder.
attributions, if a patient generates a large number He then administered a well-validated performance-
of aggression-related responses on the Rorschach based measure of interpersonal dependency, the
he or she is, in effect, self-priming aggression, and Rorschach Oral Dependency scale (Masling et al.,
inadvertently activating aggression-related schemas 1967), and a well-validated self-report measure of
that may alter subsequent self-attributions. There dependency, the Interpersonal Dependency Inven-
is no way to eliminate the potential biasing effects tory (Hirschfeld et al., 1977), to obtain information
of order and priming effects in a test battery, but regarding implicit and self-attributed dependency

91
 Robert F. Bornstein

strivings in the four groups. Students in the depen- involving specific symptom-related behaviors;
dent personality disorder and histrionic personality many ostensibly problematic personality patterns
disorder groups obtained significantly higher scores and coping styles actually enhance functioning in
on the Rorschach Oral Dependency scale than did certain circumstances (e.g., obsessive perfectionism
students in the other two groups, suggesting that is not only associated with increased risk for depres-
both dependent and histrionic personality disorders sion, but also with increased achievement motiva-
are associated with high levels of implicit depen- tion and career success; Luyten & Blatt, 2013).
dency strivings. Only those students in the depen-
dent personality disorder group obtained elevated Place Personality Assessment Data in
scores on the Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, the Broadest Possible Context
however; the scores of histrionic students did not The life experiences of assessor and patient invari-
differ from those with another personality disorder, ably have an impact on the interpersonal inter-
or no personality disorder. Thus, both dependent actions that take place during an assessment
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

and ­histrionic personality disorders are associated (Dadlani, Overtree, & Perry-Jenkins, 2012). To
with elevated implicit dependency strivings, but date, most writing in this area has focused on
individuals with dependent personality disorder patients’ cultural experiences and the impact of
acknowledge those strivings when asked, whereas these experiences on disclosure, dissimulation, and
those with histrionic personality disorder do not. diagnostic accuracy. Competent assessors must
These patterns have important implications for become aware of the impact of their own personal
understanding the dynamics of dependent and his- cultural experiences and social identities as well and
trionic pathology and for clinical work with depen- how these aspects of the self will affect how they
dent and histrionic patients. perceive and interact with patients. Complicating
this effort, clinicians—as do their patients—have
Assess Coping and Resilience as Well as multiple social identities, certain of which may be
Pathology and Deficit particularly germane when assessing a particular
Whatever the psychologist’s preferred type of test, it patient (e.g., the psychologist’s life experience
is important to include in any personality assessment related to sexual orientation may be particularly
battery measures that yield scores tapping strengths salient when working with a patient when issues
as well as deficits. Many measures of personality regarding sexuality are a part of the presenting
traits and dynamics (e.g., IC, RIM, QSDOR, NEO ­problem or referral question).
PI) include subscales that capture the respondent’s From the perspective of the patient, culture
psychological assets and resources as well as areas of affects personality assessment in another way:
difficulty (Meyer et al., 2011; Widiger et al., 2012). ­Cultural norms and values not only shape per-
It may also be useful to include in a battery mea- sonality and moderate risk for particular forms
sures designed to tap coping and resilience, in part of psychopathology (Castillo, 1997), but they
to provide a more balanced picture of the patient also influence the manner in which psychologi-
and in part because such measures yield data that cal problems are expressed—they help determine
are useful in risk management and treatment plan- the unique idiom of distress that emerges within a
ning. Several well-validated measures of psycho- particular culture (Huang et al., 1997; Katz, 2013).
logical resilience are available, including the Ego Thus, for example, symptoms of depression tend to
Resiliency scale (Alessandri et al., 2012) and the be experienced in more physical or somatic ways
Resilience Scale for Adults (Friborg et al., 2003); the in people raised in traditional Caribbean societies,
latter has the advantage of assessing external factors and avoidant tendencies tend to be exacerbated
that help promote resilience (e.g., family and social most strongly in interactions with figures of author-
support) as well as salient dispositional factors (e.g., ity (rather than peers) in people who were raised
perception of oneself as a strong person). Beyond in Japan, a pattern that contrasts with those of
resilience, it may be useful to assess adaptation people raised in the United States and Great Britain

92
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

(Widiger & Bornstein, 2001). Formal assessment Delineating and quantifying different levels of
of the patient’s cultural norms, expectations, and personality constitute a notable accomplishment
values provides important context for other types of in personality assessment as well, and assessment
diagnostic information (Dadlani et al., 2012; see also psychologists have made great strides in this regard,
Chapter 13, this volume). developing sophisticated frameworks for concep-
tualizing the interplay of different manifestations
of personality traits and dynamics. Three other key
MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
accomplishments are in various ways related to
Concepts in psychology reemerge anew in different ­psychologists’ ongoing efforts to describe and assess
subfields, rediscovered (or “reinvented”) by theo- different levels of personality.
rists and researchers with divergent backgrounds
and theoretical orientations. This can be problem- Multimethod Assessment
atic when existing constructs are co-opted and In most testing situations, multimethod assessment
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

renamed without acknowledging the original source will yield richer, more clinically useful data than
(e.g., in cognitive psychologists’ use of the term assessment that relies exclusively on measures from
dichotomous thinking without acknowledging the a single modality. From a psychometric standpoint,
construct’s psychodynamic roots in the ego defense multimethod assessment helps minimize the nega-
of splitting; Bornstein, 2005), but it also stands as tive impact of reliability and validity limitations
evidence of the construct’s heuristic and clinical inherent in different types of tests because these
value. limitations tend to vary across modality (Bornstein,
Clinical psychologists of varied backgrounds 2010). From a clinical standpoint, when test data
have, in different ways, delineated distinct levels from different modalities are integrated and test
of personality. More than a century ago, Freud score convergences and divergences are explored,
(1905/1953b, 1908/1953a) distinguished con- multimethod assessment allows aspects of a patient’s
scious, preconscious, and unconscious psychologi- dynamics that might otherwise go unrecognized
cal dynamics; 5 decades later a somewhat similar to be scrutinized directly (e.g., conflicts, defenses,
distinction was made by Leary (1957), who dis- unconscious motives, and other areas in which
tinguished conscious (expressed) self-description, the patient has limited insight or is overtly self-
private symbolization of personal experience, and deceptive). In the era of managed care, in which
unexpressed unconscious processes. More recently, cost-effective intervention is a primary focus, mul-
McAdams (2013) sought to distinguish levels of timethod assessment holds considerable promise in
personality in the context of the emergence and allowing clinicians to tailor psychological treatment
maturation of the self from infancy through late to the needs of the individual patient. Although in
adulthood. As McAdams noted, the incipient self the short term, multimethod assessment is more
emerges during childhood primarily as a social costly and labor intensive than unimodal assess-
actor, perceiving and responding to contingencies ment, in the long term multimethod assessment
in the person’s environment. By late childhood, a may prove cost effective.
second layer of personality begins to coalesce as Multimethod assessment seems particularly
reflectivity and intrinsic motivation increasingly ­useful in situations in which the patient’s ability
shape behavior, and the person begins to articulate or willingness to describe his or her behavior and
personal goals, motives, and values. A third layer inner experience accurately is compromised (e.g.,
of personality forms in adolescence, continuing to when undesirable traits and dynamics are assessed;
evolve throughout adulthood as the self, now auto- ­Widiger et al., 2012) or in settings in which dis-
biographical author, constructs a cohesive (if not simulation is likely (e.g., forensic contexts; Hilsen-
always accurate) life narrative that imbues the indi- roth & Stricker, 2004; Mihura, 2012). The domains
vidual with a sense of identity, meaning, purpose, of behavior and mental functioning most salient
and temporal continuity. to the assessment (e.g., stress tolerance, parental

93
 Robert F. Bornstein

fitness, potential to benefit from psychotherapy) and defense mechanisms. A major accomplishment
then determine which test modalities are most use- of personality assessment is to offer feedback in a
ful. Similar logic holds when integrating personal- stepwise, collaborative manner that facilitates its
ity test data with data derived from a patient’s life ­usefulness and increases treatment success.
records and with data provided by knowledgeable
informants; in these domains, test score convergen- Using Assessment Data to Track
ces and discontinuities may both be informative. Therapeutic Progress
Cates (1999) likened personality assessment to a
Therapeutic Assessment snapshot of the patient’s functioning; he went on to
Throughout much of the 20th century, the empha- note that “no matter how exhaustive the battery of
sis in personality assessment was on acquiring assessment techniques, no matter how many cor-
information about a patient to facilitate risk man- roborative sources, and no matter how lengthy the
agement and enhance treatment planning. Finn’s assessment procedure, the assessment describes a
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

(2007, 2011) groundbreaking work on therapeutic moment frozen in time, described by the psycholo-
­assessment shifted the focus of personality assess- gist” (p. 637). Cates’s insightful observation has
ment from exploration to engagement. A plethora of both positive and negative implications for per-
evidence has confirmed that when conceptualized as sonality assessment. On the negative side, as Cates
a collaborative process in which assessor and patient suggested, no matter how thorough the assessment,
work together, therapeutic assessment not only it can only capture the essence of the patient’s
yields particularly useful personality test data but ­functioning at the time he or she is tested; any infer-
also sets the stage for increased therapeutic effec- ences the assessor draws regarding past adjustment
tiveness (Newman & Greenway, 1997; Poston & or future behavior are exactly that—inferences.
Hanson, 2010). On the positive side, however, the fact that
As in any therapeutic interaction, too direct a chal- ­personality assessment captures the patient’s func-
lenge to the patient’s status quo may be unsettling, tioning at a given moment presents an opportunity
but assessment feedback provided gradually, in man- to use assessment data to track progress during the
ageable doses, has the potential to motivate patients course of psychological treatment. That represents a
to engage the assessment process more deeply and major accomplishment and advance in psychother-
understand themselves better. Thus, Finn (1996) apy. Tracking client progress and discussing that
argued that personality assessment feedback should progress (or lack thereof) during the therapy ses-
be offered to patients in a stepwise manner, moving sion improves outcome and decreases deterioration
from information that is generally consistent with of ­at-risk patients by at least one third (Lambert,
the patient’s self-concept toward information that 2010). Along somewhat different lines, research has
increasingly challenges the person’s understanding shown that in many ways changes in personality
of him- or herself and the world. In Finn’s model, functioning represent a more heuristic and clini-
Level 1 information is congruent with the patient’s cally useful index of therapeutic progress than do
self-view and, as a result, Level 1 feedback is gen- changes in symptom patterns (McWilliams, 2011).
erally readily accepted and assimilated into the Moreover, changes in personality functioning often
patient’s life narrative. Level 2 information is mildly precede changes in symptomatology and expressed
discrepant from the patient’s self-view but can—if behavior, providing clinicians and clinical research-
delivered empathically—modify in a beneficial way ers with an early index of incipient therapeutic
the patient’s usual ways of thinking about him- or change (Blatt & Ford, 1994; Hilsenroth, 2007).
herself. Level 3 findings are highly discrepant from
the patient’s habitual way of thinking. This kind of
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
feedback is typically anxiety provoking, requires con-
siderable cognitive and affective accommodation, and Personality assessment has come a long way since
mobilizes the patient’s characteristic coping strategies publication of Woodworth’s Personal Data Sheet in

94
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

1919 and Psychodiagnostik in 1921; since then, our literature on personality pathology; many personal-
ability to quantify the central features of personal- ity disorder researchers do not integrate findings
ity traits and dynamics has become increasingly from the personality literature. To maximize the
nuanced and sophisticated. To be sure, challenges heuristic value and clinical utility of personal-
remain. For example, myriad studies have demon- ity assessment, we must develop a more unified
strated that behavior varies predictably over time approach to the study of personality—one that inte-
and across situation, so that in both research and grates findings regarding normal and pathological
clinical settings an interactionist perspective is personality functioning.
needed to conceptualize and quantify the “if–then” Finally, we must continue to make explicit the
contingencies characteristic of personality (Mischel, ways that personality assessment enhances psycho-
Shoda, & Mendoza-Denton, 2002; Morf, 2006). In logical treatment. Finn’s (2007, 2011) therapeutic
addition, assessing unobservable constructs (e.g., assessment has been exemplary in this regard, as
insecurity, rigidity) entails certain construct validity have the ongoing research programs examining
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

challenges that are not faced when overt behavior the ways in which personality assessment data can
is assessed (e.g., selecting appropriate comparison inform treatment planning (Diener & Monroe,
and outcome measures, integrating correlational 2011; Hilsenroth, 2007; Lambert, 2010). Such
and experimental test score validation methods). investigations have always had considerable clinical
Alongside challenges come opportunities. Three import, but given the impact of managed care on
directions stand out. practice, research programs illuminating the ways
First, we must reconnect personality assessment in which personality assessment can enhance thera-
with neighboring fields within and outside psychol- peutic process and outcome are especially needed
ogy to strengthen its empirical foundation. An inte- (see Westen, Novotny, & Thompson-Brenner,
grative perspective on personality assessment draws 2004). Studies such as these not only benefit our
on ideas and findings from psychology’s subfields patients and our discipline but go a long way toward
(e.g., developmental, cognitive, social) as well as recapturing clinical psychology’s historical identity
those of other disciplines (e.g., neuroscience). As as a profession that focuses on the assessment of
connections between personality and other areas personality traits and dynamics.
of psychology are forged, the science and practice
of personality assessment will be enhanced (Robin- References
son & Gordon, 2011; Solms & Turnbull, 2011). The Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., Quay, H. C., Conners,
C. K., & Bates, J. E. (1991). National survey of
diversity of viewpoints that can emerge from ongo-
problems and competencies among four- to sixteen-
ing exchange across different areas of inquiry will year-olds: Parents’ reports for normative and clinical
not only help resolve some long-standing controver- samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in
sies but also enhance personality assessment in the Child Development, 56(3).
21st century and beyond. Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Caprara, G., & Letzring,
Second, we must strengthen links between the T. D. (2012). The Ego Resiliency Scale revised: A
crosscultural study in Italy, Spain, and the United
study of personality and the study of personality States. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
pathology. Recent efforts to refine our understand- 28, 139–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/
ing of personality disorders and revise extant diag- a000102
nostic systems have been fraught with controversy Allport, G. (1937). Personality: A psychological
(Clarkin & Huprich, 2011; Skodol, 2012). In part, interpretation. New York, NY: Holt.
the contentious debates surrounding these efforts Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1993a). Combining
stem from the fact that research on personality the Rorschach and the MMPI in the assessment
of adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment,
pathology has become increasingly distant from 60, 132–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
research on personality traits and dynamics. Few s15327752jpa6001_10
academic psychologists who study personality in Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1993b). A review
laboratory and field settings are well versed in the of MMPI and Rorschach interrelationships in

95
 Robert F. Bornstein

adult samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 99–102.
61, 277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2007.00067.x
s15327752jpa6102_9
Bornstein, R. F. (2007b). Might the Rorschach be a
Ballenger, J. F., Caldwell-Andrews, A., & Baer, R. A. projective test after all? Social projection of an
(2001). Effects of positive impression management on undesired trait alters Rorschach Oral Dependency
the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised in a clinical scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 354–367.
population. Psychological Assessment, 13, 254–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701333514
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.254 Bornstein, R. F. (2010). Psychoanalytic theory as a
Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious unifying framework for 21st century personality
mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 73–79. assessment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 27, 133–152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00064.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015486
Bers, S. A., Blatt, S. J., Sayward, H. K., & Johnston, Bornstein, R. F. (2011). Toward a multidimensional
R. S. (1993). Normal and pathological aspects of model of personality disorder diagnosis: Implications
self-descriptions and their change over long-term for DSM–5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93,
treatment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 10, 17–37. 362–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.​
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0079432 2011.577474
Blatt, S. J., Auerbach, J. S., & Levy, K. N. (1997). Bornstein, R. F. (2012). Rorschach score validation as
Mental representations in personality development, a model for 21st-century personality assessment.
psychopathology, and the therapeutic process. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 26–38. http://
Review of General Psychology, 1, 351–374. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627961
dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.4.351 Bornstein, R. F., Denckla, C. A., & Chung, W. J.
Blatt, S. J., Chevron, E. S., Quinlan, D. M., Schaffer, C. (2015). Dependent and histrionic personality
E., & Wein, S. J. (1988). The assessment of qualitative disorders. In P. H. Blaney, R. F. Krueger, & T.
and structural dimensions of object representations Millon (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology
(Rev. ed.). Unpublished research manual, Yale (3rd ed., pp. 659–680). Oxford, England: Oxford
University School of Medicine. University Press.
Blatt, S. J., & Ford, R. Q. (1994). Therapeutic change. Bornstein, R. F., & Masling, J. M. (2005). The Rorschach
New York, NY: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi. Oral Dependency scale. In R. F. Bornstein & J. M.
org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1010-3 Masling (Eds.), Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated
systems (pp. 135–157). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blatt, S. J., Stayner, D. A., Auerbach, J. S., & Behrends,
R. S. (1996). Change in object and self-representations Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. New York, NY: Basic
in long-term, intensive, inpatient treatment of Books.
seriously disturbed adolescents and young adults. Bradley, R., Hilsenroth, M., Guarnaccia, C., & Westen, D.
Psychiatry, 59, 82–107. (2007). Relationship between clinician assessment
Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2011). Sex differences in the and self-assessment of personality disorders using
16PF5, test of measurement invariance and mean the SWAP-200 and PAI. Psychological Assessment,
differences in the US standardization sample. 19, 225–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 553–558. 3590.19.2.225
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.11.026 Buck, J. N. (1966). The house–tree–person technique. Los
Bornstein, R. F. (1998). Implicit and self-attributed Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
dependency needs in dependent and histrionic Burns, R. C. (1982). Self-growth in families: Kinetic Family
personality disorders. Journal of Personality Drawings research and applications. New York, NY:
Assessment, 71, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ Brunner/Mazel.
s15327752jpa7101_1
Castillo, R. J. (1997). Culture and mental illness: A
Bornstein, R. F. (2002). A process dissociation approach client-centered approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/
to objective–projective test score interrelationships. Cole.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 47–68. http://
Cates, J. A. (1999). The art of assessment in psychology:
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_04
Ethics, expertise, and validity. Journal of Clinical
Bornstein, R. F. (2005). Reconnecting psychoanalysis Psychology, 55, 631–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
to mainstream psychology: Opportunities and (SICI)1097-4679(199905)55:5<631::AID-
challenges. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22, 323–340. JCLP10>3.0.CO;2-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.22.3.323
Cattell, J. M. (1890). Mental tests and measurements.
Bornstein, R. F. (2007a). From surface to depth: Mind, os-15, 373–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
Diagnosis and assessment in personality pathology. mind/os-XV.59.373

96
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011).
personality. New York, NY: World Book. Aging and the structure and long-term stability
Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of the internalizing spectrum of personality and
of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12, psychopathology. Psychology and Aging, 26, 987–993.
197–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02289253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024406
Exner, J. E. (1974). The Rorschach: A comprehensive
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1993).
system. New York, NY: Wiley.
16PF Fifth Edition Questionnaire. Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive
system (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Koons, H. H. (2008).
Sources of validity evidence for educational Finn, S. E. (1996). Assessment feedback integrating
and psychological tests. Educational and MMPI–2 and Rorschach findings. Journal of
Psychological Measurement, 68, 397–412. http://dx.doi. Personality Assessment, 67, 543–557. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0013164407310130 org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_10
Clarkin, J. F., & Huprich, S. K. (2011). Do DSM–5 Finn, S. E. (2007). In our client’s shoes: Theory and
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

personality disorder proposals meet criteria for techniques of therapeutic assessment. New York, NY:
clinical utility? Journal of Personality Disorders, Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
25, 192–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/ Finn, S. E. (2011). Journeys through the valley of
pedi.2011.25.2.192 death: Multimethod psychological assessment
Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2005). and personality transformation in long-term
Self- and peer perspectives on pathological psychotherapy. Journal of Personality Assessment,
personality traits and interpersonal problems. 93, 123–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.​
Psychological Assessment, 17, 123–131. 2010.542533
Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF fifth Frankl, V. E. (1966). Logotherapy and existential
edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for analysis—A review. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
Personality and Ability Testing. 20, 252–260.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Franz, S. I. (1919). Handbook of mental examination
Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Assessment Resources. Freud, S. (1953a). Character and anal erotism. In J.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). The Five-Factor Strachey (Trans. & Ed.), The standard edition of
Model of personality and its relevance to personality the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud
disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359. (Vol. 10, pp. 167–176). London: Hogarth. (Original
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343 work published 1908)
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). NEO PI–R: Freud, S. (1953b). Three essays on the theory of
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological sexuality. In J. Strachey (Trans. & Ed.), The standard
Assessment Resources. edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud (Vol. 7, pp. 125–245). London, England:
Cramer, P. (2006). Protecting the self: Defense mechanisms Hogarth. (Original work published 1905)
in action. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey
Dadlani, M. B., Overtree, C., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). (Trans. & Ed.), The standard edition of the complete
Culture at the center: A reformulation of diagnostic psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19,
assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and pp. 1–66). London: Hogarth. (Original work
Practice, 43, 175–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ published 1923)
a0028152
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen,
Diener, M. J., & Monroe, J. M. (2011). The relationship M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience:
between adult attachment style and therapeutic What are the central protective resources behind
alliance in individual psychotherapy: A meta-analytic healthy adjustment? International Journal of Methods
review. Psychotherapy, 48, 237–248. http://dx.doi. in Psychiatric Research, 12, 65–76. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/a0022425 org/10.1002/mpr.143
Dreessen, L., Hildebrand, M., & Arntz, A. (1998). Fuertes, J. N., Boylan, L. S., & Fontanella, J. A. (2009).
Patient-informant concordance on the Structured Behavioral indices in medical care outcome:
Clinical Interview for DSM–III–R personality The working alliance, adherence, and related
disorders (SCID–II). Journal of Personality factors. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 24,
Disorders, 12, 149–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/ 80–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-
pedi.1998.12.2.149 0841-4

97
 Robert F. Bornstein

Garb, H. N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G., Ansell, E. B., &
research and psychological assessment. http://dx.doi. Pincus, A. L. (2013). The interpersonal core of
org/10.1037/10299-000 personality pathology. Journal of Personality
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of Disorders, 27, 270–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/
personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal pedi.2013.27.3.270
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. Huang, C. D., Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1997).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 Identifying cultural differences in items and traits:
Differential item functioning in the NEO Personality
Groth-Marnat, G. (1999). Current status and Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28,
future directions of psychological assessment: 192–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022197282004
Introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55,
781–785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- Huprich, S. K., & Ganellen, R. J. (2006). Clinical utility
4679(199907)55:7<781::AID-JCLP1>3.0.CO;2-2 of the Rorschach inkblot method in the assessment
of personality disorders. In S. K. Huprich (Ed.),
Handler, L., & Meyer, G. J. (1998). The importance of Rorschach assessment of personality disorders
teaching and learning personality assessment. In (pp. 27–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
L. Handler & M. J. Hilsenroth (Eds.), Teaching and
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

learning personality assessment (pp. 3–30). Mahwah, Irwing, P., Booth, T., & Batey, M. (2014). An
NJ: Erlbaum. investigation of the factor structure of the 16PF,
Version 5. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 38–46.
Hatcher, R. L., & Rogers, D. T. (2009). Development http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000125
and validation of a measure of interpersonal
Janson, H., & Stattin, H. (2003). Prediction of adolescent
strengths: The Inventory of Interpersonal Strengths.
and adult delinquency from childhood Rorschach
Psychological Assessment, 21, 554–569. http://dx.doi.
ratings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 51–63.
org/10.1037/a0017269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8101_05
Hilsenroth, M. J. (2007). A programmatic study of short- Jenkins, S. R. (Ed.). (2008). A handbook of clinical scoring
term psychodynamic psychotherapy: Assessment, systems for thematic apperceptive techniques. New
process, outcome, and training. Psychotherapy Research, York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
17, 31–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10503300600953504
Johnston, M. H., & Holtzman, P. S. (1979). Assessing
Hilsenroth, M. J., & Stricker, G. (2004). A consideration schizophrenic thinking. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
of challenges to psychological assessment instruments Bass.
used in forensic settings: Rorschach as exemplar.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 141–152. http:// Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Toronto,
dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8302_08 Ontario, Canada: Doubleday/Random House.
Katz, S. M. (Ed.). (2013). Metaphor and fields
Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Gouch, H. G., (pp. 92–103). London, England: Routledge/
Barrett, J., Korchin, S. J., & Chodoff, P. (1977). A Taylor & Francis.
measure of interpersonal dependency. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 41, 610–618. http://dx.doi. Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and
org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4106_6 pathological narcissism. New York, NY: Jason
Aronson.
Hoerger, M., Chapman, B., Ma, Y., Tu, X., Useda, J. D.,
Hirsch, J., & Duberstein, P. (2011). Agreement Keulen-de-vos, M., Bernstein, D. P., Clark, L. A., Arntz,
between informant and self-reported personality in A., Lucker, T. P. C., & de Spa, E. (2011). Patient
depressed older adults: What are the roles of medical versus informant reports of personality disorders in
illness and cognitive function? Psychology and Aging, forensic patients. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and
26, 1000–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023213 Psychology, 22, 52–71.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory
Holden, R. R., Wasylkiw, L., Starzyk, K. B., Book, A. S., &
and research: Personality, psychopathology, and
Edwards, M. J. (2006). Inferential structure of the
psychotherapy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
NEO Five Factor Inventory: Construct validity of
the big four personality clusters. Canadian Journal of Koestner, R., Weinberger, J., & McClelland, D. C. (1991).
Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du Task-intrinsic and social-extrinsic sources of arousal
comportement, 38, 24–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ for motives assessed in fantasy and self-report.
h0087268 Journal of Personality, 59, 57–82. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00768.x
Hopwood, C. J., Malone, J. C., Ansell, E. B., Sanislow, C.
A., Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., . . . Morey, L. C. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York, NY:
(2011). Personality assessment in DSM–5: Empirical International Universities Press.
support for rating severity, style, and traits. Journal Kraepelin, E. (1889). Psychiatrie: Ein lehrbuch
of Personality Disorders, 25, 305–320. http://dx.doi. [Psychology: A textbook] (3rd ed.). Leipzig,
org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.305 Germany: Barth.

98
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

Kraepelin, E. (1892). Uber die Beeinflussung einfacher In F. J. R. van de Vijver, D. A. van Hemert, & Y. H.
psychischer Vorgange durch einige Arnzneimittel [On Poortinga (Eds.), Multilevel analyses of individuals
the influence of simple psychological processes on and cultures (pp. 249–283). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
mental life]. Jena, Germany: Fisher.
McWilliams, N. (2011). The psychodynamic diagnostic
Kraepelin, E. (1895). Der psychologische Versuch in manual: An effort to compensate for the limitations
der Psychiatrie [The psychological experiment in of descriptive psychiatric diagnosis. Journal of
psychiatry]. Psychologische Arbeiten, 1, 1–91. Personality Assessment, 93, 112–122. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00223891.2011.542709
Krishnamurthy, R., & Yaloff, J. A. (2010). The
assessment competency. In M. B. Kenkel & R. L. Meyer, G. J. (1996). The Rorschach and MMPI: Toward
Peterson (Eds.), Competency-based education for a more scientifically differentiated understanding
professional psychology (pp. 87–104). http://dx.doi. of cross-method assessment. Journal of Personality
org/10.1037/12068-005 Assessment, 67, 558–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa6703_11
Kurtz, J. E., Lee, P. A., & Sherker, J. L. (1999). Internal
and temporal reliability estimates for informant Meyer, G. J. (1997). On the integration of personality
ratings of personality using the NEO PI–R and assessment methods: The Rorschach and MMPI.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

IAS. Assessment, 6, 103–113. http://dx.doi. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 297–330. http://
org/10.1177/107319119900600201 dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6802_5
Lambert, M. J. (2010). Prevention of treatment failure: The Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G.,
use of measuring, monitoring, and feedback in clinical Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., . . . Reed, G. M.
practice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12141-000 (2001). Psychological testing and psychological
assessment. A review of evidence and issues.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165. http://dx.doi.
New York, NY: Ronald Press. org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.128
Luyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2013). Interpersonal relatedness Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality
and self-definition in normal and disrupted assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective”
personality development: Retrospect and prospect. and “projective” as personality test descriptors.
American Psychologist, 68, 172–183. http://dx.doi. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 223–225. http://
org/10.1037/a0032243 dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R.
of the human figure. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/​ E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach Performance
11147-000 Assessment System: Administration, coding,
interpretation, and technical manual. Toledo, OH:
Masling, J. (2002). Speak, memory, or goodbye,
Rorschach Performance Assessment System.
Columbus. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 4–30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_02 Mihura, J. L. (2012). The necessity of multiple test
methods in conducting assessments: The role of the
Masling, J., Rabie, L., & Blondheim, S. H. (1967). Rorschach and self-report. Psychological Injury and
Obesity, level of aspiration, and Rorschach and TAT Law, 5, 97–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12207-
measures of oral dependence. Journal of Consulting 012-9132-9
Psychology, 31, 233–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0020999 Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel,
G. (2013). The validity of individual Rorschach
Matto, H. C. (2002). Investigating the validity of the variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of
Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional the comprehensive system. Psychological Bulletin,
Disturbance: A measurement validation study with 139, 548–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029406
high-risk youth. Psychological Assessment, 14, 221–225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.221 Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002).
Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of consistency
McAdams, D. P. (2013). The psychological self in personality. Current Directions in Psychological
as actor, agent, and author. Perspectives on Science, 11, 50–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-
Psychological Science, 8, 272–295. http://dx.doi. 8721.00166
org/10.1177/1745691612464657
Morf, C. C. (2006). Personality reflected in a coherent
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). idiosyncratic interplay of intra- and interpersonal
How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? self-regulatory processes. Journal of Personality,
Psychological Review, 96, 690–702. http://dx.doi. 74, 1527–1556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.690 6494.2006.00419.x
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2008). The five-factor Morgan, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2010). Passive-submissive
model and its correlates in individuals and cultures. and active-emotional trait dependency: Evidence

99
 Robert F. Bornstein

for a two-factor model. Journal of Personality, 78, (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology
1325–1352. (pp. 123–142). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Appreciation Test manual. Sartori, R. (2010). Face validity in personality tests:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Psychometric instruments and projective techniques
Newman, M. L., & Greenway, P. (1997). Therapeutic in comparison. Quality and Quantity, 44, 749–759.
effects of providing MMPI–2 test feedback to clients http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9224-0
at a university counseling service: A collaborative Schwartz, E. S., Chapman, B. P., Duberstein, P. R.,
approach. Psychological Assessment, 9, 122–131. Weinstock-Guttman, B., & Benedict, R. H. B.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.2.122 (2011). The NEO FFI in multiple sclerosis: Internal
Nysæter, T. E., Langvik, E., Berthelsen, M., & Nordvik, consistency, factorial validity, and correspondence
H. (2009). Interpersonal problems and personality between self and informant reports. Assessment, 18,
traits: The relation between IIP-64C and NEO 39–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191110368482
FFI. Nordic Psychology, 61, 82–93. http://dx.doi. Shedler, J., & Westen, D. (2007). The Shedler–Westen
org/10.1027/1901-2276.61.3.82 Assessment Procedure (SWAP): Making personality
Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person diagnosis clinically meaningful. Journal of
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

perception and personality pathology. Current Personality Assessment, 89, 41–55. http://dx.doi.
Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 32–36. http:// org/10.1080/00223890701357092
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01601.x Skodol, A. E. (2012). Personality disorders in DSM–5.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 317–344. http://
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N.
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143131
M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial
construction and validation of the Pathological Slaney, K. L., & Maraun, M. D. (2008). A proposed
Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, framework for conducting data-based test analysis.
365–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016530 Psychological Methods, 13, 376–390. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/a0014269
Pincus, A. L., Sadler, P., Woody, E., Roche, M. J., Thomas,
K. M., & Wright, A. G. C. (2014). Multimethod Smyth, J. M., Hockemeyer, J. R., & Tulloch, H. (2008).
assessment of interpersonal dynamics. In C. J. Expressive writing and post-traumatic stress
Hopwood & R. F. Bornstein (Eds.), Multimethod disorder: Effects on trauma symptoms, mood
clinical assessment (pp. 51–91). New York, NY: states, and cortisol reactivity. British Journal
Guilford Press. of Health Psychology, 13, 85–93. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1348/135910707X250866
Piotrowski, Z. A. (1980). CPR: The psychological x-ray in
mental disorders. In I. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, & Solms, M., & Turnbull, O. H. (2011). What is
T. A. Williams (Eds.), Technology in mental health neuropsychoanalysis? Neuropsychoanalysis, 13,
care delivery systems (pp. 85–108). Norwood, NJ: 133–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15294145.2011.
Ablex. 10773670
Poston, J. M., & Hanson, W. E. (2010). Meta-analysis Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and
of psychological assessment as a therapeutic development. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
intervention. Psychological Assessment, 22, 203–212. Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018679 easy method for personality assessment. Journal of
Robinson, M. D., & Gordon, K. H. (2011). Personality Research in Personality, 40, 472–481. http://dx.doi.
dynamics: Insights from the personality social org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.003
cognitive literature. Journal of Personality Assessment, Wagner, J., Gerstorf, D., Hoppmann, C., & Luszcz, M.
93, 161–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.20 A. (2013). The nature and correlates of self-esteem
10.542534 trajectories in late life. Journal of Personality and
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Social Psychology, 105, 139–153. http://dx.doi.
Houghton Mifflin. org/10.1037/a0032279
Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostik. Bern, Switzerland: Weiner, I. B. (2000). Using the Rorschach properly in
Bircher. practice and research. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
Sadler, P., Ethier, N., Gunn, G. R., Duong, D., & 56, 435–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
Woody, E. (2009). Are we on the same wavelength? 4679(200003)56:3<435::AID-JCLP17>3.0.CO;2-L
Interpersonal complementarity as shared cyclical Westen, D. (1995). Revision of Social Cognition and
patterns during interactions. Journal of Personality Object Relations Scale. Unpublished manuscript,
and Social Psychology, 97, 1005–1020. http://dx.doi. Department of Psychiatry, Cambridge Hospital,
org/10.1037/a0016232 Cambridge, MA.
Sadler, P., Ethier, N., & Woody, E. (2011). Interpersonal Westen, D., Novotny, C. M., & Thompson-Brenner,
complementarity. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack H. (2004). The empirical status of empirically

100
 Personality Traits and Dynamics

supported psychotherapies: Assumptions, Assessment, 94, 450–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/​

findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. 00223891.2012.677887
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 631–663. http://dx.doi.
Widiger, T. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2005). Evidence-based
org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.631
assessment of personality disorders. Psychological
Westen, D., & Weinberger, J. (2004). When clinical Assessment, 17, 278–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
description becomes statistical prediction. 3590.17.3.278
American Psychologist, 59, 595–613. http://dx.doi.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as
org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.595
conceptual coordinates for the understanding and
Widiger, T. A., & Bornstein, R. F. (2001). Histrionic, measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D.
narcissistic, and dependent personality disorders. Cicchetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about
In P. B. Sutker & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Comprehensive psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl (pp. 89–113).
handbook of psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 509–531). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Yamaguchi, S. (2004). Further clarifications of the
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Five-factor model concept of amae in relation to dependence and
personality disorder research. In P. T. Costa & T. attachment. Human Development, 47, 28–33. http://
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five- dx.doi.org/10.1159/000075367

factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 59–87).
Young, M. S., & Schinka, J. A. (2001). Research Validity
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10423-005
Scales for the NEO PI–R: Additional evidence
Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Oltmanns, for reliability and validity. Journal of Personality
T. F. (2012). Measures to assess maladaptive variants Assessment, 76, 412–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality S15327752JPA7603_04

101